ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2022
3D laparoscopic-assisted
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Status and Future Applications of Robotic Surgery in Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Research progress of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 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
backgroundThree-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic technique has gradually been applied to the treatment of carcinoma in the remnant stomach (CRS), but its clinical efficacy remains controversial.
aimTo compare the short-term and long-term results of 3D laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (3DLAG) with open gastrectomy (OG) for CRS.
methodsThe clinical data of patients diagnosed with CRS and admitted to the First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital from January 2016 to January 2021 were retrospectively collected. A total of 84 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled. All their clinical data were collected and a database was established. All patients were treated with 3DLAG or OG by experienced surgeons and were divided into two groups based on the different surgical methods mentioned above. By using outpatient and telephone follow-up, we were able to determine postoperative survival and tumor status. The postoperative short-term efficacy and 1-year and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were compared between the two groups.
resultsAmong 84 patients with CRS, 48 were treated with OG and 36 with 3DLAG. All patients successfully completed surgery. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index, ASA score, initial disease state (benign or malignant), primary surgical anastomosis method, interval time of carcinogenesis, and tumorigenesis site. Patients in the 3DLAG group experienced less intraoperative blood loss (188.33 ± 191.35 mL
conclusionCompared with OG, 3DLAG for CRS achieved better short-term efficacy and equivalent oncological results without increasing clinical complications. 3DLAG for CRS can be promoted safely and effectively in selected patients.
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.