ArticlePloS one2022
Risk stratification of cirrhotic patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A single-centre experience.
Article in PloS one, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Esophagectomy in patients with liver cirrhosis: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes.Updates in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConcomitant liver cirrhosis is a crucial risk factor for major surgeries. However, only few data are available concerning cirrhotic patients requiring esophagectomy for malignant disease.
methodsFrom a prospectively maintained database of esophageal cancer patients, who underwent curative esophagectomy between 01/2012 and 01/2016, patients with concomitant liver cirrhosis (liver-cirrhotic patients, LCP) were compared to non-liver-cirrhotic patients (NLCP).
resultsOf 170 patients, 14 cirrhotic patients with predominately low MELD scores (≤ 9, 64.3%) were identified. Perioperative outcome was significantly worse for LCP, as proofed by 30-day (57.1% vs. 7.7, p<0.001) and 90-day mortality (64.3% vs. 9.6%, p<0.001), anastomotic leakage rate (64.3 vs. 22.3%, p = 0.002) and sepsis (57.1 vs. 21.5%, p = 0.006). Even after adjustment for age, gender, comorbidities, and surgical approach, LCP revealed higher odds for 30-day and 90-day mortality compared to NLCP. Moreover, 5-year survival analysis showed a significantly poorer long-term outcome of LCP (p = 0.023). For risk stratification, none of the common cirrhosis scores proved prognostic impact, whereas components as Bilirubin (auROC 94.4%), INR (auROC = 90.0%), and preoperative ascites (p = 0.038) correlated significantly with the perioperative outcome.
conclusionCurative esophagectomy for cirrhotic patients is associated with a dismal prognosis and should be evaluated critically. While MELD and Child score failed to predict perioperative mortality, Bilirubin and INR proofed excellent prognostic capacity in this cohort.
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.