Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23263644›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2013

Laparoscopic total gastrectomy versus open total gastrectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Leonie Haverkamp, Teus J Weijs, Pieter C van der Sluis, Ingeborg van der Tweel, Jelle P Ruurda, Richard van Hillegersberg

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03500471 (Safety and Feasibility Between Robotic and Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy With D2 Lymphadenectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer：A Prospective Cohort Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 88 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
13.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03500471 completednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Safety and Feasibility Between Robotic and Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy With D2 Lymphadenectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer：A Prospective Cohort Study

TypeobservationalSponsorSouthwest Hospital, ChinaRan2018 to 2021Enrolled142ConditionsGastric CancerArmsRobotic-assisted Total Gastrectomy, Laparoscopic-assisted Total Gastrectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

88 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 200 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A systematic review on the effectiveness of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Open versus minimally invasive total gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results of a European randomized trial.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2021
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Single-arm confirmatory trial of laparoscopy-assisted total or proximal gastrectomy with nodal dissection for clinical stage I gastric cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group study JCOG1401.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2019
    Trial
  12. A feasibility study of laparoscopic total gastrectomy for clinical stage I gastric cancer: a prospective multi-center phase II clinical trial, KLASS 03.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2019
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Leonie HaverkampDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. l.haverkamp@umcutrecht.nl
Teus J Weijs
Pieter C van der Sluis
Ingeborg van der Tweel
Jelle P Ruurda
Richard van Hillegersberg
University Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe possible advantages of laparoscopic (assisted) total gastrectomy (LTG) versus open total gastrectomy (OTG) have not been reviewed systematically. The aim of this study was to systematically review the short-term outcomes of LTG versus OTG in the treatment of gastric cancer.

methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Embase was conducted. All original studies comparing LTG with OTG were included for critical appraisal. Data describing short-term outcomes were pooled and analyzed.

resultsA total of eight original studies that compared LTG (n = 314) with OTG (n = 384) in patients with gastric cancer fulfilled quality criteria and were selected for review and meta-analysis. LTG compared with OTG was associated with a significant reduction of intraoperative blood loss (weighted mean difference = 227.6 ml; 95 % CI 144.3-310.9; p < 0.001), a reduced risk of postoperative complications (risk ratio = 0.51; 95 % CI 0.33-0.77), and shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference 4.0 = days; 95 % CI 1.4-6.5; p < 0.001). These benefits were at the cost of longer operative time (weighted mean difference = 55.5 min; 95 % CI 24.8-86.2; p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality rates were comparable for LTG (0.9 %) and OTG (1.8 %) (risk ratio = 0.68; 95 % CI 0.20-2.36).

conclusionLTG shows better short term outcomes compared with OTG in eligible patients with gastric cancer. Future studies should evaluate 30- and 60-day mortality, radicality of resection, and long-term follow-up in LTG versus OTG, preferably in randomized trials.

Indexed as

AgedAsiaBlood Loss, SurgicalCase-Control StudiesCohort StudiesConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicEuropeFemaleGastrectomyHospital MortalityHumansLaparoscopyLaparotomyLength of StayLymph Node ExcisionMale

Identifiers

PMID23263644
OpenAlexW2007195218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.