SynthesisMedicine2020
Comparison of the short-term outcomes between totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Evidence in minimally invasive oncological gastric surgery].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021Pooled it
- Development and validation of a LASSO-based nomogram for predicting anastomotic leakage in elderly patients after laparoscopic gastrectomy.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Surgical outcomes and prognosis of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score-matching study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Hemidouble Stapling Technique versus Ghosting Double Stapling Technique for Esophagojejunostomy after Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- A case series of 10 patients undergone linear cutter/stapler guiding device-led overlapped esophagojejunostomy: a preliminary study.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Article
- Comparing intracorporeal mechanical anastomosis vs. hand-sewn esophagojejunostomy after total laparoscopic gastrectomy for esophagogastric junction cancer: a single-center study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Comparison of short-term efficacy between totally laparoscopic gastrectomy and laparoscopic assisted gastrectomy for elderly patients with gastric cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022Article
- Article
- Application of Half-Transected and Self-Pulling Esophagojejunostomy in Total Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Safe and Feasible Technique.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTotally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) are two common surgical approaches for upper and middle gastric cancer. Which surgical approach offers more advantages is still controversial due to a lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the short-term outcomes between the two surgical approaches.
methodsA systematic literature search was performed to evaluate short-term outcomes between TLTG and LATG, including overall postoperative complications, anastomosis-related complications, time for anastomosis, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, proximal margin, distal margin, time to first flatus, time to first diet, and postoperative hospital stay. Short-term outcomes were pooled and compared by meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3. Mean differences (MDs) or risk ratios (RRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). P < .05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsA total of 9 cohort studies fulfilled the selection criteria. The total sample included 1671 cases. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the two surgical approaches in overall postoperative complications (RR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.82 to 1.26, P = .87),anastomosis-related complications (RR = 0.64, 95%CI = 0.39 to 1.03, P = .06),time for anastomosis (MD = -5.13, 95% CI = -10.54 to 0.27, P = .06),operation time (MD = -10.68, 95% CI = -23.62 to 2.26, P = .11), intraoperative blood loss (MD = -25.58, 95% CI = -61.71 to 10.54, P = .17), harvested lymph nodes (MD = 1.61, 95% CI = -2.09 to 5.31, P = .39), proximal margin (MD = -0.37, 95% CI = -0.78 to 0.05, P = .09), distal margin (MD = 0.79, 95% CI = -0.57 to 2.14, P = .25), time to first flatus (MD = 0.01, 95% CI = -0.13 to 0.15, P = .87), time to first diet (MD = -0.22, 95% CI = -0.45 to 0.02, P = .07), and postoperative hospital stay (MD = -0.51, 95% CI = -1.10 to 0.07, P = .09).
conclusionsTLTG is a safe and feasible surgical approach for upper and middle gastric cancer, with short-term outcomes that are similar to LATG. Nevertheless, high-quality, large-sample and multicenter RCTs are still required to further verify our conclusions.
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.