ArticleSurgery today2024
Financial burden of surgical treatment for retroperitoneal sarcoma.
Article in Surgery today, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Safe Resection of a Giant Mediastinal Liposarcoma with Severe Cardiac Compression.Surgical case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposesThe purpose of this study was to compare the financial burden of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) and gastric cancer (GC).
methodsAll patients who underwent surgery for GC or RPS between 2020 and 2021 at Nagoya University Hospital were included. The clinical characteristics, surgical fees per surgeon, and surgical fees per hour were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe GC and RPS groups included 35 and 63 patients, respectively. In the latter group, 37 patients (59%) underwent tumor resection combined with organ resection; the most common organ was the intestine (n = 23, 37%), followed by the kidney (n = 16, 25%). The mean operative time (248 vs. 417 min, p < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss (423 vs. 1123 ml, p < 0.001) were significantly greater in the RPS group than in the GC group. The mean surgical fee per surgeon was USD 1667 in the GC group and USD 1022 in the RPS group (p < 0.001) and USD 1388 and USD 777 per hour, respectively (p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe financial burden of surgical treatment for RPS is unexpectedly higher than that for GC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38607396What 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.