ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Minimally invasive vs. open esophagectomy in patients with a BMI > 35: a NSQIP 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
backgroundIn this analysis, we aim to examine the outcomes of minimally invasive and open esophagectomy in patients with a BMI > 35. STUDY
designThis is a retrospective cohort study utilizing the NSQIP Targeted Esophagectomy database from 2016 to 2023. We identified patients with a BMI > 35 who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) for malignancy. Primary outcome measures included morbidity, mortality, and incidence of anastomotic leak. Secondary measures included length of stay (LOS), unplanned return to OR, pneumonia, ventilator > 48 h, unplanned intubation, and SSI.
results243 patients underwent MIE and 221 patients underwent OE. 30-day mortality was 2.87% in the MIE cohort and 4.32% in the open cohort [OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.45-5.45]. Overall morbidity was 41.1% in the MIE cohort vs 45.3% in OE [OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.80-1.74]. Anastomotic leak showed no significant difference between both cohorts [19% MIE vs 17% OE, OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.52-1.43]. LOS was significantly lower in the MIE cohort compared to OE (9.96 days vs. 11.31, 95% CI 2.69-0.02, P = 0.046). After logistic regression to adjust for confounding covariates, the estimated odds of experiencing each binary outcome, aside from pneumonia, were higher in the OE cohort. LOS increased by 1.41 days (95% CI 0.05-2.77) in the OE cohort after linear regression to adjust for confounding covariates.
conclusionsWe demonstrate that MIE has comparable outcomes to OE in several measures in patients with a BMI > 35. We also found significantly improved LOS in the MIE cohort. Our data suggest that in this patient population, MIE may demonstrate a comparable safety profile to the traditional open approach.
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.