ArticleDiseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus2025
Worldwide survey on the transcervical approach for minimally invasive treatment of esophageal cancer: results of questionnaire of the international collaborative group on transCervical Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy.
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 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.
- Position and outcomes of Minimally Invasive transCervical Esophagectomy (MICE) in treatment of esophageal cancer.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- 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
Minimally invasive esophagectomy has emerged over open surgery, showing important advantages on the short time and comparable oncological outcomes, though concerns persist about pulmonary complications. The avoidance of the thoracic route has shown lower pulmonary complication rates compared to traditional approaches. Since 2015, a novel technique was introduced combining single port transcervical and transhiatal laparoscopic mediastinal dissection for esophageal resection. The procedure is nowadays expanding, following the IDEAL framework stage 2b an international collaborative group has been created to register, standardize the procedure, selection of patients, and assess the outcome, highlighting the need for ongoing discussion and research. A broad questionnaire was sent to all the groups worldwide known to us performing this procedure. Results of this questionnaire are the goal of this manuscript, aiming to present the procedure, experiences, problems, and lessons learned with this procedure. The thirteen respondents currently practicing this technique were categorized based on case volume and experience. Results show varied surgical indications, with higher-volume centers displaying less selectivity. Slightly different surgical approaches were reported, with the left transcervical and abdominal transhiatal dissection being the basis techniques. Surgeons reported high rates of R0 resection and lymph node harvested, low rates of pulmonary complications and anastomotic leaks, but high rates of recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries. The collaborative group aims to align techniques, share experiences, and standardize procedures. Despite concerns about recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries, not different from other total mediastinal lymphadenectomy techniques, the procedure shows promise in reducing pulmonary complications, marking a crucial step toward global acceptance. Future efforts will focus on standardization, comparative studies, and training protocols.
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.