Trial reportThe British journal of surgery2024
Laparoscopic or open abdominal surgery with thoracotomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: ROMIO randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in The British journal of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of open oesophagectomy and hybrid minimally invasive oesophagectomy.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Mapping Review of Core Outcome Reporting in Surgical Research for Oesophageal Cancer.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Health-related quality of life in esophageal cancer: a state-of-the-art review of patient-reported outcomes and an evidence and gap map.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2025Pooled it
- Open Versus Hybrid and Total Minimally Invasive Transthoracic Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy Following Neoadjuvant FLOT Chemotherapy: An Australian and New Zealand Cohort Study.World journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Balancing innovation and risks in esophageal surgery: lessons from the hybrid Ivor-Lewis technique.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2026Article
- Development and application of quality assurance methods for interventions in randomised controlled trials of surgical oncology: the ROMIO study (a comparison of minimally invasive and open oesophagectomy).British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Nomographic predictive models for complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy: Current status and future perspectives.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- The Effect of Combined General Anesthesia and Epidural Analgesia on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- 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
- "Tailored" vs. "one-size-fits-all": current knowledge of individualized PEEP and constant PEEP strategy during the perioperative period.European journal of medical research · 2025Review
- Summary of the ROMIO randomized-control trial comparing clinical, economic and patient-reported outcomes between open versus hybrid esophagectomy in the United Kingdom.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic or open abdominal surgery with thoracotomy: future directions from the ROMIO trial in esophageal cancer.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- LAsting Symptoms after Oesophageal Resectional Surgery (LASORS): multicentre validation cohort study.The British journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Advancing surgical options in esophageal cancer: key findings from the ROMIO randomized clinical trial.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Is the right answer always correct: between primary endpoint and clinical validity-author's reply.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- Response to Letter to the Editor on "Impact of the Surgical Approach for Neoadjuvantly Treated Gastroesophageal Junction Type II Tumors: A Multinational, High-Volume Center Retrospective Cohort Analysis".Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver malignancies (ROC'N'ROLL): a single-centre, randomised, controlled, single-blinded clinical trial.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- Identification of biomarkers for tumor regression grade in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study investigated if hybrid oesophagectomy with minimally invasive gastric mobilization and thoracotomy enabled faster recovery than open surgery.
methodsIn eight UK centres, this pragmatic RCT recruited patients for oesophagectomy to treat localized cancer. Participants were randomly allocated to hybrid or open surgery, stratified by centre and receipt of neoadjuvant treatment. Large dressings aimed to mask patients to their allocation for six days post-surgery. The authors present the intention-to-treat analysis of outcome measures from the first 3 months post-randomization, including the primary outcome, the patient-reported physical function scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30, and cost-effectiveness. Current Controlled Trials registration: ISRCTN 59036820 (feasibility study), 10386621 (definitive study).
findingsThere was no evidence of a difference between hybrid (n = 267) and open (n = 266) surgery in average physical function over 3 months post-randomization: difference in means 2.1, 95% c.i. -2.0 to 6.2, P = 0.3. Complication rates were similar; for example, 88 (34%) participants in the open and 82 (32%) participants in the hybrid surgery groups experienced a pulmonary infection within 30 days. There was no evidence that hybrid surgery was more cost-effective than open surgery at 3 months.
conclusionsPatient-reported physical function in the 3 months post-randomization provided no evidence of a difference in recovery time between hybrid and open surgery, or a difference in cost-effectiveness. Both approaches to surgery were completed safely, with a similar risk of key complications, suggesting that surgeons who have a preference for one of the two approaches need not change their practice.
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.