ArticleBJS open2024
Robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus thoracoscopic approach: multi-institutional study on short-term outcomes.
Article in BJS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled 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
- Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Robot-Assisted Esophagectomy With Total Mesoesophageal Excision and Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Prevalence of recurrent nerve injury among esophageal cancer patients undergoing esophagectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgery open science · 2025Review
- Best of upper GI and general surgery in 2024.BJS open · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRobot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy and conventional minimally invasive oesophagectomy are superior to open techniques. However, few studies have directly compared the outcomes of the two minimally invasive approaches.
methodsA retrospective study of patients from six medical centres with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent minimally invasive oesophagectomy between 2015 and 2022. Perioperative outcomes were compared after applying inverse probability of treatment weighting.
resultsThe study included 577 patients (robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy: 206; conventional minimally invasive oesophagectomy: 371). After applying inverse probability of treatment weighting, robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy was found to yield a higher number of mediastinal nodes compared with conventional minimally invasive oesophagectomy (14.86 versus 12.66, P = 0.017). Robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy was notably effective in retrieving upper mediastinal left recurrent laryngeal nerve nodes, averaging 1.97 nodes versus 1.14 nodes harvested by conventional minimally invasive oesophagectomy (P < 0.001). This was coupled by a significant decrease in nerve palsy rates (13.9% versus 22.8%, P = 0.020). A significantly larger percentage of patients in the robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy group had an uncomplicated postoperative course (51.8% versus 34%, P < 0.001). Robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy also led to a reduction in pneumonia rates (8.6% versus 15.2%, P = 0.041) and was linked to a shorter length of stay (length of stay; 16.64 versus 21.14 days, P = 0.007). The advantage of robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy in reducing the length of stay was especially pronounced in patients with a high Charlson co-morbidity index (≥2, mean difference 8.46 days; P = 0.0069) and those who underwent neoadjuvant therapy (mean difference 5.63 days; P < 0.001).
conclusionIn oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, the use of robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy led to fewer cases of pneumonia and faster recovery compared with conventional minimally invasive oesophagectomy. Additionally, robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy significantly improved the feasibility and safety of performing lymph node dissection along the recurrent laryngeal nerve.
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.