Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24968310›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Does laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery for gastric submucosal tumors preserve residual gastric motility? Results of a retrospective single-center study.

Yohei Waseda, Hisashi Doyama, Noriyuki Inaki, Hiroyoshi Nakanishi, Naohiro Yoshida, Shigetsugu Tsuji, Kenichi Takemura, Shinya Yamada, Toshihide Okada

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yohei WasedaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Ishikawa Prefectural Central Hospital, 2-1 Kuratsukihigashi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan.
Hisashi DoyamaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Ishikawa Prefectural Central Hospital, 2-1 Kuratsukihigashi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan.
Noriyuki InakiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Ishikawa Prefectural Central Hospital, 2-1 Kuratsukihigashi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan.
Hiroyoshi NakanishiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Ishikawa Prefectural Central Hospital, 2-1 Kuratsukihigashi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan.
Naohiro YoshidaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Ishikawa Prefectural Central Hospital, 2-1 Kuratsukihigashi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan.
Shigetsugu TsujiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Ishikawa Prefectural Central Hospital, 2-1 Kuratsukihigashi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan.
Kenichi TakemuraDepartment of Gastroenterology, Ishikawa Prefectural Central Hospital, 2-1 Kuratsukihigashi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan.
Shinya YamadaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Ishikawa Prefectural Central Hospital, 2-1 Kuratsukihigashi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan.
Toshihide OkadaDepartment of General Medicine, Ishikawa Prefectural Central Hospital, 2-1 Kuratsukihigashi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan.
Ishikawa Prefectural Central Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) is a minimally invasive surgical technique used to resect gastric submucosal tumors with intraluminal growth. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is used to determine the appropriate resection line from within the stomach lumen as it minimizes the stomach wall resection area and prevents postoperative stomach deformity. Although LECS is intended to preserve gastric function, few reports have evaluated postoperative residual gastric motility. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent LECS to determine the effects of LECS on residual gastric motility.

methodsTwenty-two patients underwent endoscopy 3 to 12 months after LECS. Patients were evaluated for endoscopic evidence of gastric motility disorder, namely food residue and occurrence/exacerbation of reflux esophagitis. We considered patients with new onset of gastric symptoms and endoscopic evidence of gastric motility disorder to have clinically relevant gastric motility disorder. We described patient characteristics, tumor location, and surgical findings.

resultsTwo of 22 patients developed clinically relevant gastric motility disorder after LECS. In one of these patients, the symptoms were not severe; only one had reduced dietary intake and had lost weight. We identified clinically relevant gastric motility disorder in two patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors located in the lesser curvature of the stomach. The major axis of these two tumors was 34 mm and 38 mm.

conclusionsMany patients did not have clinically relevant gastric motility disorder after LECS. Further investigation is required to identify predisposing factors for gastric motility disorder.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MotilityAdultAgedFemaleGastrointestinal Stromal TumorsHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedStomach Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID24968310
PMCPMC4072788
OpenAlexW2055975695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.