ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Thoracoscopic versus endoscopic resection for esophageal leiomyoma: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEsophageal leiomyoma is the most common benign mesenchymal tumor of the esophagus. Minimally invasive management is performed by thoracoscopic surgery or endoscopic resection, but comparative evidence remains limited. This study evaluated perioperative outcomes and treatment-selection patterns for thoracic and endoscopic resection.
methodsPatients with pathologically confirmed leiomyoma who underwent resection between January 2015 and September 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with malignant components, biopsy/fine-needle aspiration only, or incomplete data were excluded. A 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was performed using nearest-neighbor matching with a caliper of 0.1, matching age, sex, tumor location, and maximal tumor diameter.
resultsA total of 1,348 patients were included in the primary analysis: 132 underwent minimally invasive thoracic surgery and 1,216 underwent endoscopic resection. In the endoscopic group, 54.5% underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection and 45.5% underwent submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection. In the MIS group, 62 patients (47.0%) received intraoperative endoscopic assistance. Endoscopic resection was associated with shorter operative duration (41.9 ± 39.9 vs 114.8 ± 71.0 min, p < 0.001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (median 2.0 vs 5.0 days, p < 0.001), whereas minimally invasive thoracic surgery was used for larger tumors (median 5.0 vs 1.3 cm, p < 0.001). After matching, 113 pairs were analyzed. Endoscopic resection remained associated with shorter operative duration (73.7 ± 62.9 vs 111.6 ± 61.5 min, p = 0.009) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (median 3.0 vs 5.0 days, p < 0.001). In the matched cohort, nasogastric tube placement and delayed stay of 5 days or longer were less common after endoscopic resection.
conclusionsEndoscopic resection was associated with faster postoperative recovery in patients with esophageal leiomyoma, whereas thoracic surgery remained important for larger tumors and complex lesions. These findings support a size- and location-oriented treatment strategy rather than a universal preference for either approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42886246What 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.