ArticleBMC surgery2021
Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction for upper third gastric cancer.
Article in BMC surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of double-tract reconstruction and laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy on immune function and stress.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of clinical efficacy between π-shaped esophagojejunostomy and overlap method in treating upper gastric cancer with double-tract reconstruction in proximal gastrectomy under total laparoscopy.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- The Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopy-Assisted Proximal Gastrectomy with Double-Tract Reconstruction versus Laparoscopy-Assisted Total Gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y Reconstruction for Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction: A Multicenter Study Based on Propensity Score Matching Analysis.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2024Article
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (DTR) has been used for upper third gastric cancer as a function-preserving procedure. However, the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) with DTR remain uncertain. This study compared open proximal gastrectomy (OPG) with DTR and LPG with DTR for proximal gastric cancer.
methodsSixty-four patients who had undergone OPG with DTR and forty-six patients who had undergone LPG with DTR were enrolled in this case-control study. The clinical characteristics, surgical outcomes and postoperative nutrition index were analysed retrospectively.
resultsThe operation time was significantly longer in the LGP group than in the OPG group (258.3 min vs 205.8 min; p = 0.00). However, the time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stay were shorter in the LPG group [4.0 days vs 3.5 days (p = 0.00) and 10.6 days vs 9.2 days (p = 0.001), respectively]. No significant difference was found between the two groups in the number of retrieved lymph nodes, complications or reflux oesophagitis. The nutrition status was assessed using the haemoglobin, albumin, prealbumin and weight levels from pre-operation to six months after surgery. No significant difference was found between the groups.
conclusionLPG with DTR can be safely performed for proximal gastric cancer patients by experienced surgeons.
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.