ArticleIrish journal of medical science2025
Quality and safety of Ireland's first robotic oesophagectomy program.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
introductionOesophageal cancer incidence is rising, with a concurrent increase in oesophagectomy as neoadjuvant and perioperative therapies improve. Oesophagectomy remains the cornerstone of curative treatment. The adoption of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in oesophagectomy has been slow, with concerns regarding the learning curve and safety. This series describes the safe introduction of RAS for oesophagectomy in Ireland.
methodsA review of prospectively maintained data from a single surgeon was performed, encompassing the period from February 2016 to December 2024. Standard clinicopathological variables were extracted. The RAS program (using DaVinci X/Xi) for oesophagectomy began in March 2020. Operations were classified as open, hybrid, minimally invasive, RAS-hybrid, or totally RAS. Length of stay (LOS), margin status, nodal yield, perioperative complications, and mortality were compared, as well as ERAS outcomes, where applicable.
resultsA total of 198 patients underwent oesophagectomy; 93 underwent RAS (52 total RAS, 41 hybrid). Demographics were comparable between RAS and non-RAS groups. There was an improvement in nodal yield for the total-RAS patients compared to non-RAS patients (mean 27.8, SD 8.7 vs 23.2, SD 9.1; p = 0.1). There was no difference in margin status (p = 0.55), overall complications (p = 0.23), LOS (p = 0.31), or 90-day mortality (p = 0.85) between RAS and non-RAS groups. The anastomotic leak rate was 3% for RAS versus 10% for non-RAS (p = 0.08). The chyle leak rate increased with RAS (22% vs 10%, p = 0.01), although this decrease was observed over time. R0 resection rate was comparable for RAS and non-RAS (90% vs 91% p = 0.55).
conclusionsRAS oesophagectomy can be introduced safely for experienced RAS surgeons. Early in the learning curve, similar perioperative outcomes occur, with no significant increase in overall complications. RAS has the potential to improve oncologic outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41034595What 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.