Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26511124›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016

Potential benefits of laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy with esophagogastrostomy for cT1 upper-third gastric cancer.

Kei Hosoda, Keishi Yamashita, Natsuya Katada, Hiromitsu Moriya, Hiroaki Mieno, Tomotaka Shibata, Shinichi Sakuramoto, Shiro Kikuchi, Masahiko Watanabe

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Proximal Gastrectomy Versus Total Gastrectomy for Siewert II/III Adenocarcinoma of the Gastroesophageal Junction: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Laparoscopic Proximal GastrectomyFrontiers in oncology · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. A nonrandomized controlled trial: long-term outcomes of LATG/LAPG for cStage 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 · 2024
    Article
  10. Surgery Matters: Progress in Surgical Management of Gastric Cancer.Current treatment options in oncology · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Impact of endoscopic resection on the choice of surgical procedure in patients with additional laparoscopic gastrectomy.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kei HosodaDepartment of Surgery, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Kitasato 1-15-1, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan. k.hosoda@kitasato-u.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0002-9787-2889
Keishi YamashitaDepartment of Surgery, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Kitasato 1-15-1, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Natsuya KatadaDepartment of Surgery, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Kitasato 1-15-1, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Hiromitsu MoriyaDepartment of Surgery, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Kitasato 1-15-1, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Hiroaki MienoDepartment of Surgery, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Kitasato 1-15-1, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Tomotaka ShibataDepartment of Gastroenterological and Pediatric Surgery, Oita University Faculty of Medicine, Oita, Japan.
Shinichi SakuramotoDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Saitama, Japan.
Shiro KikuchiDepartment of Surgery, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Kitasato 1-15-1, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Masahiko WatanabeDepartment of Surgery, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Kitasato 1-15-1, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Kitasato University · JPOita University · JPSaitama Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFew reports have compared laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy (LAPG) with laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) in patients with cT1N0 gastric cancer. This study assessed the safety and feasibility of LAPG with esophagogastrostomy in these patients and compared postgastrectomy disturbances and nutritional status following LAPG and LATG.

methodsThis study compared 40 patients who underwent LAPG with esophagogastrostomy and 59 who underwent LATG with esophagojejunostomy, both with OrVil™. Surgical outcomes, postoperative complications, nutritional status at 1 and 2 years, and relapse-free survival were compared in these two groups.

resultsOperation time was significantly shorter in the LAPG group than in the LATG group (280 min vs. 365 min, P < 0.001). Although the rate of surgical complications was similar in the two groups, the rate of anastomotic stricture was significantly higher in the LAPG group than in the LATG group (28 vs. 8.4 %; P = 0.012). Rates of reflux esophagitis graded A or higher in the Los Angeles classification were 10 and 5.1 %, respectively. Hemoglobin levels 2 years after surgery, relative to baseline levels, were significantly higher in the LAPG group than in the LATG group (98.6 vs. 92.9 %, P = 0.020). Body weight, albumin and total protein concentrations, and total lymphocyte count 1 and 2 years after surgery were slightly, but not significantly, higher in the LAPG group. Relapse-free survival rates were similar, as were 5-year overall survival rates (86 vs. 79 %, P = 0.42).

conclusionsLAPG with esophagogastrostomy using OrVil™ was safe and feasible for patients with cT1N0 gastric cancer. LAPG may have nutritional advantages over LATG, but the rate of anastomotic stricture was significantly higher for LAPG than for LATG.

Indexed as

JejunostomyLaparoscopyAdenocarcinomaAgedAnastomosis, SurgicalConstriction, PathologicEsophagusFemaleGastrectomyHemoglobinsHumansLymphocyte CountMaleNutritional StatusPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesHemoglobinsEsophagogastrostomyLaparoscopic surgeryOrVilProximal gastrectomyTotal gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID26511124
OpenAlexW1844293273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.