SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2024
Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18,187 patients.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Perioperative outcomes of robotic versus conventional minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative analysis of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy, a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Is robotic surgery meeting nodal benchmarks? AJCC and NCCN-based evaluation of lymph node yield and survival in robotic transhiatal esophagectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Improved Clinical Outcomes in Anastomotic Leak Management Using Preemptive Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy After Esophagectomy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Robotic-Assisted Epiphrenic and Mid-Oesophageal Diverticulectomy: A Tertiary Centre Experience.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2026Observational
- Review
- Article
- One-Lung Ventilation Duration Is a Risk Factor for Pneumonia in Minimally Invasive and Robotic Esophagectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes Between Robot-Assisted and Conventional Mediastinoscopic Esophagectomies: A Retrospective Study Using Propensity Score Matching.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Comparison of two-lung ventilation with CO₂ artificial pneumothorax and one-lung ventilation during esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery Compared to Conventional Approaches: An Umbrella Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Carcinoma of Esophagus.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Review
- Robotic-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study from a high-volume center.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Successful robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery for scirrhous gastric conduit cancer after esophagectomy: A case report.Oncology letters · 2025Article
- Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer: an update on experiences from a tertiary cancer care center in India.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2025Article
- Current Status and Future Applications of Robotic Surgery in Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Short-and middle-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for highly locally advanced esophageal cancer with stage cT3 borderline and cT4b at initial diagnosis.Surgical endoscopy · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The role of robotic surgery in the curative-intent treatment of esophageal cancer patients is yet to be defined. To compare short-term outcomes between conventional minimally invasive (cMIE) and robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in esophageal cancer patients. PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were systematically searched. The included studies compared short-term outcomes between cMIE and RAMIE. Individual risk of bias was calculated using the MINORS and RoB2 scales. There were no statistically significant differences between RAMIE and cMIE regarding conversion to open procedure, mean number of harvested lymph nodes in the mediastinum, abdomen and along the right recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN), 30- and 90-day mortality rates, chyle leakage, RLN palsy as well as cardiac and infectious complication rates. Estimated blood loss (MD - 71.78 mL, p < 0.00001), total number of harvested lymph nodes (MD 2.18 nodes, p < 0.0001) and along the left RLN (MD 0.73 nodes, p = 0.03), pulmonary complications (RR 0.70, p = 0.001) and length of hospital stay (MD - 3.03 days, p < 0.0001) are outcomes that favored RAMIE. A significantly shorter operating time (MD 29.01 min, p = 0.004) and a lower rate of anastomotic leakage (RR 1.23, p = 0.0005) were seen in cMIE. RAMIE has indicated to be a safe and feasible alternative to cMIE, with a tendency towards superiority in blood loss, lymph node yield, pulmonary complications and length of hospital stay. There was significant heterogeneity among studies for some of the outcomes measured. Further studies are necessary to confirm these results and overcome current limitations.
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.