Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38272976›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024

Safety and short-term outcomes of a modified valvuloplastic esophagogastrostomy versus gastric tube anastomosis after laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy: a retrospective cohort study.

Bailong Li, Yinkui Wang, Zhouqiao Wu, Fei Shan, Shuangxi Li, Yongning Jia, Rulin Miao, Zhemin Li, Kan Xue, Chao Yan and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

13 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Bailong Li *Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, 52 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
Yinkui Wang *Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, 52 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
Zhouqiao Wu *Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, 52 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
Fei ShanKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, 52 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
Shuangxi LiKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, 52 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
Yongning JiaKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, 52 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
Rulin MiaoKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, 52 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
Zhemin LiKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, 52 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
Kan XueKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, 52 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
Chao YanKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, 52 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
Shen LiKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, 52 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
Jiafu JiKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, 52 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
Ziyu LiKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, 52 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China. ziyu_li@hsc.pku.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0001-5580-4979
Peking University · CN

Funding

Beijing Hospitals Authority Innovation Studio of Young Staff Funding Support 202123Beijing Nova Program 20220484111Science Foundation of Peking University Cancer Hospital PY202335
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is no optimal reconstruction method after proximal gastrectomy. The valvuloplastic esophagogastrostomy can reduce postoperative reflux esophagitis, but it is technically complex with a long operation time. The gastric tube anastomosis is technically simple, but the incidences of reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stricture are higher.

methodsWe have devised a modified valvuloplastic esophagogastrostomy after laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy (LAPG), the arch-bridge anastomosis. After reviewing our prospectively maintained gastric cancer database, 43 patients who underwent LAPG from November 2021 to April 2023 were included in this cohort study, with 25 patients received the arch-bridge anastomosis and 18 patients received gastric tube anastomosis. The short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups to evaluate the efficacy of the arch-bridge anastomosis. Reporting was consistent with the STROCSS 2021 guideline.

resultsThe median operation time was 180 min in the arch-bridge group, significantly shorter than the gastric tube group (p = 0.003). In the arch-bridge group, none of the 25 patients experienced anastomotic leakage, while one patient (4%) experienced anastomotic stricture requiring endoscopic balloon dilation. The postoperative length of stay was shorter in the arch-bridge group (9 vs. 11, p = 0.034). None of the patients in the arch-bridge group experienced gastroesophageal reflux and used proton pump inhibitor (PPI), while four (22.2%) patients in the gastric tube group used PPI (p = 0.025). The incidence of reflux esophagitis (Los Angeles grade B or more severe) by endoscopy was lower in the arch-bridge group (0% vs. 25.0%).

conclusionThe arch-bridge anastomosis is a safe, time-saving, and feasible reconstruction method. It can reduce postoperative reflux and anastomotic stricture incidences in a selected cohort of patients undergoing laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy.

Indexed as

Esophagitis, PepticGastroesophageal RefluxLaparoscopyStomach NeoplasmsAnastomosis, SurgicalCohort StudiesConstriction, PathologicGastrectomyHumansPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesComplicationEsophagogastrostomyLaparoscopic surgeryProximal gastrectomyReflux esophagitis

Identifiers

PMID38272976
PMCPMC10881610
OpenAlexW4391214918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.