Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41960093›Full record

ArticleJTCVS open2026

Variations in morbidity and mortality based on esophagectomy approach and leak status: Insights from a statewide quality collaborative.

Jenny Bui, Donald Chang, Katelyn R Ward, Mary Hollenbeck, Andrew M Popoff, Thomas J Watson, Kiran Lagisetty, Shelly Lall, Kumari Adams, Geoffrey Lam and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JTCVS open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Jenny BuiDepartment of Surgery, Section of Thoracic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Donald ChangDepartment of Surgery, Henry Ford, Detroit, Mich.
Katelyn R WardDepartment of Surgery, Section of Thoracic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Mary HollenbeckMichigan Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons Quality Collaborative, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Andrew M PopoffDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, Mich.
Thomas J WatsonDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Corewell Health East William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich.
Kiran LagisettyDepartment of Surgery, Section of Thoracic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Shelly LallDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Munson Medical Center, Transverse City, Mich.
Kumari AdamsDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Trinity Health Ann Arbor Hospital, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Geoffrey LamDivision of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Corewell Health West, Meijer Heart Center, Grand Rapids, Mich.
Rishindra M ReddyDepartment of Surgery, Section of Thoracic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Anastomotic leak remains a major source of morbidity after esophagectomy. Cervical anastomoses have been associated with higher leak rates compared with intrathoracic anastomoses; however, cervical leaks may have a less severe clinical impact. The aim was to determine whether the patterns of leak occurrence and severity varied by surgical approach among institutions at a regional level. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data for patients who underwent open or minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy or transthoracic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between January 2015 and March 2023 at 13 centers. Patients were stratified by procedure type and leak rates, and postoperative complications were examined. Logistic regression assessed associations among the surgical technique, leak rates, and postoperative complications. Results: A total of 1230 patients undergoing esophagectomies were reviewed: 500 (41%) with open transhiatal esophagectomy, 135 (11%) with open transthoracic esophagectomy, 258 (21%) with minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy, and 337 (27%) with minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy. Leak rates ranged from 14% to 23%, with the highest rate observed in minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy and the lowest in open transthoracic esophagectomy ( Conclusions: Although leak rates are higher with transhiatal esophagectomy, open transthoracic esophagectomy is associated with greater morbidity and mortality after leak.

Indexed as

anastomotic leakesophagectomytranshiataltransthoracic

Identifiers

PMID41960093
PMCPMC13059859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.