Observational studySurgical endoscopy2025
Anastomotic leakage following robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE): which anastomosis should be preferred?
Observational study in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Stapled vs. hand-sewn anastomosis during esophagectomy: a randomized trials systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- A standardized linear-stapled side-to-side anastomotic technique in robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: a retrospective analysis of 350 consecutive cases from a prospective registry.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
41 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal technique for intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis in esophagectomy remains undetermined. This study evaluates different anastomotic techniques in robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) and their impact on anastomotic leakage rates. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis observational, retrospective, comparative cohort study analyzed data obtained from the Upper GI International Robotic Association (UGIRA) Esophageal Registry. All consecutive patients with a histologically proven esophageal malignancy who underwent RAMIE with intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy were included. The anastomotic technique was performed based on the clinical judgement and expertise of each individual surgeon. For comparison, the four most common techniques were included: circular end-to-side, linear side-to-side, handsewn end-to-side, and handsewn end-to-end. The primary endpoint of this study was the occurrence of anastomotic leakage, defined by the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group as a full-thickness gastrointestinal defect involving the esophagus, anastomosis, staple line, or conduit, regardless of its presentation or method of identification.
resultsBetween 2016 and September 2023, 1518 patients were included. Univariable analysis demonstrated that the linear stapled side-to-side anastomosis was associated with the lowest anastomotic leakage rate (14.0%), while the handsewn end-to-end anastomosis had the highest (32.8%) (p < 0.001). The anastomotic leakage rates for circular end-to-side and handsewn end-to-side anastomoses were 19.4% and 26.9%, respectively. Multivariable analysis confirmed that anastomotic technique was independently associated with anastomotic leakage. Specifically, handsewn anastomoses were associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leakage for both end-to-side (OR 1.675, 95% CI 1.195-2.348, p = 0.003) and end-to-end (OR 2.181, 95% CI 1.403-3.390, p < 0.001) techniques compared to circular end-to-side anastomoses.
conclusionsIn RAMIE, linear side-to-side and circular end-to-side stapled anastomoses are associated with lower anastomotic leakage rates compared to handsewn techniques. While acknowledging the multifactorial complexity of anastomotic leakage, these findings favor the use of mechanical stapling in clinical practice.
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.