P1.067. Multinational Comparison of Surgical Approaches and Postoperative Outcomes in Esophageal Cancer: An International Multicenter Cohort Study

Clicks: 14
ID: 326096
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #442 of 453 articles by views in diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 453 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Topic Esophageal Cancer: Surgical Treatment of Esophageal Cancer Background Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer carries substantial morbidity, yet the extent to which institutional surgical strategy—encompassing operative approach, lymphadenectomy extent, and neoadjuvant treatment protocol—determines postoperative complication profiles remains poorly characterized across different geographic practice environments. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained international multicenter database (ISDE) comprising 2,490 patients who underwent curative-intent esophagectomy across four centers (Centers A–D; n=825, 499, 1,012, and 154 respectively). Primary outcomes were postoperative complication rates, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay. Given substantial heterogeneity in neoadjuvant therapy rates (Center A 81.1% versus Center D 11.0%), pathological stage distribution, and lymphadenectomy extent, all cross-institutional comparisons were performed descriptively with formal confounding adjustment deferred to propensity-matched subgroup analyses. Results Marked inter-institutional variation in surgical strategy was observed. Center A was characterized by near-universal thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy (93.7% thoracoscopy), three-field lymphadenectomy, and the highest neoadjuvant treatment rate (81.1%). Center B predominantly underwent open Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (80.6%), with robotic assistance in 13.6% and concurrent chemoradiotherapy in 46.3%. Center C demonstrated approximately 70% minimally invasive adoption with two-field dissection, while Center D uniformly employed McKeown esophagectomy with selected cervical dissection. Center A exhibited the highest rate of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (28.6%) and chylothorax (7.8%), reflecting systematic radical dissection. Despite this, in-hospital mortality was 0.7%, ICU stay was a median of 3 days (IQR 2–3), and postoperative length of stay was 14 days (IQR 12–19). Anastomotic leakage rates were comparable across centers with available data (Center A 9.3%; Center C 10.7%; Center D 11.0%). Recurrent laryngeal nerve injury was lower in centers employing two-field dissection (Center C 8.3%; Center D 15.6%). Conclusion Operative strategy is the primary driver of postoperative complication phenotype in esophageal cancer surgery. Three-field lymphadenectomy uniquely confers high recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy and chylothorax rates despite low mortality. Valid cross-institutional outcome benchmarking requires rigorous adjustment for neoadjuvant treatment exposure, pathological stage composition, and dissection field extent.
Reference Key
openalex_W7203979113 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Simiao Lu, Yi Zhu, Yongtao Han, Qiuling Shi, Xuefeng Leng
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/dote/doag077.215
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doag077.215
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.