ArticleBJS open2021
Complications and survival after hybrid and fully minimally invasive oesophagectomy.
Article in BJS open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Upper Mediastinal Lymphadenectomy Utilizing Prone-Position Thoracoscopy for Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Consequences of anastomotic leaks after minimally invasive esophagectomy: A single-center experience.Surgery open science · 2023Article
- Completely minimally invasive versus hybrid Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy for oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junctional cancer: a UK multi-centre comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Long-term survival outcomes of esophageal cancer after minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Review
- Outcome of microscopically non-radical oesophagectomy for oesophageal and oesophagogastric junctional cancer: nationwide cohort study.BJS open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) is reported to produce fewer respiratory complications than open oesophagectomy. This study assessed differences in postoperative complications between MIO and hybrid MIO (HMIO) employing thoracoscopy and laparotomy, along with the influence of co-morbidities on postoperative outcomes.
methodsPatients with oesophageal cancer undergoing three-stage MIO or three-stage HMIO between 1999 and 2018 were identified from a prospectively developed database, which included patient demographics, co-morbidities, preoperative therapies, and cancer stage. The primary outcome was postoperative complications in the two groups. Secondary outcomes included duration of operation, blood transfusion requirement, duration of hospital stay, and overall survival.
resultsThere were 828 patients, of whom 722 had HMIO and 106 MIO, without significant baseline differences. Median duration of operation was longer for MIO (325 versus 289 min; P < 0.001), but with less blood loss (median 250 versus 300 ml; P < 0.001) and a shorter hospital stay (median 12 versus 13 days; P = 0.006). Respiratory complications were not associated with operative approach (31.1 versus 35.2 per cent for MIO and HMIO respectively; P = 0.426). Anastomotic leak rates (10.4 versus 10.2 per cent) and 90-day mortality (1.0 versus 1.7 per cent) did not differ. Cardiac co-morbidity was associated with more medical and surgical complications. Overall survival was associated with AJCC stage and co-morbidities, but not operative approach.
conclusionMIO had a small benefit in terms of blood loss and hospital stay, but not in operating time. Oncological outcomes were similar in the two groups. Postoperative complications were associated with pre-existing cardiorespiratory co-morbidities rather than operative approach.
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.