Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35773604›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2022

The effect of enhanced recovery after minimally invasive esophagectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

Yaxing Shen, Xiaosang Chen, Junyi Hou, Youwen Chen, Yong Fang, Zhanggang Xue, Xavier Benoit D'Journo, Robert J Cerfolio, Hiran C Fernando, Alfonso Fiorelli and 5 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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.

NCT06243887 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Implementing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocol in Patients Undergoing Minimal Invasive Esophagectomy

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2024 to 2027Enrolled30ConditionsEsophageal Diseases, Esophagostomy ComplicationArmsEnhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol in minimal invasive esophagectomy, standard of care approaches in minimal invasive esophagectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. [Epidural Analgesia in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Evidence and Practice].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

15 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Yaxing ShenDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0764-547X
Xiaosang ChenDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, China.
Junyi HouDepartment of Anesthesiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, China.
Youwen ChenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, China.
Yong FangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, China.
Zhanggang XueDepartment of Anesthesiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, China.
Xavier Benoit D'JournoDepartment of Thoracic Surgery and Diseases of Esophagus, Aix-Marseille University, North Hospital, Chemin des Bourrely, 13915, Marseille Cedex 20, France.
Robert J CerfolioDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
Hiran C FernandoDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Alfonso FiorelliThoracic Surgery Unit, Università Della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy.
Alessandro BrunelliDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, St. James's University Hospital, Bexley Wing, Beckett Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK.
Jing CangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, China.
Lijie TanDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, China.
Hao WangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, China. wang.hao2@zs-hospital.sh.cn.
Written on behalf of the AME Thoracic Surgery Collaborative Group
Fudan University · CNAix-Marseille Université · FRAllegheny General Hospital · USChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNNYU Langone Health · USSt James's University Hospital · GBUniversity of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Esophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyAnastomotic LeakHumansLength of StayMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresPostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeEnhanced recovery after surgery, ERASLength of stay, LOSMinimally invasive esophagectomy, MIEMorbidity

Identifiers

PMID35773604
PMCPMC9652161
OpenAlexW4283756317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.