Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40337018›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of surgical oncology2025

Short-Term Outcomes of Oesophagectomy in a Real-World Scenario from a Tier II City in India.

Amita Sekhar Padhy, Rigved Nittala, Srikarthik Voleti, Chaitanya Raju Chalapaka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Amita Sekhar PadhyDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Homi Bhabha Cancer Hospital & Research Centre, Visakhapatnam, 530053 Andhra Pradesh India.
Rigved NittalaDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Homi Bhabha Cancer Hospital & Research Centre, Visakhapatnam, 530053 Andhra Pradesh India.ORCID 0000-0001-8545-958X
Srikarthik VoletiDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Homi Bhabha Cancer Hospital & Research Centre, Visakhapatnam, 530053 Andhra Pradesh India.
Chaitanya Raju ChalapakaDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Homi Bhabha Cancer Hospital & Research Centre, Visakhapatnam, 530053 Andhra Pradesh India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluates short-term outcomes of oesophagectomy at a low-volume cancer hospital in Visakhapatnam, India. Fifteen patients who underwent oesophagectomy from 2020 to 2023 were analysed. The most common histology was squamous cell carcinoma. The mean age was 55 years and the majority were male. The common approaches used were open transhiatal and transthoracic oesophagectomy. The mean operative time was 9.5 h, and the mean hospital stay was 15.92 days. There were no perioperative deaths, but complications included pulmonary issues, vocal cord paralysis, anastomotic leaks, chyle leaks and wound infections. Higher volume centres tend to have better outcomes after oesophagectomy. However, factors other than volume like patient selection, ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) protocols, specialized critical care and trained multidisciplinary teams also impact outcomes. At our centre, though a low-volume hospital, proper patient selection, prehabilitation and a collaborative team approach helped achieve acceptable results. We recommend developing consensus on defining low- and high-volume centres for oesophagectomy in the Indian context, based on disease burden, resources and constraints. Overall, there is a lack of Indian data comparing outcomes between low and high-volume centres for oesophagectomy.

Indexed as

Low-volume centreOesophagectomyOutcomes

Identifiers

PMID40337018
PMCPMC12052618

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.