ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
A descriptive comparison of postoperative outcomes between hybrid mediastino-thoracoscopic approach and conventional thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes of transmediastinal esophagectomy for patients with esophagogastric junction cancers.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Analysis of the efficacy and postoperative complications of thoracoscopic resection through the transthoracic posterior approach of thoracic paravertebral dumbbell-shaped schwannoma.American journal of cancer research · 2026Article
- The Effect of Combined General Anesthesia and Epidural Analgesia on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Application of Inflatable Video-Assisted Mediastinoscopic Transhiatal Esophagectomy in Individualized Treatment of Esophageal Cancer.Biomedicines · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare the results of the hybrid mediastino-thoracoscopic approach with that of the conventional thoracoscopic approach and to identify the advantages and disadvantages of the hybrid approach.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 172 patients who underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer from July 2009 to June 2021, excluding salvage surgery. In the mediastinoscopic approach, the lymph nodes were dissected from a small incision in the left aspect of the neck to the aortic arch with supine double-lung ventilation. Thereafter, the middle-to-lower mediastinum and right superior mediastinum were dissected thoracoscopically in the prone position. The patients' demographics, surgical outcomes, postoperative complications, and postoperative recurrence patterns were compared between 51 patients in the hybrid approach and 121 patients in the conventional approach.
resultsThe hybrid group had more elderly patients (71 years vs. 67 years; P = 0.010), more cardiovascular disease (33.3% vs. 16.7%; P = 0.021), lower rates of preoperative chemotherapy (49.0% vs. 69.4%; P = 0.015), and shorter right lung collapse time (196 min vs. 264 min; P < 0.001). Postoperative hoarseness was not different between the two groups (31.4% vs. 27.3%; P = 0.584), and there was a significant difference in the sternal-vertebral distance at the level of the sternal notch (41 mm in the hybrid group vs. 48 mm in the conventional group; P = 0.029). The sternal-vertebral distance of less than 45 mm was an independent risk factor for postoperative hoarseness in the logistic analysis (odds ratio 3.636, 95% confidence interval 1.054-12.546; P = 0.041).
conclusionThe hybrid mediastino-thoracoscopic approach could be safely adapted to elderly or cardiopulmonary diseased patients; however, short sternal-vertebral distance might be a risk factor of postoperative recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36513781What 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.