ReviewKardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery2025
Comparative outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Esophagectomy is a complex surgical procedure primarily used for the treatment of esophageal malignancies and other esophageal disorders. In recent years, minimally invasive techniques, such as laparoscopic and robotic-assisted esophagectomy, have gained popularity due to their potential to reduce postoperative morbidity and enhance recovery. However, the comparative effectiveness, safety, and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic esophagectomy remain unclear. Aim: This study aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic esophagectomy, with a focus on operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, lymph node yield, R0 resection rate, and oncological outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to January 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing laparoscopic and robotic esophagectomy were included. The primary outcomes were operative time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, lymph node yield, R0 resection rate, and long-term oncological outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies. Publication bias was evaluated using Egger's test. Statistical analyses were conducted using Stata version 16.0, with a Results: A total of 24 studies (6 RCTs and 18 observational studies) involving 6,972 patients (3,433 robotic and 3,539 laparoscopic esophagectomy cases) were included. Robotic esophagectomy was associated with a longer operative time (mean difference [MD] = 55.52 minutes, 95% CI: 27.55 to 83.49, Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrates that robotic esophagectomy, despite longer operative times, offers advantages in terms of reduced blood loss, higher lymph node yield, and improved R0 resection rates compared to laparoscopic esophagectomy. Both techniques exhibit comparable postoperative complication rates, length of hospital stay, and long-term oncological outcomes. The choice between laparoscopic and robotic esophagectomy should be guided by surgeon expertise, patient-specific factors, and institutional resources.
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.