ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Clinical advantage of robot-assisted over conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy in patients with a narrow mediastinum.
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral studies have compared long-term outcomes between robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) and conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (C-MIE). In C-MIE, patients with a narrow mediastinum present greater technical difficulty. This study compared long-term outcomes of RAMIE and C-MIE in this subgroup.
methodsBetween April 2017 and December 2023, we analyzed 272 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who underwent RAMIE or C-MIE at Kobe University Hospital. Mediastinal width was measured at the tracheal bifurcation using computed tomography; a narrow mediastinum was defined as a width ratio below the median.
resultsBaseline characteristics and preoperative treatments did not differ significantly between groups in the overall cohort or narrow-mediastinum subgroup. In the overall cohort, overall survival (OS) did not differ between RAMIE and C-MIE across disease stages. In the narrow-mediastinum subgroup, OS did not differ between RAMIE and C-MIE among patients with cT1N0 ESCC (p = 0.85). By contrast, among those with cT1N + or cT2 ≤ N any ESCC, the C-MIE group showed a trend toward poorer OS than the RAMIE group (p = 0.065). In patients with cT1N + or cT2 ≤ N any ESCC, patients with a narrow mediastinum undergoing C-MIE had significantly worse OS than those with a wide mediastinum (p = 0.028). In contrast, no such difference occurred in those undergoing RAMIE (p = 0.29). Multivariate analysis of the narrow-mediastinum subgroup showed that clinical tumor invasion (≥ cT2) and C-MIE were independent prognostic factors for OS (p = 0.0004 and 0.041, respectively).
conclusionsRAMIE may mitigate the adverse effects associated with narrow mediastinal anatomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42736458What 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.