SynthesisAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2026
A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of open oesophagectomy and hybrid minimally invasive oesophagectomy.
Synthesis in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSurgical resection, with or without neoadjuvant therapy, remains the primary treatment for oesophageal cancer. The two main surgical approaches are open oesophagectomy (OE) and hybrid minimally invasive oesophagectomy (HMIE). However, their relative safety and efficacy remain controversial. This review aims to compare perioperative and postoperative complications between OE and HMIE in the management of oesophageal cancer.
methodsWeb of Science, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies. Odds ratios (OR), standard mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used for statistical analysis.
resultsEight studies involving 6,053 patients were included. HMIE was associated significantly with lower rates of conduit necrosis (risk ratio (RR)=3.54, 95% CI [1.07, 11.73];
conclusionsBoth OE and HMIE have distinct advantages and drawbacks. HMIE appears superior in reducing conduit necrosis, postoperative pneumonia and nerve paralysis, whereas OE has slightly lower rates of anastomotic and chyle leaks. Surgical approach should be tailored to individual patient profiles. Further studies are needed to assess 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.