SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2026
Uniportal versus Multiportal Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery for Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in Esophageal Cancer: A GRADE-Assessed Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive esophagectomy has become the preferred surgical approach for esophageal cancer, with uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (uVATS) emerging as a potential refinement over conventional multiportal VATS (mVATS). However, comparative evidence remains limited to small single-centre studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate perioperative and safety outcomes of uVATS versus mVATS in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy.
methodsA systematic search was conducted across PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CNKI from inception through April 2026. Studies directly comparing uVATS with mVATS in adults undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy were eligible. Binary outcomes were pooled as odds ratios and continuous outcomes as mean differences under REML random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework.
resultsNine studies comparing uVATS and mVATS were included. uVATS was associated with significantly lower postoperative pain on day one (MD - 2.10, 95% CI - 3.63 to - 0.57; I² = 99.3%), reduced postoperative pneumonia (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.76; I² = 43.5%), and shorter length of hospital stay (MD - 2.13 days, 95% CI - 3.64 to - 0.63; I² = 96.8%). No significant differences were observed between approaches for anastomotic leakage (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.61-2.09), overall complications (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.47-1.32), recurrent laryngeal nerve injury (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.43-1.85), perioperative mortality (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.16-1.81), intraoperative blood loss, or total operative time.
conclusionUVATS esophagectomy appears to be a feasible and safe alternative to mVATS, with potential advantages in postoperative pain, pulmonary morbidity, and hospital stay while maintaining comparable perioperative safety. The evidence base remains limited by high heterogeneity and predominance of observational studies. Multicenter randomized trials with standardized protocols and long-term oncologic follow-up are needed to consolidate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42878946What 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.