Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34527347›Full record

ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2021

Radical minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer via transcervical and transhiatal approaches: a narrative review.

Zheng Wang, Rongjie Yang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Zheng WangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Cancer Hospital & Institute, Shenyang, China.
Rongjie YangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Cancer Hospital & Institute, Shenyang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMinimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been widely applied for the treatment of esophageal carcinoma. It is much less invasive, as it avoids employing a transthoracic procedure.

backgroundMIE via transcervical and transhiatal approaches has been adopted in our center. In this approach, with the assistance of single-port techniques or robotic-assisted surgical systems, the esophagus is mobilized under visualization, which is followed by the removal of esophageal and mediastinal lymph nodes.

methodsIncreasing the surgical space by mediastinal insufflation or by elevation of the sternum with a hook may improve intraoperative identification of tissues and facilitate intraoperative mobilizations. The procedure can be performed simultaneously via both cervical and abdominal approaches without the need for intraoperative turning of the patient, which shortens the operative time. Also, there is no need for thoracotomy or single-lung ventilation, which avoids disturbance to the respiratory and circulation systems.

conclusionsSuitable instruments, especially state-of-the-art energy instruments, facilitate surgical separation and hemostasis. This surgical procedure has become increasingly sophisticated over the past decade, and its modular operation has been widely recognized. The feasible place of the neck-esophageal hiatus rendezvous is on the left main bronchus around the subcarinal region. Here we describe the technical features, key steps, and necessary precautions of this minimally invasive surgery for esophageal carcinoma.

Indexed as

Esophageal cancerlymph node dissectionminimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE)transcervical approachtranshiatal approach

Identifiers

PMID34527347
PMCPMC8411146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.