ArticleBMC cancer2024
Thoracoscopic three-port single versus multiple intercostal for radical resection of esophageal cancer: a retrospective analysis.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the safety and feasibility of single-intercostal totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIIE) with those of multiple-intercostal MIIE.
methodsBetween January 2016 and December 2022, clinical data were collected for 528 patients who successfully underwent totally minimally invasive esophagectomy. Among these patients, 294 underwent MIIE, with 200 undergoing the single-intercostal approach and 94 undergoing the multiple-intercostal approach. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to the cohort of 294 patients. Subsequently, perioperative outcomes and other pertinent clinical data were analyzed retrospectively.
resultsA total of 294 patients were subjected to PSM, and 89 groups of patient data (178 persons in total) were well balanced and included in the follow-up statistics. Compared to the multiple intercostal group, the single intercostal group had a shorter operative time (280 min vs. 310 min; p < 0.05). Moreover, there was no significant difference in the incidence of major perioperative complications (p > 0.05). The total number of lymph nodes sampled (25.30 vs. 27.55, p > 0.05) and recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph nodes sampled on the both sides (p > 0.05) did not significantly differ. The single intercostal group had lower postoperative long-term usage of morphine (0,0-60 vs. 20,20-130; p < 0.01), total temporary addition (10,0-30 vs. 20,20-40; p < 0.01) and temporary usage in the first 3 days after surgery (0,0-15 vs. 10,10-20; p < 0.01) than did the multicostal group.There were no significant differences in age, sex, tumor location or extent of lymphadenectomy or in the clinical factors between the single-intercostal group (p > 0.05).
conclusionsBoth techniques can be used for the treatment of esophageal cancer. Compared to multiple intercostal MIIE, the feasibility of which has been proven internationally, the single intercostal technique can also be applied to patients of different age groups and sexes and with different tumor locations. It can provide surgeons with an additional surgical option.
trial registrationThis study was retrospectively registered by the Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, and written informed consent was exempted from ethical review. The registration number was 20,230,326. The date of registration was 2023.03.26.
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.