ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Perioperative and mid-term outcomes of robotic-assisted versus video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a retrospective propensity-matched analysis of 842 patients.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled 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
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
Aim: Comparing the safety, effectiveness, and mid-term survival rates of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) and video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE). Methods: A total of 842 patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy were analyzed, including 694 patients in VAMIE group and 148 in RAMIE group. PSM analysis was applied to generate matched pairs for further comparison. Operative outcomes, postoperative complications and Mid-term outcomes were compared between all patients in matched groups. Results: After 1:4 PSM, 148 patients in the RAMIE and 592 patients in the VAMIE. Compared to VAMIE, RAMIE exhibited earlier removal of chest and neck drainage tubes, shorter postoperative hospital stays, and a higher number of lymph node dissections. However, the surgical duration of RAMIE was longer than that of VAMIE. Postoperative complications were no statistically significant between the RAMIE and VAMIE groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the 3-year OS and DFS between the two groups. Conclusion: Compared to VAMIE, RAMIE emerges as a viable and safe surgical approach and suggests RAMIE as a potential alternative to minimally invasive esophagectomy.
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.