Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38617764›Full record

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.

Jingle Lei, Yuwen Bai, Zhi Qiao, Jianqun Ma

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jingle LeiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Esophagus and Mediastinum, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China.
Yuwen BaiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Esophagus and Mediastinum, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China.
Zhi QiaoDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Esophagus and Mediastinum, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China.
Jianqun MaDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Esophagus and Mediastinum, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China.
Third Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University · CNHarbin Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC)lymph node dissectionminimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE)robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE)

Identifiers

PMID38617764
PMCPMC11009590
OpenAlexW4393267511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.