ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Frontiers in 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
Background: Esophageal cancer (EC) remains a lethal malignancy with poor survival outcomes despite multimodal therapy. While minimally invasive techniques like video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (VATE) and robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) have gained traction over open esophagectomy (OE), their comparative safety, efficacy, and survival benefits in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy remain underexplored. Methods: We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis on data from seven studies (n=1847 patients) to compare OE, VATE, and RAMIE after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced EC. Outcomes included complication rates, operative time, R0 resection, lymph node yield, and 3-year overall survival (OS). Results: No significant differences were observed in R0 resection rates (RAMIE vs. OE: OR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.25-4.70; VATE vs. OE: OR = 1.37, 0.67-3.45), lymph node dissection (RAMIE vs. OE: WMD = 1.56, -3.29-6.43; VATE vs. OE: WMD = 1.05, -2.24-4.53), or 3-year OS (VATE vs. OE: HR = 1.14, 0.70-1.85). RAMIE ranked highest for reducing complications (SUCRA = 52.5%), while OE showed shorter operative time (SUCRA = 94.0%). Achieving R0 resection ranking: RAE (SUCRA 47.3%), OE (SUCRA 43.8%), and VATE (SUCRA 8.9%). In lymph node dissection, OE had the highest probability of being superior (59.5%), markedly outperforming RAMIE (21.3%) and VATE (19.2%). Survival outcomes were comparable across all approaches. Conclusions: OE, VATE, and RAMIE demonstrate equivalent oncological efficacy in EC after neoadjuvant therapy. Perioperative advantages differ: RAE may lower complications, whereas OE offers procedural efficiency. Surgical selection should prioritize individualized risk-benefit assessment, anatomical considerations, and institutional expertise. Prospective trials are warranted to validate these findings and refine technique-specific indications.
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.