ReviewInternational journal of clinical oncology2025
Current advances and challenges in minimally invasive esophagectomy.
Review in International journal of clinical oncology, 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.
- Therapeutic value of lymphadenectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a clinically interpretable risk scoring system for predicting one-year all-cause mortality in esophageal cancer: a population-based study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Integrating tumor regression and nodal status for refined prognostication after neoadjuvant therapy in esophageal cancer: where does TRG-N fit in the evolving global landscape?Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Effects of driving pressure-guided lung-protective ventilation strategy on respiratory mechanics, oxygenation, and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy: a randomized clinical trial.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advances in endoscopic equipment and thoracoscopic surgery have contributed to the increasing adoption of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). Compared with open esophagectomy (OE), MIE is associated with longer operative times and offers many advantages, such as reduced blood loss and a lower incidence of pulmonary complications, including pneumonia. Two patient positions are commonly used for thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE): left lateral decubitus position and prone position. MIE has demonstrated significant benefits in reducing postoperative respiratory complications. However, the optimal MIE technique, surgical approach, and patient positioning remain controversial. Recently, robot-assisted thoracoscopic and/or laparoscopic esophagectomy using the da Vinci Surgical System and other emerging robotic platforms has gained attention as an attractive surgical option. In addition, nonthoracic radical esophagectomy, performed via transcervical or transhiatal approaches using mediastinoscopic devices, has been developed as an alternative approach. Despite these technological advances, there is a lack of definitive scientific evidence establishing MIE as a superior alternative to OE. However, a recent randomized phase III trial (JCOG1409) confirmed the noninferiority of TE compared with OE in terms of overall survival of patients with thoracic esophageal cancer. Furthermore, MIE-including robotic-assisted and mediastinoscopic approaches-has been associated with lower pulmonary complication rates while maintaining comparable oncological outcomes. These findings support the adoption of MIE as a standard treatment modality in Japan. Future studies should focus on evaluating the long-term outcomes of MIE and determining the optimal integration of robotic assistance in the surgical management of esophageal cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40536623What 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.