SynthesisGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2018
Short-term outcomes in minimally invasive versus open gastrectomy: the differences between East and West. A systematic review of the literature.
Synthesis in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04481828 (Comparison With Open and Totally Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer in a Low Volume Center), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Comparison With Open and Totally Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer in a Low Volume Center
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Definitive Chemoradiotherapy Versus Trimodality Therapy for Resectable Oesophageal Carcinoma: Meta-analyses and Systematic Review of Literature.World journal of surgery · 2019Pooled it
- 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 · 2021Trial
- Review
- Comparing the Effectiveness of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Gastrectomy in the United States: A Retrospective Analysis of Perioperative, Oncologic, and Survival Outcomes.The Journal of surgical research · 2024Article
- Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Cancer: Cut Down Complications to Unveil Positive Results of Minimally Invasive Approach.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Efficacy of minimally invasive distal gastrectomy for elderly patients with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer: a propensity-score matched analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Laparoscopic gastrectomy for early and advanced gastric cancer in a western center: a propensity score-matched analysis.Updates in surgery · 2021Article
- Textbook outcome and survival of robotic versus laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matched cohort study.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Comment on "Early postoperative outcomes among patients with delayed surgeries after preoperative positive test for SARS-CoV-2: A case-control study from a single institution".Journal of surgical oncology · 2021Article
- Comparison of open and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a low volume center experience.Turkish journal of surgery · 2021Article
- Peripheral Lymphocyte Subsets Absolute Counts as Feasible Clinical Markers for Predicting Surgical Outcome in Gastric Cancer Patients After Laparoscopic D2 Gastrectomy: A Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of inflammation research · 2021Article
- Implementation of minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer in a western tertiary referral center.BMC surgery · 2020Article
- Cautious optimism-the current role of immunotherapy in gastrointestinal cancers.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2020Review
- Feasibility and safety of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy performed by trainees supervised by an experienced qualified surgeon.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMinimally invasive surgical techniques for gastric cancer are gaining more interest worldwide. Several Asian studies have proven the benefits of minimally invasive techniques over the open techniques. Nevertheless, implementation of this technique in Western countries is gradual. The aim of this systematic review is to give insight in the differences in outcomes and patient characteristics in Asian countries in comparison to Western countries. METHODOLOGY: An extensive systematic search was conducted using the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Analysis of the outcomes was performed regarding operative results, postoperative recovery, complications, mortality, lymph node yield, radicality of the resected specimen, and survival. A total of 12 Asian and 8 Western studies were included.
resultsMinimally invasive gastrectomy shows faster postoperative recovery, fewer complications, and similar outcomes regarding mortality in both the Eastern and Western studies. However, patient characteristics such as age and BMI differ between these populations. Comparison of overall outcomes in minimally invasive and open procedures between East and West showed differences in complications, mortality, and number of resected lymph nodes in favor of the Asian population.
conclusionImproved outcomes are observed following minimally invasive gastrectomy in comparison to open procedures in both Western and Asian studies. There are differences in patient characteristics between the Western and Asian populations. Overall outcomes seem to be in favor of the Asian population. These differences may fade with centralization of care for gastric cancer patients in the West and increasing surgical experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.