ArticleAnnals of gastroenterological surgery2025
Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy: A propensity score-matched study via a nationwide database.
Article in Annals of gastroenterological surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 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
- Review
- Short- and Long-term Outcomes of Robotic versus Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Multicenter Propensity Score-matched Cohort Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional thoracoscopic esophagectomy: a nationwide inpatient database study in Japan.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2026Article
- VIsceral sheath targeted approach for left recurrent laryngeal nerve lymphadenectomy during robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VISTA approach).Surgical endoscopy · 2026Observational
- Fusion surgery in robot-assisted esophagectomy: stepwise learning curves across the da Vinci™ and hinotori™ platforms.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Esophageal Cancer With Neurologically Symptomatic Parapharyngeal Space Paraganglioma.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Performing robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for patients with a narrow mediastinum and left-shifted esophagus for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma presents further challenges.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Development in Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: The Current Standing Point of Robotic Surgery.Cancers · 2025Review
- Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy: A propensity score-matched study via a nationwide database.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The advantages of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RA-MIE) over conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (C-MIE) are unknown. This nationwide large-scale study aimed to compare surgical outcomes between RA-MIE and C-MIE using rigorous propensity score methods, including detailed covariates and relevant outcomes. Methods: This Japanese nationwide retrospective cohort study included RA-MIE or C-MIE for esophageal malignant tumors performed between October 2018 and December 2019 and registered in the Japanese National Clinical Database. The primary outcome measure was postoperative complications classified as Clavien-Dindo Grade IIIa or higher. Propensity score matching was performed to create a balanced covariate distribution between the two groups. Results: After propensity score matching, 1092 patients were selected. The RA-MIE group had a significantly longer operation time and greater blood loss than the C-MIE group (565 vs. 477 min and 120 vs. 90 mL). Furthermore, the R0 resection rate was lower in the RA-MIE group than in the C-MIE group (95.1% vs. 97.8%). The RA-MIE and C-MIE groups had no differences regarding overall complications ≥ Grade IIIa (22.0% vs. 20.3%, Conclusions: In the initial phase of implementation, RA-MIE and C-MIE demonstrated comparable morbidity rates when performed by skilled board-certified endoscopic surgeons.
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.