ReviewBMC surgery2021
Surgical treatment for esophageal neurofibroma: report of two cases and review of literature.
Review in BMC surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeurofibroma of the esophagus, originated from the nerve sheath cells and fibroblasts of the esophageal submucosal plexus or the intestinal intermuscular plexus, is a very rare mesenchymal tumor. Most of the cases are treated by surgical methods. Due to the technical complexity of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), there are few reports in the literature of VATS for esophageal neurofibroma in recent years. CASE PRESENTATION: We report on two rare cases of esophageal neurofibroma, one of which is a 52-year-old male patient diagnosed with a 4.6 × 5.7 cm upper esophageal submucosal tumor in physical examination. He was admitted to our hospital and the tumor was enucleated by VATS combined with intraoperative endoscopy. There were no complications after operation, and the patients was discharged on the 16th postoperative day. The other patient was a 76-year-old man, with the main clinical manifestation of dysphagia for over 1 year, diagnosed with an 8.0 × 6.0 × 8.0 cm giant subepithelial mass in the lower esophagus. As the intraoperative exploration revealed the tumor connected tightly with the wall of the esophagus, this patient treated by transthoracic partial esophagectomy. The patient was discharged on the 14th postoperative day, and no signs of post-operative complication during the 53-month follow-up. The diagnosis of esophageal neurofibroma was based on these patients' postoperative pathological examination. In the latest follow-up, these two patients had no evidence of long-term postoperative complication and recurrence.
conclusionThis is the first reported case of 5 cm in diameter esophageal neurofibroma treated by VATS. This technique can be a commendable treatment option for esophageal neurofibroma, and the tumor diameter is not an absolute contraindication for thoracoscopy. To reduce the unnecessary damage, surgical method for complete tumor resection needs to be determined according to preoperative imaging and intraoperative conditions, partial esophagectomy can be performed via thoracotomy or thoracoscopy for removing neurofibroma when necessary.
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.