ArticleUpdates in surgery2025
Full RAMIE vs Hybrid RAMIE: a retrospective study on outcomes evaluation and cost considerations.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
To compare the results of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy performed with a Fully Robot-Assisted technique (F-RAMIE) and a Hybrid approach with laparoscopic abdominal phase (H-RAMIE). Multicentric retrospective analysis of patients who underwent F-RAMIE and H-RAMIE between 2018 and 2023. The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative complications, secondary endpoints were clinical outcomes, oncological results and costs. Survival analyses were calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method. The economic evaluation included costs related to operating room time, length of stay, surgical tools, and robotic system maintenance. A total of 100 patients from two experienced surgical centers were included: 64 H-RAMIE and 36 F-RAMIE. The two groups were comparable in baseline clinical conditions and staging. F-RAMIE was associated with longer operative time (434.7 ± 46.4 Vs. 477.3 ± 47.5 min, p < 0.001) and shorter length of Intensive Care Unit stay (1.1 ± 1.1 Vs. 2.3 ± 2.3 days, p = 0.002) than H-RAMIE. There were no significant differences in conversion rate, postoperative complications and length of stay. F-RAMIE demonstrated superior lymph node retrieval (43.8 ± 15.2 Vs. 22.4 ± 10.3, p < 0.001), but no differences in R0 resection rates. Overall survival and recurrences were comparable. Cost analysis revealed a slight economic advantage for F-RAMIE (20,556.3 ± 3,601.2 € Vs. 23,302.4 ± 5,894.5 € p = 0.012), mainly due to hospital stay-related cost (11,267.6 ± 5,912.8 € for H-RAMIE Vs. 8,360.3 ± 3,550.6 €, p = 0.007). F-RAMIE and H-RAMIE proved to be equally safe and effective in terms of postoperative complications and oncological outcomes.
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.