ReviewFrontiers in surgery2026
Minimally invasive or open esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a comprehensive systematic review of surgical and survival outcomes.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains a common malignancy with high mortality. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was developed to reduce the morbidity of conventional open esophagectomy (OE), but comparative evidence specifically addressing oncologic adequacy and postoperative recovery in ESCC is limited. This systematic review synthesizes comparative data on MIE vs. OE in ESCC. Methods: We conducted a PRISMA-compliant systematic review registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251158559). PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between January 2010 and May 2024. Nine comparative studies ( Results: Aggregate data indicate oncologic equivalence between MIE and OE: R0 resection rates were uniformly high (≥92%), and lymph node yields were comparable. Five out of nine studies (55.6%) reported no statistically significant differences in overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) between MIE and OE. However, selected analyses favored MIE (e.g., 3-year OS HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.43-0.68). Perioperatively, MIE demonstrated consistent advantages, including reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospital length of stay, and lower rates of pulmonary complications-particularly pneumonia-each of which was reported in seven of the nine included studies (77.8%). Anastomotic leak rates were similar; reports of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury were heterogeneous. Conclusion: In ESCC, MIE achieves oncologic outcomes comparable to OE while conferring reduced pulmonary morbidity, lower blood loss, and accelerated postoperative recovery, supporting its consideration as a standard surgical approach. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251158559, PROSPERO CRD420251158559.
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.