ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Robotic vs. laparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a weighted short- and long-term outcomes analysis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe surgical outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE) and Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy (MIE) were compared.
methodsRetrospective study of adults (≥ 18 years) with esophageal cancer who underwent a MIE from December 2014-May 2024. Surgeon skill was measured pre- and post-utilization of RAMIE. Primary outcome was patient mortality. Secondary outcomes were mortality, readmission, and reoperation measured at 30 and 90 days, and complications. Risk differences (RD) calculated the difference in outcome between the two groups. Cox regression (CR) was used to estimate the risk of mortality based on type of surgical procedure.
results303 patients, 71 (23.4%) RAMIE and 232 (76.6%) MIE. Proficiency revealed operative times with RAMIE was significantly longer in the early phase (P < 0.001), however, shortened with experience while MIE operative time increased. The 30-day and 90-day mortality were (2.8% vs 4.3% and 10.1% vs 5.9%, with insignificant RD. 30- and 90-day readmissions were (14.1% vs 8.6% and 14.1% vs 11.6%), with insignificant RD. 30- and 90-day reoperations were (2.8% vs 1.7% and 14.1% vs 7.8%), also with insignificant RD. Complications following surgery between RAMIE and MIE were (45.1% vs 48.3%), with an insignificant RD. There was a significant difference in the overall survival curves between the two groups in favor of MIE (P < 0.001).
conclusionLong-term survival was significantly shorter for RAMIE compared to MIE. However, 30- and 90-day mortality, readmission rates and reoperations, and postoperative complications were not significantly different when compared to MIE. Well-designed prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41748955What 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.