ArticleSurgery today2020
Influence of endoscopic resection on additional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy: a propensity score-matching analysis.
Article in Surgery today, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of endoscopic resection on short-term surgical outcomes of subsequent laparoscopic gastrectomy: a meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical outcome of non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
- Short-term efficacy of additional laparoscopic-assisted radical gastrectomy after non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Impact of non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection on short- and long-term outcome of subsequent laparoscopic gastrectomy for pT1 gastric cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 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
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere is no definite evidence of the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) for patients who have undergone incomplete endoscopic resection (ER). We investigated the influence of ER prior to LDG by a propensity score matching analysis.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of gastric cancer patients who underwent LDG with or without prior ER from 2000 to 2014. Propensity score matching was performed to compare the two groups of patients.
resultsAfter matching, 47 patients in the ER group and 94 patients in the non-ER group were selected from a total of 365 patients. A residual tumor was observed in 10 of 47 patients (21.3%). The mean number of dissected lymph nodes in the non-ER group (39.4 ± 14.5) was higher than that in the ER group (31.7 ± 13.5) (P = 0.003). However, other perioperative data, such as the operation time and blood loss volume were similar. The complication rate of the ER group (17.0%) and the non-ER group (9.6%) did not differ to a statistically significant extent (P = 0.2). Among these patients, 6 died during the 5-year follow-up period, but no patients showed signs of recurrence.
conclusionER prior to surgical resection showed no significant influence on postoperative complications or mortality. LDG can be safely performed to achieve radical resection after incomplete ER.
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.