ReviewCancers2025
Development in Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: The Current Standing Point of Robotic Surgery.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic enucleation for esophageal leiomyoma: A propensity-weighted retrospective cohort study.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Review
- A bibliometric analysis of minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer (2005-2024): mapping the knowledge landscape and future trends.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Learning curve analysis across three surgical eras in Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite advancements in multidisciplinary treatment, esophagectomy remains the primary curative treatment for esophageal cancer. Given that lymph node metastases can spread from the cervical to abdominal regions, three-field lymph node dissection has been established as a standard approach. However, this highly invasive procedure involves multiple anatomical regions-thoracic, abdominal, and cervical-leading to significant surgical burden. To reduce surgical invasiveness, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has become increasingly common worldwide. With its adoption and advancements in multidisciplinary therapy, discussions have emerged regarding the potential omission of lymph node dissection in selected cases. Since the introduction of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in 2004, this technique has progressively replaced conventional MIE. Robotic systems-equipped with a magnified 3D camera, articulated instruments, and tremor filtering-allow surgeons to perform complex procedures with greater precision than manual techniques. One randomized controlled trial (RCT) has demonstrated fewer postoperative complications with RAMIE compared to open esophagectomy. Additionally, RAMIE has been shown to enable more extensive lymph node dissection around the left recurrent laryngeal nerve than conventional MIE. However, the long-term oncological benefits of RAMIE remain unproven, as no RCTs have definitely confirmed its impact on long-term survival in esophageal cancer patients. Ongoing randomized trials are expected to provide further insights into its prognostic benefits.
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.