ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Short- and Long-term Outcomes of Robotic versus Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Multicenter Propensity Score-matched Cohort Study.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feeding Duodenostomy Tube Placement After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy with Posterior Mediastinal Reconstruction.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Current Status and Future Perspectives of Robotic Surgery for Esophagogastric Cancer in Asia.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Safe introduction of hinotori™ for robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy as the second robotic system.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Clinical Impact of Staple-Line Oversewing in Totally Mechanical Collard Cervical Anastomosis for Esophageal Cancer.Cancers · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) reportedly provides better short-term and comparable long-term outcomes compared with open esophagectomy, its long-term outcomes versus those of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) remain insufficiently investigated. This multicenter retrospective cohort study aimed to investigate the perioperative safety, efficacy, and long-term survival of patients of RAMIE versus MIE for esophageal cancer.
methodsWe included patients with cStage 0-IVa thoracic esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy through the right thoracic cavity between January 2016 and December 2019 in six Japanese hospitals. The short- and long-term outcomes between RAMIE and MIE were compared by using propensity score matching.
resultsAfter matching, 268 of 396 patients were analyzed. Compared with MIE, RAMIE had a longer operative time (629 vs. 574 min, p < 0.01), a trend toward less severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III: 18% vs. 23%), and a lower incidence (22% vs. 34%, p = 0.02) and mitigated severity of recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) palsy (p = 0.040). Blood loss, inhospital mortality, and the mediastinal node harvest were similar between the two techniques. The 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 77% and 66% for RAMIE and 74% and 66% for MIE (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-1.37; p = 0.59). Relapse-free survival was also similar (3-year 64% vs. 63%; 5-year 61% vs. 59%; HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.60-1.28; p = 0.49).
conclusionsRAMIE reduced the incidence and severity of RLN palsy despite requiring a longer operation time and demonstrated similar long-term outcomes to MIE.
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.