Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33430937›Full record

ArticleTrials2021

Minimally Invasive Versus open AbdominoThoracic Esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma (MIVATE) - study protocol for a randomized controlled trial DRKS00016773.

Felix Nickel, Pascal Probst, Alexander Studier-Fischer, Henrik Nienhüser, Jana Pauly, Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski, Sebastian Weiterer, Philipp Knebel, Markus K Diener, Markus A Weigand and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Felix NickelDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Pascal ProbstDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Alexander Studier-FischerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Henrik NienhüserDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Jana PaulyDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Karl-Friedrich KowalewskiDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sebastian WeitererDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Philipp KnebelDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus K DienerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus A WeigandDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus W BüchlerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Thomas SchmidtDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Beat P Müller-StichDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. beat.mueller@med.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8552-8538
Heidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe only curative treatment for most esophageal cancers is radical esophagectomy. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) aims to reduce postoperative morbidity, but is not yet widely established. Linear stapled anastomosis is a promising technique for MIE because it is quite feasible even without robotic assistance. The aim of the present study is to compare total MIE with linear stapled anastomosis to open esophagectomy (OE) with circular stapled anastomosis with special regard to postoperative morbidity in an expertise-based randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS/

designThis superiority RCT compares MIE with linear stapled anastomosis (intervention) to OE with circular stapled anastomosis (control) for Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. It was initiated in February 2019, and recruitment is expected to last for 3 years. For inclusion, patients must be 18 years of age or more with a resectable primary malignancy in the distal esophagus. Participants with tumor localizations above the azygos vein, metastasis, or infiltration into adjacent tissue will be excluded. In an expertise-based approach, the allocated treatment will only be carried out by the single most experienced surgeon of the surgical center for each respective technique. The sample size was calculated with 20 participants per group for the primary endpoint postoperative morbidity according to comprehensive complication index (CCI) within 30 postoperative days. Secondary endpoints include anastomotic insufficiency, pulmonary complications, other intra- and postoperative outcome parameters such as estimated blood loss, operative time, length of stay, short-term oncologic endpoints, adherence to a standardized fast-track protocol, postoperative pain, and postoperative recovery (QoR-15). Quality of life (SF-36, CAT EORTC QLQ-C30, CAT EORTC QLQ-OES18) and oncological outcomes are evaluated with 60 months follow-up. DISCUSSION: MIVATE is the first RCT to compare OE with circular stapled anastomosis to total MIE with linear stapled anastomosis exclusively for intrathoracic anastomosis. The expertise-based approach limits bias due to heterogeneity of surgical expertise. The use of a dedicated fast-track protocol in both OE and MIE will shed light on the role of the access strategy alone in this setting. The findings of this study will serve to define which approach has the best perioperative outcome for patients requiring esophagectomy.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00016773 . Registered on 18 February 2019.

Indexed as

CarcinomaEsophageal NeoplasmsLaparoscopyAnastomosis, SurgicalEquivalence Trials as TopicEsophagectomyHumansMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresPostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical StaplingTreatment OutcomeCircular stapled anastomosisComprehensive complication indexEnhanced recovery after surgeryEsophageal cancerExpertise-basedFast trackIvor-Lewis esophagectomyLinear stapled anastomosisMinimally invasive esophagectomyRandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID33430937
PMCPMC7798277
OpenAlexW3110842073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.