ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
The comparison of uniportal versus multiportal video-assisted thoracic surgery for esophageal cancer: a propensity-weighted analysis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Single-incision versus multi-incision minimally invasive esophagectomy with different reconstruction routes for esophageal cancer: a retrospective propensity-weighted analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Advances in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy-An Overview of Recent Developments and a Novel Classification of Innovations in Treatment of Thoracic Esophageal Cancer.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe utilization of uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has become prevalent, notwithstanding, there are few studies exploring its application specifically in esophagectomy.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on data collected from patients diagnosed with clinical stage T1-3/N0/M0 thoracic esophageal cancer, who underwent surgery between January 2017 and December 2020. To evaluate the outcomes, an analysis was conducted utilizing the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method.
resultsThis study identified 55 patients who underwent uniportal VATS and 212 patients who underwent multiportal VATS. Postoperative complications classified as Clavien-Dindo grades 1-2 occurred less frequently after uniportal than multiportal VATS in both unadjusted and IPTW-adjusted analyses (10.1% versus 28.8%, respectively; P = 0.018). Upon IPTW analysis, it indicated that the rate of pneumonia (grades 1-2) in the uniportal VATS group was 7.3%, notably lower than the corresponding rate of 23.2% observed in the multiportal VATS group (P = 0.037). Patients in uniportal VATS group had a shorter postoperative length of stay comparing with those in multiportal VATS group (9 versus 10 days, P = 0.006 after IPTW). The visual analog scale (VAS) was administered within 7 days following surgery and scores were significantly lower in uniportal VATS group (P < 0.001). No surgery-related mortality was observed in uniportal VATS group. The survival benefit observed between two groups was comparable before (P = 0.320) and after IPTW analysis (P = 0.824), indicating no significant difference.
conclusionsThe utilization of uniportal VATS for esophagectomy demonstrated a reduced occurrence of postoperative complications, accompanied by mitigated postoperative pain, thereby presenting as a viable and practical approach for treating esophageal cancer patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39806182What 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.