ArticleSurgery2024
Association of operative time and approach on postoperative complications for esophagectomy.
Article in Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive esophagectomy is associated with decreased postoperative complications compared with open esophagectomy. However, the risks of complications for minimally invasive esophagectomy compared with open esophagectomy may be affected by operative time. The objectives of this study are to (1) compare the incidence of postoperative complications for minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy and (2) evaluate the association of postoperative complications on operative approach and operative time.
methodsA retrospective cohort analysis of patients who underwent an esophagectomy in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Procedure-Targeted Data File was performed from 2016 to 2020. For analysis, minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy were stratified into tertiles of operative time. A bivariate analysis of postoperative complications comparing minimally invasive esophagectomy with open esophagectomy was performed. Multivariable Poisson regression models were estimated evaluating the association of the likelihood of postoperative complications with operative approach and operative time.
resultsIn total, 8,574 patients who underwent esophagectomy were included: 5,369 patients underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy, and 3,205 patients underwent open esophagectomy. Median operative time was 402 minutes for minimally invasive esophagectomy and 321 minutes for open esophagectomy. The incidence of postoperative complications and 30-day mortality was lower in the minimally invasive esophagectomy group than the open esophagectomy group within the same tertiles of operative time. When we compared patients who underwent short open esophagectomy with those who underwent long minimally invasive esophagectomy, there were no significant differences in complications.
conclusionThere is no significant association of postoperative complications for short open esophagectomy compared with long minimally invasive esophagectomy. Patients should be selected for minimally invasive esophagectomy when there is appropriate surgeon experience and hospital resources.
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.