ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Risk of chyle leak after robotic versus video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perioperative outcomes of robotic versus conventional minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Is Robotic Surgery the Future for Resectable Esophageal Cancer?: A Systematic Literature Review of Oncological and Clinical Outcomes.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18,187 patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Deep learning-based real-time intraoperative detection of thoracic duct.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluating Postoperative Morbidity and Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Esophagectomy in Esophageal Cancer Treatment-A Comprehensive Review on Behalf of TROGSS (The Robotic Global Surgical Society) and EFISDS (European Federation International Society for Digestive Surgery) Joint Working Group.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
- Robot-assisted esophagectomy with robot-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis (Ivor Lewis): surgical technique and early results.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
- Long-term Outcomes Following Esophagectomy in Older and Younger Adults with Esophageal Cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe investigate the incidence and risk factors for post-operative outcomes including chyle leak following minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).
methodsPatients undergoing MIE from May 2016 until August 2020 were prospectively followed. Outcomes of robotic and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) esophagectomy were analyzed.
results347 esophagectomies were performed: 70 cases were done robotically by 2 surgeons and 277 by VATS by 14 surgeons. Patients had similar demographics, surgical technique, length of stay (LOS), and re-operation rates. Overall complication rates between robotic and VATS MIE were statistically similar (61% vs. 50%; p = 0.082). The majority of complications for either VATS (41.5%) or robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) (51.4%) were grade II. Nineteen patients developed a chyle leak. Patients with a chyle leak were similar in age, gender, and hospital LOS (all p > 0.05), but were more likely to undergo a three-hole or robotic esophagectomy (both p < 0.05) as well as have higher rehabilitation requirements on discharge (26% vs. 10%; p = 0.05). Among the two surgeons who each performed > 20 robotic esophagectomies (n = 70), nine chyle leaks occurred. Rates varied by surgeon (7 vs. 2; p = 0.003). Lower leak rates occurred in the surgeon with more robotic esophagectomy experience (n = 47 vs. 23). Patients were similar in age, and gender (p > 0.05), but those with a chyle leak were more likely to undergo three-hole esophagectomies, prophylactic thoracic duction ligations, undergo the abdominal portion via laparotomy, and not have a prophylactic omental flap (all p < 0.05).
conclusionRobotic and VATS esophagectomy have similar rates of re-operation, length of stay, discharge needs and complications. Differences in outcomes between VATS and Robotic esophagectomy appears to be related to surgeon experience with the robot but may also be associated with techniques such as anastomotic height, omental flap utilization and performance of laparoscopy.
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.