ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Learning curve of Robotic Assisted Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy (RAMIE): initial experience.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The learning curve of robotic esophagectomy: a systematic review with a proposed training and competency assessment framework.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Learning curve and perioperative outcomes: a retrospective cohort study between synchronous and combined inflatable mediastinoscope-laparoscopic radical esophagectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Learning curve for the abdominal procedure in total robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy with simultaneous cervical approach: an initial experience.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic vs. laparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a weighted short- and long-term outcomes analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of the study was to investigate the learning curve and perioperative outcomes of implementing Robotic Assisted Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy (RAMIE) at a tertiary referral center.
methodsRetrospective review of patients ≥ 18 years old between June 2019 and June 2024 of 70 consecutive patients who underwent RAMIE. The primary outcome was operative time. Secondary outcomes included estimated blood loss (EBL), conversion rate, lymph node yield, positive proximal margin and in-hospital mortality. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analyses were performed to identify proficiency for operating time and intraoperative blood loss. A multivariable general linear model (GLM) was utilized to measure the strength and direction of the associations that exist between the predictor variables, Age, Sex, Race, BMI, Neoadjuvant treatment, Tumor stage, Cancer type, Clavien-Dindo and EBL, with the outcome variable, operative time. A Kaplan-Mayer survival curve was calculated over the duration of the study. A t-test was calculated to compare survival based on whether cancer was present or not.
results70 RAMIE procedures were performed during the study period. The operative time analysis showed technical proficiency was acquired at 55 cases. No significant change in intraoperative blood loss was indicated. The multivariable modeling approach showed Sex was significantly associated with operative time (F = 226.62, p < .001). The Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed overall survival was statistically significant when compared by cancer stage (Mantel-Cox Log Rank χ
conclusionsRAMIE appears to have a short learning curve. Prospective studies examining the learning curve and outcomes of robotic esophagectomies compared to the outcomes of non-robotic cases is suggested.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40676298What 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.