ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2025
Long-term outcomes after Ivor-Lewis versus McKeown esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy for resectable middle or lower thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare long-term survival outcomes between Ivor-Lewis and McKeown esophagectomy with two-field(thoracic-abdominal) lymphadenectomy in resectable middle or lower thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
methodsPatients with resected middle or lower thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma undergoing Ivor-Lewis or McKeown esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy were enrolled and categorized into two respective groups. Propensity score matching was performed to minimize selection bias. And subgroup analyses, including stratification by tumor invasion area of thoracic esophagus, were conducted to compare survival outcomes via Kaplan-Meier method.
resultsTotally 281 cases were included(Ivor-Lewis group: n = 199; McKeown group: n = 82). Neither the incidence/severity of complications nor survival outcomes differed significantly between the two surgical approaches in either the full cohort or the propensity score matching cohort. In patients with middle-upper or middle thoracic esophagus invasion, Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy demonstrated superior overall survival(P = 0.004). Conversely, for patients with middle-lower or lower thoracic esophagus invasion, McKeown esophagectomy showed survival advantages in both overall survival(P = 0.001) and disease-free survival(P = 0.006).
conclusionFor resectable middle or lower thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma treated with two-filed lymphadenectomy, Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy provides long-term survival in patients with middle-upper or middle thoracic esophageal invasion, whereas McKeown esophagectomy demonstrated significant survival benefits for patients with middle-lower or lower thoracic esophageal invasion.
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.