ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for thoracic lymph node dissection in patients with squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective comparative cohort study.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic enucleation for esophageal leiomyoma: A propensity-weighted retrospective cohort study.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Article
- 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
- Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- PSD3 as a context-dependent modulator of immune landscape and tumor aggressiveness in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE) vs. Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (MIE) for Esophageal Cancer: A Nationwide Inpatient Sample Analysis from 2017 to 2020.Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia · 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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In Asia, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) accounts for more than 90% of esophageal cancer cases and can be treated with minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE); however, MIE has certain technical limitations in resecting lymph nodes. The advantages of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) surgery, such as the high-definition three-dimensional (3D) vision and the presence of the EndoWrist, facilitates movement in challenging anatomical regions. However, few studies have compared the postoperative outcomes between RAMIE with MIE for the lymph node dissection of patients with ESCC. Methods: We identified 285 patients with ESCC who underwent surgical resection between January 2019 and April 2023. Of these patients, 270 met the screening criteria and were enrolled in our study. These patients were then divided into two groups according to the thoracic approach: MIE (n=168) or RAMIE cohort (n=102). The aim of this study was to investigate the possible advantages in terms of postoperative outcomes of RAMIE over MIE for thoracic lymph node dissection. Results: Most patients were male (97.4%). According to the pathological-stage of esophageal cancer, 5 (1.9%), 99 (37.1%), 72 (27.0%), 82 (30.7%), and 9 (3.4%) patients were pathological-stage 0, I, II, III, and IV, respectively. The number of regional lymph node resections in the RAMIE cohort was significantly higher than that in the MIE group for the following regions: the left tracheobronchial lymph nodes (106tbL) (P<0.001), paratracheal lymph nodes [106pre] (P=0.011), the sub-longitudinal lymph nodes [107] (P<0.001), the left main bronchial lymph nodes [109L] (P<0.001), the right main bronchial lymph nodes [109R] (P<0.001), the sub-thoracic periesophageal lymph nodes [110] (P=0.004), and the supradiaphragmatic lymph nodes [111] (P<0.001). By comparing MIE cohort with RAMIE cohort, the transthoracic approach with RAMIE yielded a greater total number of thoracic lymph nodes dissected [MIE: mean 20.82, standard deviation (SD) 9.45; RAMIE: mean 26.07, SD 9.28; P<0.001] and a greater total number of lymph node groups that underwent thoracic lymph node dissection (MIE: mean 5.28, SD 1.94; RAMIE: mean 7.29, SD 1.77; P<0.001). Conclusions: Our study shows that RAMIE may be more effective than MIE in terms of the number thoracic lymph nodes dissected and the extent of dissection. Moreover, RAMIE may be not associated with additional surgical complications.
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.