Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33626086›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Clinical outcomes of proximal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A comparison between the double-flap technique and jejunal interposition.

Tsutomu Kumamoto, Mitsuru Sasako, Yoshinori Ishida, Yasunori Kurahashi, Hisashi Shinohara

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Surgery Matters: Progress in Surgical Management of Gastric Cancer.Current treatment options in oncology · 2023
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tsutomu KumamotoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Hyogo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-7177-9328
Mitsuru SasakoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Hyogo, Japan.
Yoshinori IshidaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Hyogo, Japan.
Yasunori KurahashiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Hyogo, Japan.
Hisashi ShinoharaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Hyogo, Japan.
Hyogo Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal reconstruction method after proximal gastrectomy (PG) has been debatable. Recent reports have shown that the double-flap technique (DFT) provides good outcomes in terms of postoperative nutritional status and quality of life. However, no study has compared the clinical outcomes of the DFT with other reconstruction methods. Here, we evaluated and compared the clinical outcomes between the DFT and jejunal interposition (JI) after PG for gastric cancer. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe medical records of 34 consecutive patients who had undergone PG for upper third gastric cancer between January 2011 and October 2016 were reviewed retrospectively. The main factors investigated were surgical outcomes, postoperative nutritional status, symptoms, and endoscopic findings 1 year after surgery.

resultsThirty-four patients were enrolled (DFT, 14; JI, 20). The operation time was similar between the two techniques (228 and 246 minutes for DFT and JI, respectively, P = 0.377), as were the rates of anastomotic complications (7% and 0% for DFT and JI, respectively, P = 0.412). Body weight loss was significantly lower in the DFT group than in the JI group (-8.1% vs -16.1%, P = 0.001). Total protein and albumin levels were higher in the DFT group than in the JI group (0% vs -2.9%, P = 0.053, and -0.3% vs -6.1%, P = 0.077, respectively). One patient in the DFT group and no patients in the JI group experienced reflux esophagitis (≥ grade B) (P = 0.393). Anastomotic strictures were not observed as postoperative complications in either group.

conclusionsSurgical outcomes revealed that the DFT was safe and feasible, similar to JI. In terms of controlling postoperative body weight loss, the DFT is a better reconstruction technique than JI after PG.

Indexed as

AgedAnastomosis, SurgicalFemaleGastrectomyHumansJejunumMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PeriodRetrospective StudiesStomach NeoplasmsSurgical FlapsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID33626086
PMCPMC7904176
OpenAlexW3132097893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.