ArticleAnnals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia2025
Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE) vs. Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (MIE) for Esophageal Cancer: A Nationwide Inpatient Sample Analysis from 2017 to 2020.
Article in Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study compared the short-term outcomes after conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) vs. robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE)s by analyzing national data.
methodsData were collected from adults aged ≥20 years who underwent MIE from 2017 to 2020, from the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. The outcomes included in-hospital mortality, unfavorable discharges, prolonged length of stays (LOS), total hospital charge, and various complications. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to balance the baseline characteristics between RAMIE and conventional MIE.
resultsAfter PSM, 628 patients (representing 3140 patients in the US after weighting) were analyzed. After adjustment, multivariable analysis revealed no significant differences between RAMIE and traditional MIE in terms of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odd ratio [aOR] =1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-4.61), unfavorable discharge (aOR = 0.76, 95%CI: 0.41-1.41), prolonged LOS (aOR = 0.87, 95%CI: 0.60-1.26), total hospital charge (aBeta = 12.23, 95%CI: -19.24 to 43.69), or complications (aOR = 1.05, 95%CI: 0.78-1.41). Stratified analysis indicated that, among obese patients, RAMIE was associated significantly with a higher risk of overall complications compared with MIE (aOR = 1.90, 95%CI: 1.11-3.25).
conclusionsThe study found no significant differences in unfavorable discharge and prolonged LOS between RAMIE and traditional MIE. Nevertheless, obese patients undergoing RAMIE experienced higher complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.