ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2025
Expandable versus inflatable mediastinoscopic combined with laparoscopic for radical esophagectomy.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA few medical centers have used the "inflatable mediastinoscope" technology in radical esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, and its safety and short-term efficacy have been limitedly verified. However, this technology has some defects. Therefore, we developed a new method for radical resection of esophageal cancer: the expanded mediastinoscopic combined with laparoscopic radical esophagectomy (EMLE).
methodsFrom June 2019 to June 2022, we successfully performed 176 cases of radical resection of esophageal cancer using the new EMLE technique and recorded the baseline and perioperative patient data. We also retrieved four published clinical studies on the inflatable mediastinoscopic combined with laparoscopic radical esophagectomy (IMLE) and compared the perioperative safety differences between EMLE and IMLE.
resultsThe EMLE group comprised 176 patients, whereas the IMLE group had 173 patients. Compared to IMLE, patients undergoing EMLE showed almost no differences in baseline characteristics but demonstrated significant advantages in terms of operative time (329.71 vs. 168.84 min) and blood loss (167.84 vs. 94.87 mL) (P < 0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications was significantly lower in the EMLE group compared to the IMLE group (P < 0.001). Specifically, the incidence of postoperative recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy was significantly lower in the EMLE group than in the IMLE group (P < 0.001). No significant differences existed in the days of the postoperative hospital stay and number of resected lymph nodes.
conclusionEMLE has no disadvantages compared with IMLE. It is a radical resection of esophageal cancer with more advantages in surgical operation and blood loss control and is also worth promoting.
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.