ArticleChirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2022
[Change of strategy to minimally invasive esophagectomy-Results at a certified center].
Article in Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and feasibility of short-course simulator training for robotic surgery novices - a randomized controlled trial (FastSim trial).Innovative surgical sciences · 2026Article
- Anastomotic leakage after esophagogastric resection increases recurrence risk and impairs long-term survival - a propensity score-matched analysis.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Quality and safety of Ireland's first robotic oesophagectomy program.Irish journal of medical science · 2025Article
- Selective Oral Decontamination of the Esophagus to Reduce Microbial Burden in Patients Undergoing Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer (SODA)-First Results from a Proof-of-Principle Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Patterns of infectious complications and their implication on health system costs after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: Real-world data from three European centers.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- Intraoperative minimally invasive left bronchial reconstruction using a pericardial flap during robot-assisted esophagectomy.JTCVS techniques · 2023Article
- Single chest drain is not inferior to double chest drain after robotic esophagectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Robot-Assisted Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.Cancers · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are indications that robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) can reduce the morbidity compared with the conventional operative technique.
objectiveA comparative analysis of a single-center change in strategy of the standard from open esophagectomy to RAMIE with perioperative, enteral, selective bowel decontamination (SBD) was carried out. MATERIAL AND
methodsPatient and morbidity data after elective RAMIE treated according to the novel standard management between July 2018 and September 2020 were compared retrospectively with an historical control cohort after open esophagectomy between January 2014 and June 2018. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed.
resultsA total of 75 patients could be analyzed in both groups after PSM. Approximately two thirds of the operations were carried out due to an adenocarcinoma and one third due to a squamous cell carcinoma. The median number of resected lymph nodes was 22 and 21, respectively. In the RAMIE group the intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy was performed using a circular stapler with a diameter of ≥28 mm in 97%, whereas a 25 mm stapler was used in 90% in the control group. The operative time was longer (median 490min vs. 339 min, p < 0.001) but in contrast blood loss (median 300ml vs. 500 ml, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (8.0% vs. 25.3%, p = 0.004), surgical site infections (4.0% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.008) and pulmonary complication rates (29.3% vs. 44.0%, p = 0.045) as well as the median hospital stay (14 days vs. 20 days, p < 0.001) and 90-day mortality were significantly reduced compared with the open control group (4.0% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.039).
conclusionA consistent change of the perioperative management including RAMIE and SBD can lead to a stable reduction of morbidity without compromising oncological radicalness.
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.