ArticleBMC cancer2021
Minimal invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant treatments.
Article in BMC cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of open oesophagectomy and hybrid minimally invasive oesophagectomy.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026Pooled it
- The influence of minimally invasive esophagectomy on wound infection in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy after neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Minimally invasive or open esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a comprehensive systematic review of surgical and survival outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Role of Neoadjuvant Therapy in Remodeling Surgical Approaches for Gastrointestinal Malignancies.Current gastroenterology reports · 2025Review
- Optimal lymph node dissection thresholds for early-stage esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective multicenter study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- A new oblique-to-side esophagogastric anastomosis approach reduces the incidence of postoperative anastomotic leak after esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma: a propensity score-matched retrospective study.American journal of cancer research · 2025Article
- The number of resected lymph nodes from the upper mediastinal area predicts long-term outcomes of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after minimally invasive esophagectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Impact of Tumor Size on Survival Outcome in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma After Esophagectomy Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- No difference in the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications between abdominal laparoscopy and laparotomy for minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study using a nationwide Japanese database.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive versus open McKeown esophagectomy for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Study of the short-term quality of life of patients with esophageal cancer after inflatable videoassisted mediastinoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Feasibility, safety and oncological outcomes of minimally invasive oesophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma - Experience from a tertiary care centre.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough previous studies have discussed whether the minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open surgery, the data concerning esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment followed by radical resection is limited. The purpose of our study was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the two surgical approaches in treating ESCC patients.
methodsBetween January 2010 and December 2016, ESCC patients who had received neoadjuvant therapy and underwent Mckeown esophagectomy at our institute were eligible. The baseline characteristics, pathological data, short-and long-term outcomes of these patients were collected and compared based on the surgical approach.
resultsA total of 195 patients was included in the current study. Compared to patients underwent open surgery, patients underwent MIE had shorter operative time and less intraoperative bleeding (390 min vs 330 min, P = 0.001; 204 ml vs 167 ml, P = 0.021). In addition, the risk of anastomotic leakage was decreased in MIE group (20.0% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001), while the occurrence of other complications did not have statistical significance between two groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was no difference in patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy between the two approaches. For the patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, OS was significantly better in the MIE group (log rank = 6.197; P = 0.013).
conclusionMinimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy is safe and feasible for ESCC patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. MIE approach presented better perioperative results than open esophagectomy. The effect of surgical approaches on survival was depending on the scheme of neoadjuvant treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.