ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2022
Effectiveness and safety of a newly introduced multidisciplinary perioperative enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for thoracic esophageal cancer surgery.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery vs. Thoracotomy for the Treatment in Patients With Esophageal Leiomyoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Effect of totally thoracoscopic esophagectomy on postoperative complications and serum inflammatory factors in patients with early esophageal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveData are sparse regarding the multidisciplinary perioperative enhanced recovery after surgery protocol (E-P) for thoracic esophageal cancer surgery that was newly used at another institution. Therefore, this study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the protocol.
methodsWe enrolled 101 patients who underwent transthoracic esophagectomy for E-P at the Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital (SCC). The outcomes obtained at the SCC were compared with the outcomes of 140 patients treated with E-P at the Saitama Medical University International Medical Center (SMU). At the SMU, we compared the results before and after the introduction of E-P.
resultsThe rates of morbidity, pulmonary complications, and postoperative pneumonia were 44%, 31%, and 6.9% at the SCC and 44%, 27%, and 6.5% at the SMU (P = 0.91, 0.55, and 0.88, respectively). The mean time to walk was 1.1 and 1.5 days at the SCC and SMU, respectively (P < 0.001). The median length of hospital stay was longer at the SMU than at the SCC (24.0 versus 20.8 days; P = 0.004). In the comparative study before and after the introduction of E-P, the rate of postoperative pneumonia was 16% in the conventional management group and 6.5% in the E-P group (P = 0.02).
conclusionPostoperative pneumonia was reduced before and after introduction of E-P. As similar short-term postoperative outcomes were promising (except for the time to walk and postoperative hospital stay), the same E-P that was safely performed at the SMU can be implemented as a standard practice.
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.