Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27336885›Full record

ArticleMedicine2016

Comparison of laparoscopy-assisted and open radical gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A retrospective study in a single minimally invasive surgery center.

Yingxue Hao, Peiwu Yu, Feng Qian, Yongliang Zhao, Yan Shi, Bo Tang, Dongzhu Zeng, Chao Zhang

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05707338 (Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastrectomy With Lymph Node Dissection for Early Gastric Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

NCT05707338 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastrectomy With Lymph Node Dissection for Early Gastric Cancer :a Randomized Controlled Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorSohag UniversityRan2023 to 2025Enrolled40ConditionsEarly Gastric CancerArmsGastrectomy with lymph node dissection
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Long-Term Results and Current Problems in Laparoscopic Gastrectomy: Single-Center Experience.Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. [Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer : Operative and postoperative results].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2020
    Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yingxue HaoDepartment of General Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Peiwu Yu
Feng Qian
Yongliang Zhao
Yan Shi
Bo Tang
Dongzhu Zeng
Chao Zhang
Southwest Hospital · CNArmy Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) has gained international acceptance for the treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC). However, the use of laparoscopic surgery in the management of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) has not attained widespread acceptance. This retrospective large-scale patient study in a single center for minimally invasive surgery assessed the feasibility and safety of LAG for T2 and T3 stage AGC. A total of 628 patients underwent LAG and 579 patients underwent open gastrectomy (OG) from Jan 2004 to Dec 2011. All cases underwent radical lymph node (LN) dissection from D1 to D2+. This study compared short- and long-term results between the 2 groups after stratifying by pTNM stages, including the mean operation time, volume of blood loss, number of harvested LNs, average days of postoperative hospital stay, mean gastrointestinal function recovery time, intra- and post-operative complications, recurrence rate, recurrence site, and 5-year survival curve. Thirty-five patients (5.57%) converted to open procedures in the LAG group. There were no significant differences in retrieved LN number (30.4 ± 13.4 vs 28.1 ± 17.2, P = 0.43), proximal resection margin (PRM) (6.15 ± 1.63 vs 6.09 ± 1.91, P = 0.56), or distal resection margin (DRM) (5.46 ± 1.74 vs 5.40 ± 1.95, P = 0.57) between the LAG and OG groups, respectively. The mean volume of blood loss (154.5 ± 102.6 vs 311.2 ± 118.9 mL, P < 0.001), mean postoperative hospital stay (7.6 ± 2.5 vs 10.7 ± 3.6 days, P < 0.001), mean time for gastrointestinal function recovery (3.3 ± 1.4 vs 3.9 ± 1.5 days, P < 0.001), and postoperative complications rate (6.4% vs 10.5%, P = 0.01) were clearly lower in the LAG group compared to the OG group. However, the recurrence pattern and site were not different between the 2 groups, even they were stratified by the TNM stage. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 85.38%, 79.70%, 57.81%, 34.60% and 88.31%, 75.49%, 56.84%, 33.08% in patients with stage Ib, IIa, IIb, and IIIa, respectively, in the LAG and OG groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the OS rate for patients with the same TNM stage between the 2 groups. LAG with radical LN dissection is a safe and technically feasible procedure for the treatment of AGC staged below T3.

Indexed as

Neoplasm StagingChinaFeasibility StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGastrectomyHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesStomach NeoplasmsSurvival RateTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID27336885
PMCPMC4998323
OpenAlexW2475367065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.