Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://dx.doi.org/10.25673/121637
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGomes dos Santos Ferreira Rebelo, Artur Luis-
dc.contributor.authorWadewitz, Elisabeth-
dc.contributor.authorSunami, Yoshiaki-
dc.contributor.authorFriedrichs, Juliane-
dc.contributor.authorGrilli, Maurizio-
dc.contributor.authorVey, Johannes A.-
dc.contributor.authorKlose, Johannes-
dc.contributor.authorBayram, Onur-
dc.contributor.authorMerling, Marie-
dc.contributor.authorKleeff, Jörg H.-
dc.contributor.authorRonellenfitsch, Ulrich-
dc.date.accessioned2025-12-10T06:31:33Z-
dc.date.available2025-12-10T06:31:33Z-
dc.date.issued2025-
dc.identifier.urihttps://opendata.uni-halle.de//handle/1981185920/123589-
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.25673/121637-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction - Esophageal cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Esophagectomy is the cornerstone of curative treatment, but the optimal surgical approach remains debated. Newer techniques such as hybrid esophagectomy, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), and robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) have been developed to improve perioperative outcomes while maintaining oncologic efficacy. We aim to compare the effects of open, hybrid, minimally invasive, and robot-assisted approaches to esophagectomy on survival and perioperative outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer. - Methods - A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted, including 10 reports from 6 randomized controlled trials identified via PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. Comparative analyses between open esophagectomy (OE), hybrid laparoscopy-thoracotomy (HYB LapS-ThoT), MIE, and RAMIE were performed using random-effects NMA models. Hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR), and mean differences (MD) were calculated for outcomes. - Results - There were no significant differences in overall survival among OE, HYB LapS-ThoT, MIE, and RAMIE. Pulmonary complications were significantly lower with MIE (OR 0.47, 95 % CI 0.33-0.69, p < 0.0001) and RAMIE (OR 0.39, 95 % CI 0.27-0.57, p < 0.0001) compared to OE. RAMIE yielded a higher lymph node harvest (MD 1.56, 95 % CI 0.58-2.54, p = 0.002) and lower reoperation rates (OR 0.65, 95 % CI 0.45-0.93, p = 0.020) than OE. HYB LapS-ThoT was associated with increased anastomotic leakage compared to OE (OR 1.66, 95 % CI 1.02-2.69, p = 0.041). - Conclusion - MIE and RAMIE significantly reduce pulmonary complications without compromising survival. Hybrid approaches appear to increase the risk of anastomotic leakage. These findings support minimally invasive techniques, especially RAMIE; however, more evidence and further studies are needed to allow for a clearer and more definitive conclusion.eng
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/-
dc.subject.ddc610-
dc.titleApproaches for esophagectomy for esophageal cancer : a network meta-analysiseng
dc.typeArticle-
local.versionTypepublishedVersion-
local.bibliographicCitation.journaltitleEuropean journal of surgical oncology-
local.bibliographicCitation.volume51-
local.bibliographicCitation.issue12-
local.bibliographicCitation.pagestart1-
local.bibliographicCitation.pageend7-
local.bibliographicCitation.publishernameHarcourt-
local.bibliographicCitation.publisherplaceBurlington, Mass.-
local.bibliographicCitation.doi10.1016/j.ejso.2025.110529-
local.openaccesstrue-
dc.identifier.ppn1943015783-
dc.description.noteOnline verfügbar: 21. Oktober 2025, Artikelversion: 28. Oktober 2025-
dc.description.noteGesehen am 01.12.2025-
cbs.publication.displayform2025-
local.bibliographicCitation.year2025-
cbs.sru.importDate2025-12-10T06:31:14Z-
local.bibliographicCitationEnthalten in European journal of surgical oncology - Burlington, Mass. : Harcourt, 1995-
local.accessrights.dnbfree-
Appears in Collections:Open Access Publikationen der MLU

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
1-s2.0-S0748798325009576-main.pdf2.44 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open