Trial reportChinese medical journal2026
Artificial capnothorax versus single-lung ventilation in minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Chinese medical journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial capnothorax during surgery potentially increases the risk of tumor cell dissemination and impacts survival. This trial aimed to investigate the effect of artificial capnothorax on the prognosis of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy.
methodsThis prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted in two high-volume hospitals in China. Between August 2019 and January 2020, 110 patients with resectable esophageal cancer were randomized to undergo single-lung ventilation ( n = 55) or capnothorax procedures ( n = 55). The analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. The final follow-up occurred in January 2023.
resultsA total of 110 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. After surgery, the incidence of patients exhibiting incremental changes in circulating tumor cell levels was 18.6% (8/43) in the capnothorax group and 2.7% (1/37) in the single-lung ventilation group ( P = 0.033) (mean changes, -3.9 ± 3.4 [FU/3 mL] vs. -2.4 ± 2.9 [FU/3 mL], respectively; P = 0.039). Compared with the capnothorax group, the single-lung ventilation group had better 3-year overall survival rates (81.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 72.4-92.0% vs. 65.2%, 95% CI: 59.3-78.8%; P = 0.049) and disease-free survival rates (81.6%, 95% CI: 72.4-93.0% vs. 61.6%, 95% CI: 50.1-75.7%; P = 0.019). Multivariate analysis indicated that artificial pneumothorax potentially impaired overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.05-5.24; P = 0.037) and disease-free survival (HR: 2.70, 95% CI: 1.23-5.94; P = 0.014).
conclusionsArtificial capnothorax appears to be associated with poor oncological outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer. Single-lung ventilation in minimally invasive esophagectomy is safer and more favorable than capnothorax.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ( http://chictr.org.cn ), ChiCTR1900025262.
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.