Combined and intraoperative risk modelling for oesophagectomy: A systematic review

Table 1 Development studies of combined and intraoperative multivariate models

Ref.	Period + number	Sample region	Operation	Characteristics	Source of data	Models tested	Outcomes tested
Janowak et al[26], 2015	2009-2013 (168)	United States	TT/TH/Hybrid/MIE	N: 93/168; H: N/A	Single centre	eSAS	Major morbidity
Yoshida et al[28], 2015	2005-2013 (365)	Japan	TT	N: 113/250; H: N/A	Single centre	Yoshida score	Morbidity +; Major morbidity
Stroyer et al[27], 2017	2011-2014 (234)	Denmark	TT	N: 188/234; H: N/A	Single centre	Modified eSAS, SAS, eSAS	Major morbidity
Xi et al[30], 2019	2015-2018 (194)	China	TT/Hybrid/MIE	N: 48/194; H: N/A	Single centre	eSAS nomogram	Major morbidity
Xi et al[29], 2020	2015-2017 (251)	China	TT/Hybrid/MIE	N: 56/251; H: N/A	Single centre	IPF nomogram	Major morbidity
Huang et al[31], 2020	2016-2018 (330)	China	TT/Hybrid/MIE	N: 41/330; H: 321SCC/9AC	Single centre	Huang nomogram	Anastomotic leak

TT: Transthoracic; TH: Transhiatal; MIE: Minimally invasive esophagectomy; N: Neoadjuvant status; H: Histopatholog; N/A: Not applicable; SCC: Squamous cell carcinoma; AC: Adenocarcinoma; eSAS: Esophagectomy surgical Apgar score; SAS: Surgical Apgar score; IPF: Intraoperative factors.