ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic gastrectomy versus conventional multi-port laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Comparison of the efficacy and safety of single-incision versus multi-port laparoscopic D2 lymphadenectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Single-incision versus multi-incision minimally invasive esophagectomy with different reconstruction routes for esophageal cancer: a retrospective propensity-weighted analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Comparison of Reduced Port Gastrectomy and Multiport Gastrectomy in Korea: Ad Hoc Analysis and Nationwide Survey on Gastric Cancer 2019.Journal of gastric cancer · 2025Article
- Initial clinical experiences of robotic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer using the Da Vinci™ SP system: a single-center retrospective study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of conventional laparoscopic surgery and single-incision laparoscopic surgery in gastric cancer treatment: Outcomes and prognosis.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Advantages of the split-leg supine position single-port plus one laparoscopic surgery approach.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comparison efficacy and safety of total laparoscopic gastrectomy and laparoscopically assisted total gastrectomy in treatment of gastric cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Current Issues in Reduced-Port Gastrectomy: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of gastric cancer · 2024Review
- Clinical application of two-port laparoscopic surgery in sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer resection.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Feasibility and preliminary experience of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Overlap esophagojejunostomy for gastric cancer: A study of 10 cases.Frontiers in surgery · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe compared short-term perioperative outcomes after single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (SILG+1) and conventional multi-port laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (C-LAG) for gastric cancer.
methodsThe work was conducted between August 2017 and October 2019. A total of 90 patients with early or advanced gastric cancer were retrospectively analyzed: 43 patients of which underwent SILG+1, and 47 of which underwent C-LAG, respectively. These were divided into two groups: the total gastrectomy group (SILT+1 and C-LATG) and the distal gastrectomy group (SILD + 1 and C-LADG). The demographics, tumor characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and short-term complications of all enrolled patients were summarized and statistically analyzed.
resultsThe mean incision length in SILT+1 group was 5.40 cm shorter than that in C-LATG group (3.15 ± 0.43 vs. 8.55 ± 2.72, P < 0.001). This comparison between the SILD + 1 and the C-LADG group produced comparable results. The SILT+1 group underwent a 56.32 min longer operation than the C-LATG group (273.03 ± 66.80 vs. 216.71 ± 82.61, P = 0.0205). SILG+1 group had better postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) and cosmetic score than those of the C-LATG group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in preoperative demographics or 30-day postoperative complication rates between the SILG+1 and C-LAG groups. Tumor-related index, including mass size, histological type, number of retrieved lymph nodes, pathological tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage, and proximal and distal edges were all equivalent between the SILG+1 and the C-LAG group.
conclusionsThis retrospective study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of SILG+1 with D1+ or D2 lymphadenectomy for the treatment of early and advanced gastric cancers, compared with C-LAG.
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.