FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1569306645> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1569306645 abstract "Background Surgery is the preferred treatment for resectable oesophageal cancers, and can be performed in different ways. Transhiatal oesophagectomy (oesophagectomy without thoracotomy, with a cervical anastomosis) is one way to resect oesophageal cancers. It can be performed laparoscopically or by open method. With other organs, laparoscopic surgery has been shown to reduce complications and length of hospital stay compared to open surgery. However, concerns remain about the safety of laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy in terms of post‐operative complications and oncological clearance compared with open transhiatal oesophagectomy. Objectives To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic versus open oesophagectomy for people with oesophageal cancer undergoing transhiatal oesophagectomy. Search methods We electronically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers until August 2015. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials. Selection criteria We considered randomised controlled trials and non‐randomised studies comparing laparoscopic with open transhiatal oesophagectomy in patients with resectable oesophageal cancer, regardless of language, blinding, or publication status for the review. Data collection and analysis Three review authors independently identified trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using both fixed‐effect and random‐effects models, with RevMan 5, based on intention‐to‐treat analyses. Main results We found no randomised controlled trials on this topic. We included six non‐randomised studies (five retrospective) that compared laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy (334 patients: laparoscopic = 154 patients; open = 180 patients); five studies (326 patients: laparoscopic = 151 patients; open = 175 patients) provided information for one or more outcomes. Most studies included a mixture of adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma and different stages of oesophageal cancer, without metastases. All the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias; the overall quality of evidence was very low for all the outcomes. The differences between laparoscopic and open transhiatal oesophagectomy were imprecise for short‐term mortality (laparoscopic = 0/151 (adjusted proportion based on meta‐analysis estimate: 0.5%) versus open = 2/175 (1.1%); RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.05 to 4.09; participants = 326; studies = 5; I² = 0%); long‐term mortality (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; participants = 193; studies = 2; I² = 0%); anastomotic stenosis (laparoscopic = 4/36 (11.1%) versus open = 3/37 (8.1%); RR 1.37; 95% CI 0.33 to 5.70; participants = 73; studies = 1); short‐term recurrence (laparoscopic = 1/16 (6.3%) versus open = 0/4 (0%); RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.04 to 18.47; participants = 20; studies = 1); long‐term recurrence (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18; participants = 173; studies = 2); proportion of people who required blood transfusion (laparoscopic = 0/36 (0%) versus open = 6/37 (16.2%); RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.00 to 1.35; participants = 73; studies = 1); proportion of people with positive resection margins (laparoscopic = 15/102 (15.8%) versus open = 27/111 (24.3%); RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.12; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); and the number of lymph nodes harvested during surgery (median difference between the groups varied from 12 less to 3 more lymph nodes in the laparoscopic compared to the open group; participants = 326; studies = 5). The proportion of patients with serious adverse events was lower in the laparoscopic group (10/99, (10.3%) compared to the open group = 24/114 (21.1%); RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.99; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); as it was for adverse events in the laparoscopic group = 37/99 (39.9%) versus the open group = 71/114 (62.3%); RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.86; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); and the median lengths of hospital stay were significantly less in the laparoscopic group than the open group (three days less in all three studies that reported this outcome; number of participants = 266). There was lack of clarity as to whether the median difference in the quantity of blood transfused was statistically significant favouring laparoscopic oesophagectomy in the only study that reported this information. None of the studies reported post‐operative dysphagia, health‐related quality of life, time‐to‐return to normal activity (return to pre‐operative mobility without caregiver support), or time‐to‐return to work. Authors' conclusions There are currently no randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic with open transhiatal oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancers. In observational studies, laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy is associated with fewer overall complications and shorter hospital stays than open transhiatal oesophagectomy. However, this association is unlikely to be causal. There is currently no information to determine a causal association in the differences between the two surgical approaches. Randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy with other methods of oesophagectomy are required to determine the optimal method of oesophagectomy." @default.
• W1569306645 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1569306645 creator A5046454513 @default.
• W1569306645 creator A5060539123 @default.
• W1569306645 creator A5072574199 @default.
• W1569306645 creator A5079079428 @default.
• W1569306645 date "2016-03-31" @default.
• W1569306645 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W1569306645 title "Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer" @default.
• W1569306645 cites W1506158631 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W1966982004 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W1973813218 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W1975170564 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W1976776677 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W1981339893 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W1984768836 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W1985779697 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W1986160387 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W1997940193 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W1998272220 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W1998603067 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2001744792 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2012094327 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2024959580 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2028588675 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2029008914 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2033402825 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2034900776 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2035704149 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2040383781 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2041560748 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2046929096 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2062014912 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2064525475 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2065710971 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2068466525 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2071071326 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2075352295 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2075557500 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2075642745 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2077237485 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2082184434 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2086148792 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2091135557 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2096998881 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2101472721 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2107328434 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2111674123 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2121626913 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2122102652 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2128998354 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2144173184 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2150392828 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2157823046 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2166212817 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2167327238 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W2181901958 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W3143574602 @default.
• W1569306645 cites W4230938913 @default.
• W1569306645 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd011390.pub2" @default.
• W1569306645 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/7086382" @default.
• W1569306645 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27030301" @default.
• W1569306645 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W1569306645 type Work @default.
• W1569306645 sameAs 1569306645 @default.
• W1569306645 citedByCount "19" @default.
• W1569306645 countsByYear W15693066452016 @default.
• W1569306645 countsByYear W15693066452017 @default.
• W1569306645 countsByYear W15693066452018 @default.
• W1569306645 countsByYear W15693066452019 @default.
• W1569306645 countsByYear W15693066452020 @default.
• W1569306645 countsByYear W15693066452022 @default.
• W1569306645 countsByYear W15693066452023 @default.
• W1569306645 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1569306645 hasAuthorship W1569306645A5046454513 @default.
• W1569306645 hasAuthorship W1569306645A5060539123 @default.
• W1569306645 hasAuthorship W1569306645A5072574199 @default.
• W1569306645 hasAuthorship W1569306645A5079079428 @default.
• W1569306645 hasBestOaLocation W15693066452 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConcept C207103383 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConcept C2771230 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConcept C2776478404 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConcept C2777297899 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConcept C2779742542 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConcept C2780047204 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConceptScore W1569306645C121608353 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConceptScore W1569306645C126322002 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConceptScore W1569306645C141071460 @default.
• W1569306645 hasConceptScore W1569306645C168563851 @default.

• next