ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024
Comparison of substernal and posterior mediastinal route of reconstruction after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2024. 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.
- Endoscopic accessibility and conduit passage after retrosternalJournal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Cervical Anastomotic Leakage After Minimally Invasive McKeown Esophagectomy in the SAFER Surgical System: Clinical Course and Predictors of Delayed Healing.Thoracic cancer · 2026Article
- Impact of thoracic inlet anatomy and reconstruction route selection based on computed tomography three-dimensional reconstruction on cervical anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of transmediastinal and minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: perioperative and oncologic outcomes.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSubsternal (ST) and posterior mediastinal (PM) routes are the two most common for reconstruction after esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis. Recent evidence showed similar outcomes between the routes; thus, the superior choice remained controversial. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of the ST to the PM route for reconstruction after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer (EC).
methodThis retrospective cohort study included 132 patients who underwent McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with gastric conduit for EC between March 2015 and December 2022. Among these, 89 and 43 patients received the ST route and PM route for reconstruction, respectively. Short-term outcomes including operative characteristics, postoperative morbidity, and mortality were evaluated.
resultThere was no conversion from ST to PM route. The ST group had longer operating time (375 min vs. 341 min). Oral feeding initiation, postoperative hospital stays, and overall complication rates were comparable in the two groups. The rate and severity of anastomotic leakage were similar between the groups. The ST group had a significantly lower incidence of postoperative ICU admission and pneumonia compared to the PM group (5.6% vs. 16.3% and 19.1% vs. 37.2%, respectively). Azygos vein bleeding, obstruction at feeding jejunostomy site, and conduit-trachea fistula were severe complications that only occurred in PM route.
conclusionST route was superior to PM route in term of postoperative ICU admission and pneumonia. This route may prevent severe complications that only occur in PM route. ST route can be favorable option for reconstruction after McKeown MIE for EC.
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.