Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33253340›Full record

ArticleYonago acta medica2020

Comparisons of Postoperative Complications and Nutritional Status After Proximal Laparoscopic Gastrectomy with Esophagogastrostomy and Double-Tract Reconstruction.

Wataru Miyauchi, Tomoyuki Matsunaga, Yuji Shishido, Kozo Miyatani, Takehiko Hanaki, Kyoichi Kihara, Manabu Yamamoto, Naruo Tokuyasu, Shuichi Takano, Teruhisa Sakamoto and 3 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Yonago acta medica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Wataru MiyauchiDivision of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago 683-8504, Japan and.
Tomoyuki MatsunagaDivision of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago 683-8504, Japan and.
Yuji ShishidoDivision of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago 683-8504, Japan and.
Kozo MiyataniDivision of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago 683-8504, Japan and.
Takehiko HanakiDivision of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago 683-8504, Japan and.
Kyoichi KiharaDivision of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago 683-8504, Japan and.
Manabu YamamotoDivision of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago 683-8504, Japan and.
Naruo TokuyasuDivision of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago 683-8504, Japan and.
Shuichi TakanoDivision of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago 683-8504, Japan and.
Teruhisa SakamotoDivision of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago 683-8504, Japan and.
Soichiro HonjoDivision of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago 683-8504, Japan and.
Hiroaki SaitoDepartment of Surgery, Japanese Red Cross Tottori Hospital, Tottori 680-8517, Japan.
Yoshiyuki FujiwaraDivision of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago 683-8504, Japan and.
Tottori University · JPTottori Prefectural Central Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare postoperative complications and nutritional status between esophagogastrostomy and double-tract reconstruction in patients who underwent laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy, and assess the advantages of both surgical procedures.

methodsBetween 2010 and 2018, 47 cases underwent proximal gastrectomy with esophagogastrostomy (

resultsThere was no significant difference between esophagogastrostomy and double-tract reconstruction in terms of operation time, blood loss, and length of postoperative hospital stay. Reflux symptoms and anastomotic stenosis were significantly higher in the esophagogastrostomy group compared with the double-tract reconstruction group (

conclusionCompared with esophagogastrostomy, double-tract reconstruction tends to have better short-term nutritional status and postoperative outcomes in terms of preventing the occurrence of gastroesophageal reflux and anastomosis stenosis. These findings suggest that double-tract reconstruction may be a useful method in laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy.

Indexed as

esophagogastrostomygastric cancerlaparoscopic proximal gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID33253340
PMCPMC7683898
OpenAlexW3107959313

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.