SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2026
Survival outcomes following total intravenous versus volatile anesthesia in esophagogastric cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEsophagogastric cancers remain among the leading causes of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Surgical resection represents the primary curative treatment strategy; however, perioperative factors may influence long-term oncological outcomes. Experimental and clinical evidence suggests that anesthetic techniques may affect tumor progression and recurrence through immunological and oncological pathways. Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) has been proposed to exert immunomodulatory and antitumor effects compared to volatile anesthesia (VA), although evidence remains inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of TIVA versus volatile anesthesia on survival outcomes in patients undergoing esophagogastric cancer surgery.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed and Scopus were searched for studies published between 2010 and 2025 comparing TIVA with volatile anesthesia in adult patients undergoing curative surgery for esophageal or gastric cancer. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included recurrence-free survival (RFS), early mortality, operation time, and postoperative hospital stay. Pooled hazard ratios (HR), risk ratios (RR), and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models.
resultsThirteen studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 10 retrospective studies) involving 264,543 patients were included. Of these, 41,977 patients received TIVA and 222,566 received volatile anesthesia. Pooled analysis of eight studies demonstrated significantly improved overall survival with TIVA (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.93; p = 0.003). Subgroup analysis showed a significant survival benefit in patients undergoing gastrectomy (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.91; p < 0.004), whereas no significant difference was observed for esophagectomy (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73-1.10; p = 0.29). TIVA was associated with non-significant trends toward improved recurrence-free survival (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77-1.06; p = 0.22) and reduced early mortality (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77-1.05; p = 0.17). No statistically significant differences were observed in operation time (MD - 3.81 min, 95% CI - 10.75 to 3.13) or hospital stay (MD - 0.19 days, 95% CI - 0.39 to 0.00; p = 0.06).
conclusionsTIVA may be associated with improved long-term survival outcomes compared with volatile anesthesia in patients undergoing esophagogastric cancer surgery, particularly among patients undergoing gastrectomy. Given the predominance of retrospective evidence and methodological heterogeneity, further high-quality prospective randomized studies are required to clarify the oncological impact of anesthetic techniques in upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42848087What 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.