Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2022
The effect of enhanced recovery after minimally invasive esophagectomy: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06243887 (Implementing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 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.
Implementing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocol in Patients Undergoing Minimal Invasive Esophagectomy
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of different rehabilitation strategies on physical function and complications in postoperative patients with esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- The impact of ERAS-based nursing interventions on postoperative complication management and prognosis in early gastrointestinal tumor endoscopic resection: a prospective randomized controlled study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Trial
- Prognostic impact of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy after esophagectomy: a systematic review and reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Evolution and refinements in minimally invasive esophagectomy: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the effect of perioperative nursing intervention for esophageal cancer patients based on the ADOPT nursing model.Medicine · 2026Article
- Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in esophagectomy: a comprehensive review of current practices.Updates in surgery · 2026Review
- Anastomotic leak after esophagectomy for cancer in enhanced recovery protocol versus conventional care: clinical characteristics and outcomes.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Review
- Impact of intraoperative fluid therapy on postoperative complications following robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE).BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Long-term outcomes of modified enhanced recovery after surgery (mERAS) protocols in peri-operative management of minimally invasive esophagectomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Survival Outcome of Thoraco-Laparoscopic McKeown Esophagectomy Versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early-Stage Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.Thoracic cancer · 2025Article
- [Epidural Analgesia in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Evidence and Practice].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025Review
- Essential updates 2022/2023: Recent advances in perioperative management of esophagectomy to improve operative outcomes.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2024Review
- Clinical implementation of minimally invasive esophagectomy.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- An esophagectomy surgical Apgar score-based nomogram-a risk-based postoperative triage system: a phase II randomised trial.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Current Commonly Used Dynamic Parameters and Monitoring Systems for Perioperative Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy: A Review.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine if enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) would improve outcomes for three-stage minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).
methodsPatients with esophageal cancer undergoing MIE between March 2016 and August 2018 were consecutively enrolled, and were randomly divided into 2 groups: ERAS+group that received a guideline-based ERAS protocol, and ERAS- group that received standard care. The primary endpoint was morbidity after MIE. The secondary endpoints were the length of stay (LOS) and time to ambulation after the surgery. The perioperative results including the Surgical Apgar Score (SAS) and Visualized Analgesia Score (VAS) were also collected and compared.
resultsA total of 60 patients in the ERAS+ group and 58 patients in the ERAS- group were included. Postoperatively, lower morbidity and pulmonary complication rate were recorded in the ERAS+ group (33.3% vs. 51.7%; p = 0.04, 16.7% vs. 32.8%; p = 0.04), while the incidence of anastomotic leakage remained comparable (11.7% vs. 15.5%; p = 0.54). There was an earlier ambulation (3 [2-3] days vs. 3 [3-4] days, p = 0.001), but comparable LOS (10 [9-11.25] days vs. 10 [9-13] days; p = 0.165) recorded in ERAS+ group. The ERAS protocol led to close scores in both SAS (7.80 ± 1.03 vs. 8.07 ± 0.89, p = 0.21) and VAS (1.74 ± 0.85 vs. 1.78 ± 1.06, p = 0.84).
conclusionsImplementation of an ERAS protocol for patients undergoing MIE resulted in earlier ambulation and lower pulmonary complications, without a change in anastomotic leakage or length of hospital stay. Further studies on minimizing leakage should be addressed in ERAS for MIE.
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.