Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34384165›Full record

ArticleClinical endoscopy2022

Clinical Impact of Different Reconstruction Methods on Remnant Gastric Cancer at the Anastomotic Site after Distal Gastrectomy.

Kei Matsumoto, Shinwa Tanaka, Takashi Toyonaga, Nobuaki Ikezawa, Mari Nishio, Masanao Uraoka, Tomoatsu Yoshihara, Hiroya Sakaguchi, Hirofumi Abe, Tetsuya Yoshizaki and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 85% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kei MatsumotoDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan.
Shinwa TanakaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan.
Takashi ToyonagaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan.
Nobuaki IkezawaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan.
Mari NishioDivision of Pathology, Department of Pathology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Masanao UraokaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kishiwada Tokushukai Hospital, Kishiwada, Japan.
Tomoatsu YoshiharaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kishiwada Tokushukai Hospital, Kishiwada, Japan.
Hiroya SakaguchiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan.
Hirofumi AbeDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan.
Tetsuya YoshizakiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan.
Madoka TakaoDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan.
Toshitatsu TakaoDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan.
Yoshinori MoritaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan.
Hiroshi YokozakiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan.
Yuzo KodamaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan.
Kobe University · JPKishiwada Tokushukai Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsThe anastomotic site after distal gastrectomy is the area most affected by duodenogastric reflux. Different reconstruction methods may affect the lesion characteristics and treatment outcomes of remnant gastric cancers at the anastomotic site. We retrospectively investigated the clinicopathologic and endoscopic submucosal dissection outcomes of remnant gastric cancers at the anastomotic site.

methodsWe recruited 34 consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection for remnant gastric cancer at the anastomotic site after distal gastrectomy. Clinicopathology and treatment outcomes were compared between the Billroth II and non-Billroth II groups.

resultsThe tumor size in the Billroth II group was significantly larger than that in the non-Billroth II group (22 vs. 19 mm; p=0.048). More severe gastritis was detected endoscopically in the Billroth II group (2 vs. 1.33; p=0.0075). Moreover, operation time was longer (238 vs. 121 min; p=0.004) and the frequency of bleeding episodes was higher (7.5 vs. 3.1; p=0.014) in the Billroth II group.

conclusionCompared to remnant gastric cancers in non-Billroth II patients, those in the Billroth II group had larger lesions with a background of severe remnant gastritis. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for remnant gastric cancers in Billroth II patients involved longer operative times and more frequent bleeding episodes than that in patients without Billroth II.

Indexed as

BleedingDuodenogastric refluxEndoscopic submucosal dissectionGastrectomyGastric cancer

Identifiers

PMID34384165
PMCPMC8831400
OpenAlexW3191354967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.