ArticleScientific reports2022
Study on the application of preoperative three-dimensional CT angiography of perigastric arteries in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short-term outcomes of preoperative computed tomography angiography versus standard assessment in patients with BMI ≥ 25.0 kg/mGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2025Trial
- The Blood Supply of the Stomach: Anatomical and Surgical Considerations.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Clinical Feasibility of Vascular Navigation System During Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Comparison With Propensity-Score Matching.Journal of gastric cancer · 2024Article
- Patient-specific virtual three-dimensional surgical navigation for gastric cancer surgery: A prospective study for preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the clinical value and significance of preoperative three-dimensional computerized tomography angiography (CTA) in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The clinical data were analyzed retrospectively from 214 gastric cancer patients. We grouped according to whether to perform CTA, and we compared and analyzed the difference of the data between the two groups. The perigastric arteries were classified according to CTA images of patients in the CTA group. The celiac trunk was classified according to Adachi classification: Type I (118/125, 94.4%), Type II (3/125, 2.4%), Type III (0/125, 0%), Type IV (1/125, 0.8%), Type V (2/125, 1.6%), Type VI (1/125, 0.8%). Hepatic artery classification was performed according to Hiatt classification: Type I (102/125, 81.6%), Type II (9/125, 7.2%), Type III (6/125, 4.8%), Type IV (2/125, 1.6%), Type V (3/125, 2.4%), Type VI (0, 0%), Others (3/125, 2.4%). And this study combined vascular anatomy and surgical risk to establish a new splenic artery classification model. In comparison, the operation time, first exhaust time, and estimated blood loss in the CTA group were significantly lower than those in the non-CTA group. In addition, the blood loss in the CTA group combined with ICG (Indocyanine Green) labeled fluorescence laparoscopy was significantly less than that in the group without ICG labeled. Preoperative CTA could objectively evaluate patients' vascular route and variation and then help us avoid or decrease the risk of vascular injury and bleeding. When combined with ICG labeled fluorescence laparoscopy, it could further reduce the risk of iatrogenic injury during the operation and improve postoperative recovery.
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.