ArticleDiseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus2025
Robotic- assisted minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis handsewn anastomosis technique and outcomes from a large-volume European centre.
Article in Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robot-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a cohort study of 156 cases.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Securing the Achilles' Heel of Esophagectomy: An Updated Evidence-Based Roadmap for Anastomotic Leak Prevention.Cancers · 2026Review
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy, intrathoracic anastomoses are usually performed with stapling devices to avoid a technically challenging handsewn technique in the upper mediastinum. Few have published about handsewn anastomotic techniques due to the technically demanding requirements for suturing with rigid instruments in the thoracic cavity. With robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE), the robot provides increased dexterity, enabling construction of a hand-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of our technique for hand-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis in RAMIE, following the initial learning phase between 2016 and 2018 in UMC Utrecht. Patients who underwent RAMIE with a robot-assisted hand-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis were included in this retrospective study. Data were extracted from a prospectively maintained institutional database. Key technique steps included esophageal stay-sutures, use of barbed sutures for the anastomosis, placement of tension-releasing stitches, and covering of the anastomosis with omentum. The primary outcome was anastomotic leakage; secondary outcomes included anastomotic stricture rate and duration of anastomosis construction. Between 1 November 2019 and 30 May 2023, 89 consecutive patients were included. Anastomotic leakage (defined by the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group) occurred in 11 patients (12.4%), which involved a grade I leak in four patients (4.5%), grade II leak in one patient (1.1%), and grade III leakage in six patients (6.7%). The median duration of anastomosis creation was 33 minutes (range, 23-55 minutes). Stricture rate was 32.6% (29 patients) at 1 year post-operatively for which dilation was needed for all patients. This study shows that a robot-assisted hand-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis in RAMIE is feasible, safe, and reliable.
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.