ArticleBMC surgery2023
A novel technique for lymphadenectomy along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve during minimally invasive esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC surgery, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-sterilization modified-position robotic-assisted McKeown esophagectomy versus minimally invasive approach after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Advances in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy-An Overview of Recent Developments and a Novel Classification of Innovations in Treatment of Thoracic Esophageal Cancer.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Study on the learning curve for thoracoscopic and laparoscopic radical resection of esophageal cancer.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Prevention and Management of Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Palsy in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Current Status and Future Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the context of esophageal cancers, lymph nodes located along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) exhibit significant involvement, posing significant challenges for lymphadenectomy. The objective of this study is to assess the safety and efficacy of a novel technique for lymphadenectomy called "elastic suspension of left RLN" method, comparing it with the conventional approach.
methodsBetween January 2016 and June 2020, a total of 393 patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy with gastroplasty and cervical esophagogastric anastomosis were enrolled in the study. Among them, 291 patients underwent the "elastic suspension of left RLN" method, while 102 patients underwent the conventional method. We compared the number of harvested lymph nodes along the left RLN and assessed postoperative complications between these two groups. Additionally, the overall survival (OS) rate was calculated and analyzed for the entire cohort.
resultsIn comparison to the conventional group, the elastic suspension group exhibited a higher yield of harvested lymph nodes along the left RLN (5.36 vs 3.07, P < 0.001). Moreover, the incidence of postoperative hoarseness was lower in the elastic suspension group (10.65% vs 18.63%, P = 0.038). The average duration of lymphadenectomy along the left RLN was 11.85 min in the elastic suspension group and 11.51 min in the conventional group, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.091). Notably, the overall 5-year OS was markedly higher in the elastic suspension group compared to the conventional group (64.1% vs. 50.1%, P = 0.020).
conclusionsThe findings suggest that the novel "elastic suspension of left RLN" method for lymphadenectomy along the left RLN in minimally invasive esophagectomy is both safe and effective. This technique holds promise for widespread adoption in esophagectomy procedures.
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.