Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34724556›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2021

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted, Video-Assisted, and Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Michael A Mederos, Michael J de Virgilio, Rivfka Shenoy, Linda Ye, Paul A Toste, Selene S Mak, Marika S Booth, Meron M Begashaw, Mark Wilson, William Gunnar and 3 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors.

Michael A MederosDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Michael J de VirgilioDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Rivfka ShenoyDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Linda YeDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Paul A TosteDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Selene S MakVeterans Health Administration, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California.
Marika S BoothRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
Meron M BegashawVeterans Health Administration, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California.
Mark WilsonUS Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
William GunnarVHA National Center for Patient Safety, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Paul G ShekelleVeterans Health Administration, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California.
Melinda Maggard-GibbonsDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Mark D GirgisDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The utilization of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal cancer is increasing, despite limited data comparing RAMIE with other surgical approaches. Objective: To evaluate the literature for clinical outcomes of RAMIE compared with video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE). Data Sources: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Embase databases from January 1, 2013, to May 6, 2020, was performed. Study Selection: Studies that compared RAMIE with VAMIE and/or OE for cancer were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline, data were extracted by independent reviewers. A random-effects meta-analysis of 9 propensity-matched studies was performed for the RAMIE vs VAMIE comparison only. A narrative synthesis of RAMIE vs VAMIE and OE was performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes of interest were intraoperative outcomes (ie, estimated blood loss [EBL], operative time, lymph node [LN] harvest), short-term outcomes (anastomotic leak, recurrent laryngeal nerve [RLN] palsy, pulmonary and total complications, and 90-day mortality), and long-term oncologic outcomes. Results: Overall, 21 studies (2 randomized clinical trials, 11 propensity-matched studies, and 8 unmatched studies) with 9355 patients were included. A meta-analysis was performed with 9 propensity-matched studies comparing RAMIE with VAMIE. The random-effects pooled estimate found an adjusted risk difference (RD) of -0.06 (95% CI, -0.11 to -0.01) favoring fewer pulmonary complications with RAMIE. There was no evidence of differences between RAMIE and VAMIE in LN harvest (mean difference [MD], -1.1 LN; 95% CI, -2.45 to 0.25 LNs), anastomotic leak (RD, 0.0; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.03), EBL (MD, -6.25 mL; 95% CI, -18.26 to 5.77 mL), RLN palsy (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.10), total complications (RD, 0.05; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.11), or 90-day mortality (RD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.0). There was low certainty of evidence that RAMIE was associated with a longer disease-free survival compared with VAMIE. For OE comparisons (data not pooled), RAMIE was associated with a longer operative time, decreased EBL, and less pulmonary and total complications. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, RAMIE had similar outcomes as VAMIE but was associated with fewer pulmonary complications compared with VAMIE and OE. Studies on long-term functional and cancer outcomes are needed.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyHumansMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRobotic Surgical ProceduresTreatment OutcomeVideo-Assisted Surgery

Identifiers

PMID34724556
PMCPMC8561331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.