ReviewInnovative surgical sciences2025
What is the best surgical approach for esophageal cancer?
Review in Innovative surgical sciences, 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.
- Review
- A novel stepwise and continuous high-volume irrigation drainage technique for managing cervical anastomotic leaks post-esophagectomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Esophageal cancer is an aggressive tumor entity, and oncologic esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy after perioperative chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care for curative treatment. Oncological esophagectomy is a complex procedure associated with a relevant surgical trauma. Complications, such as severe pulmonary infections and anastomotic leakage with mediastinitis lead to a high morbidity rate. To reduce the surgical trauma, the minimally invasive technique was introduced in esophageal surgery. Minimally invasive esophagectomy is associated with less postoperative pain and a reduced rate of pulmonary infections. Currently, there are two major different totally minimally invasive techniques, the conventional laparoscopic/thoracoscopic approach (MIE) and the robotic assisted approach (RAMIE). Both methods require teaching due to the flat learning curve associated with these complex procedures. However, both MIE and RAMIE are performed safely in specialized centers. They are associated with improved short-term outcome and similar oncological outcome compared to open esophagectomy. The robotic assisted approach has additional benefits that may be supported by the results of more randomized controlled trials in the future.
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.