SynthesisPediatric surgery international2025
Thoracoscopic versus conventional thoracotomy for esophageal atresia/tracheoesophageal fistula repair: a comprehensive meta-analysis of 25 comparative studies.
Synthesis in Pediatric surgery international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Application of "spaghetti" dissection technique in thoracoscopic repair of congenital type C esophageal atresia- a prospective case series study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Trial
- Risk factors for anastomotic complications following thoracoscopic repair of type III esophageal atresia in neonates: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Article
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
purposeThis meta-analysis compares thoracoscopic versus open thoracotomy repair of esophageal atresia with tracheoesophageal fistula (EA/TEF).
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception to April 2025 for studies comparing thoracoscopic versus conventional thoracotomy approaches. Two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using appropriate tools. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.
resultsA total of 25 studies (24 observational and one randomized controlled trial, including 3087 patients) were included. Thoracoscopic repair was associated with longer operative time (mean difference [MD] = 20.94 min; p = 0.005) but showed significant advantages in reducing mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.52; p = 0.01), musculoskeletal complications (RR = 0.08; p < 0.0001), and wound infections (RR = 0.21; p = 0.02). It also led to shorter ICU stays (MD = -1.09 days; p = 0.005) and earlier initiation of oral feeding (MD = -1.12 days; p = 0.02). However, the risk of anastomotic stricture requiring dilation was higher (RR = 1.54; p < 0.00001). No significant differences were found in anastomotic leak rates, recurrent fistula, respiratory complications, or need for fundoplication.
conclusionsThoracoscopic repair of EA/TEF is associated with perioperative benefits over conventional thoracotomy, including significantly lower mortality and a markedly reduced incidence of musculoskeletal complications. However, this approach is associated with a higher risk of anastomotic stricture requiring dilation, and these differences may partly reflect patient selection factors.
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.