ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2021
A propensity score matching study of the short-term efficacy of azygos arch-sparing McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect of preserving the bronchial artery and the azygos arch in McKeown esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2026Pooled it
- A revamped MIC-McKeown operation without removing azygos vein arch, bronchial artery and vagus nerve trunk.BMC surgery · 2023Article
- Modified McKeownJournal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Article
- Comparison of McKeown Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy vs sweet esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Case Report and Minireview of the Literature on Blunt Azygos Injury.Juntendo Iji zasshi = Juntendo medical journal · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the short-term efficacy of azygos arch-sparing McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy (McKeown-MIE).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 221 patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent McKeown-MIE at the Department of Thoracic Surgery of Gaozhou People's Hospital from August 1, 2017 to September 30, 2019. According to whether the azygos arch was preserved or not, the patients were assigned to one of two groups: the preservation group (40 cases) and the ligation group (181 cases). Within 3 months of the operation, the perioperative outcomes and the postoperative short-term efficacy of the two groups were compared.
resultsAfter propensity score (PS) matching, 40 pairs of patients were matched successfully. Between the two groups, there were no statistical difference in intraoperative blood loss, the number of lymph nodes dissected, thoracic drainage duration, fasting time, postoperative hospital stay time, and major postoperative complications (P>0.05). Compared with the ligation group, patients in the preservation group had a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay time, a shorter operative time, a lower volume of postoperative thoracic drainage (both the first 3 days and overall) following surgery, a tubular stomach that had a smaller caliber, and a lower incidence of tubular gastric malpositioning (P<0.05).
conclusionsPreserving the azygos arch during a McKeown-MIE is safe and feasible. Doing so, not only effectively restricts the expansion of the gastric conduit, leading to a lower incidence of malpositioning, but also dramatically reduces postoperative thoracic drainage, and ICU stay time.
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.