ReviewFrontiers in oncology2025
Comparison of right- and left-approach esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- Ablation-immunotherapy synergy in cancer: mechanisms of the abscopal effect, emerging clinical applications, and translational roadmaps for next-generation onco-immunology.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to compare the effects of left and right thoracic approaches on patients undergoing esophagectomy. Methods: A search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and non-randomized trials that evaluated the effects of the two approaches on patients with esophageal cancer up to March 19, 2025. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved articles, extracted relevant data, and appraised the risk of bias. A meta-analysis was performed using Stata statistical software. Results: A total of 21 studies were included. Compared with the left thoracic approach, the right approach had a longer surgical duration (mean difference [MD] = 77.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 53.19-101.84, P < 0.05), a higher number of lymph nodes removed (MD = 3.00, 95% CI: 0.30-5.69, P < 0.05), and a higher risk of anastomotic fistula (MD = 2.07, 95% CI: 1.49-2.88, P < 0.05), wound infection (MD = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.04-2.73, P < 0.05) and pulmonary complications (risk ratio = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.15-1.68, P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in the risk of chylothorax, postoperative hospital stays, long-term disease-free survival, or overall survival. Conclusion: Esophagectomy through the right thoracic approach achieves more thorough lymph node dissection, but it is associated with an increased risk of longer surgical duration, anastomotic fistula, wound infection, and pulmonary complications. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251026319, identifier CRD420251026319.
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.