ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Robot-Assisted Esophagectomy With Total Mesoesophageal Excision and Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A bibliometric analysis of minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer (2005-2024): mapping the knowledge landscape and future trends.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Single-sterilization modified-position robotic-assisted McKeown esophagectomy versus minimally invasive approach after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the clinical value of robot-assisted surgery combined with the total mesoesophageal excision (TME) for resectable esophageal cancer and to compare its advantages over conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and non-mesoesophageal esophagectomy.
methodsThe study retrospectively analyzed data from 159 patients who underwent McKeown esophagectomy at 2 provincial tertiary hospitals (January 2019-March 2025). The patients were stratified into 4 groups based on surgical approach, including robot-assisted total mesoesophageal esophagectomy (RATME, n = 38), robot-assisted conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE, n = 37), video-assisted thoracoscopic total mesoesophageal esophagectomy (VATME, n = 42), and video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE, n = 42). The analysis compared baseline characteristics, perioperative data, and survival outcomes among groups.
resultsThe RATME group had a significantly longer operative time than the other groups (P < 0.01). However, it demonstrated significant reductions in intraoperative blood loss and thoracic drainage volume within the first 48 h postoperatively (P < 0.05), together with a shorter postoperative hospital stay. Compared with the non-mesoesophageal group, the mesoesophageal group had significantly more harvested lymph nodes (P < 0.05) and a lower overall incidence of postoperative complications (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed in overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) among the 4 groups. The incidence of recurrence and death events was lower in the RATME group.
conclusionRobot-assisted total mesoesophageal esophagectomy (RATME) could be a safe technique. Integrating mesoesophagus theory with robotic surgery achieved superior perioperative outcomes, including reduced intraoperative bleeding, increased lymph nodes dissected, lower complication rates, and accelerated recovery, and it may bring about a better long-term outcome.
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.