ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2026
Institutional modified post esophagectomy care protocol offers improved perioperative outcomes - a single-center propensity score matched analysis.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTwo-field esophagectomy for esophageal cancer and tumors of the esophagogastric junction is associated with substantial postoperative morbidity and mortality. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of 325 consecutive patients who underwent two-field esophagectomy. Of these, 279 were treated under the modified perioperative regimen, while 46 received standard care. To adjust for baseline differences, we conducted 1:1 propensity-score matching. Postoperative outcomes, including complication rates, anastomotic leakage, Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) and textbook outcome rates were compared between groups. This trial was prospectively registered (DRKS00024369) and approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University of Freiburg (Reg.-Nr. 21-1093 and 21-1713).
resultsPrior to PSM, modified care group demonstrated a higher frequency of textbook outcomes and a significantly lower incidence of anastomotic leakage compared with standard care. Overall rates of major complications did not differ significantly between groups, though a trend toward reduced complication severity as measured by CCI was observed. After PSM, baseline characteristics were balanced. Rates of textbook outcome (Clavien-Dindo 0: 15.2% vs 28.3%, p=0.14) and severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥III: 39.1% vs 58.7%, p=0.095) were reduced but did not reach statistical significance. The CCI remained numerically lower in modified care (32.01 vs 35.70, p=0.061). Odds ratios for major complications (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.20-1.04), anastomotic leakage (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06-1.59) and IMC readmission (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.08-1.34) favored modified care but were not statistically significant. Fluid balance on POD4 and early parenteral nutrition were similar after matching. Acute kidney injury did not occur more frequently after HES-application. Overall and disease-free survival did not differ between groups.
conclusionsThe modified perioperative regimen applied in this study appears to be a safe alternative to conventional ERAS®-based pathways. While definitive superiority could not be demonstrated after propensity matching, the observed trends - particularly regarding anastomotic integrity and overall complication burden - support further prospective evaluation of this 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.