Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy of adjuvant radiotherapy after thymoma resection. Methods The PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang, VIP, CNKI databases were systematically searched to find relevant literature comparing the efficacy and effectiveness of thymoma resection and thymoma resection+postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) for treating thymoma published from inception to January 2024. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of included retrospective studies, and Review Manager 5.4 software was used to perform meta-analysis. Results A total of 23 articles were included, all of which were retrospective studies. There were a total of 13742 patients, including 6980 patients in the simple surgery group, with 3321 males and 3659 females, and an average age of 54.08 years; 6762 patients in the surgery+PORT group, with 3385 males and 3377 females, and an average age of 53.76 years. The NOS scores of the included literature were all≥7 points. The results of the meta-analysis showed that compared with the simple surgery group, the surgery+PORT group had higher 1-year overall survival rate [OR=0.32, 95%CI (0.25, 0.42), P<0.001], 3-year overall survival rate [OR=0.55, 95%CI (0.48, 0.64), P<0.001], 5-year overall survival rate [OR=0.66, 95%CI (0.58, 0.75), P<0.001], 10-year overall survival rate [OR=0.71, 95%CI (0.57, 0.88), P=0.002], 1-year disease-free survival rate [OR=0.47, 95%CI (0.23, 0.93), P=0.030], 5-year disease-free survival rate [OR=0.61, 95%CI (0.45, 0.84), P=0.003], 3-year disease-specific survival rate [OR=0.44, 95%CI (0.35, 0.55), P<0.001], 5-year disease-specific survival rate [OR=0.53, 95%CI (0.44, 0.63), P<0.001] and 10-year disease-specific survival rate [OR=0.53, 95%CI (0.35, 0.82), P=0.004]. But there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of 3-year disease-free survival rate [OR=0.86, 95%CI (0.61, 1.22), P=0.400], 10-year disease-free survival rate [OR=0.70, 95%CI (0.47, 1.05), P=0.080] and 1-year disease-specific survival rate [OR=0.83, 95%CI (0.55, 1.26), P=0.380]. Conclusion PORT after thymoma resection has more advantages than simple surgical treatment in terms of 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year overall survival, 1- and 5-year disease-free survival, and 3-, 5- and 10-year disease-specific survival.

Objective To compare the short-term efficacy and safety of inflatable video-assisted mediastinoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy (IVMTE) and minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy (MITE) in the treatment of esophageal cancer. Methods The Cochrane Library, EMbase, PubMed, Wanfang Database, VIP, and CNKI were searched. Literatures related to the short-term efficacy and safety of IVMTE and MITE in the treatment of esophageal neoplasms published from the establishment of the database to December 2023 were searched and meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan5.4. Quality of case control study or cohort study was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and quality of randomized controlled trial was assessed by Cochrane Handbook. Results A total of 14 studies (12 case control studies and 1 prospective cohort study wiht NOS score more than 7 points and 1 randomized controlled trial wiht low bias risk) were included, comprising 1 163 patients, with 525 in the IVMTE group and 638 in the MITE group. The results of meta-analysis revealed that the IVMTE group exhibited significantly shorter operative time [MD=−60.42, 95%CI (−83.78, −37.07), P<0.001] and postoperative hospital stay [MD=−2.44, 95%CI (−2.93, −1.94), P<0.01] compared to the MITE group. Moreover, intraoperative blood loss [MD=−34.67, 95%CI (−59.11, −10.23), P=0.005], three-day postoperative drainage [MD=−286.66, 95%CI (−469.93, −103.40), P=0.002], incidence of postoperative pulmonary infection [OR=0.38, 95%CI (0.26, 0.56), P<0.001], lung leakage rate [OR=0.12, 95% CI (0.02, 0.63), P=0.01] and overall complication rate [MD=0.41, 95%CI (0.22, 0.75), P=0.004] were all lower in the IVMTE group compared to those in the MITE group. However, the MITE technique demonstrated superiority over IVMTE regarding intraoperative lymph dissection number [MD=−3.52, 95%CI (−6.36, –0.68), P=0.02] and intraoperative recurrent laryngeal nerve injury [OR=1.78, 95%CI (1.22, 2.60), P=0.003]. No significant difference was observed between both methods concerning anastomotic fistula. Conclusion Compared to MITE, IVMTE has advantages such as shorter operation time, less intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospital stay, less postoperative drainage within 3 days, and a lower incidence of pulmonary complications. In terms of laryngeal recurrent nerve injury and lymphatic dissection, MITE operation offers more benefits.