ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robotic-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study from a high-volume center.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic total gastrectomy: a western high-volume tertiary referral center experience.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As a newer surgical technique, robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) offers an alternative to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (cMIE) in the treatment of esophageal cancer. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare postoperative outcomes of RAMIE versus cMIE in patients undergoing Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy at a high-volume institution. The medical records from patients who underwent minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy between 2015 and 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. Data on surgical and oncological outcomes, such as conversions to open surgery, lymph node yield, anastomotic leakage rates, postoperative complications, and mortality, were collected and evaluated. The analysis included a total of 250 patients: 170 underwent cMIE, and 80 underwent RAMIE. Patient baseline characteristics were comparable across both groups, except for differences in neoadjuvant therapy use. Importantly, no mortality was recorded within 30- or 90-day following RAMIE, and conversion rates were low in both cohorts. The rates of anastomotic leaks, major postoperative complications, and harvested lymph nodes were comparable across the two groups. Additionally, multivariable logistic regression analysis controlling for potential confounders confirmed that RAMIE and cMIE had similar leak rates. The current findings indicate that RAMIE represents a safe, feasible option comparable to cMIE, with potential ergonomic advantages and improved postoperative recovery. However, additional studies in larger groups will be necessary to validate these findings and determine long-term oncologic outcomes.
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.