Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38750189›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2024

Comparison of Postoperative Complications After Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer with Antecolic Versus Retrocolic Reconstruction: A Population-Based Study.

Anna Junttila, Olli Helminen, Mika Helmiö, Heikki Huhta, Aapo Jalkanen, Raija Kallio, Vesa Koivukangas, Arto Kokkola, Simo Laine, Elina Lietzen and 13 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2024. 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
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.

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

23 authors.

Anna JunttilaDivision of Digestive Surgery and Urology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. anna.junttila@fimnet.fi.
Olli HelminenSurgery Research Unit, Medical Research Center Oulu, Oulu University Hospital and University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Mika HelmiöDivision of Digestive Surgery and Urology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Heikki HuhtaSurgery Research Unit, Medical Research Center Oulu, Oulu University Hospital and University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Aapo JalkanenDepartment of Surgery, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Raija KallioDepartment of Oncology and Haematology, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.
Vesa KoivukangasSurgery Research Unit, Medical Research Center Oulu, Oulu University Hospital and University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Arto KokkolaDepartment of Surgery, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Simo LaineDivision of Digestive Surgery and Urology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Elina LietzenDivision of Digestive Surgery and Urology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Johanna LouhimoDepartment of Surgery, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Sanna MeriläinenSurgery Research Unit, Medical Research Center Oulu, Oulu University Hospital and University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Vesa-Matti PohjanenCancer and Translational Medicine Research Unit, Medical Research Center Oulu, University of Oulu and Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.
Tuomo RantanenDepartment of Surgery, University of Eastern Finland and Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland.
Ari RistimäkiDepartment of Pathology, HUSLAB, HUS Diagnostic Center, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Jari V RäsänenDepartment of General Thoracic and Oesophageal Surgery, Heart and Lung Centre, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Juha SaarnioSurgery Research Unit, Medical Research Center Oulu, Oulu University Hospital and University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Eero SihvoDepartment of Surgery, Central Finland Central Hospital, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Vesa ToikkanenDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Heart Center, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Tuula TyrväinenDepartment of Gastroenterology and Alimentary Tract Surgery, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.
Antti ValtolaDepartment of Surgery, University of Eastern Finland and Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland.
Joonas H KauppilaSurgery Research Unit, Medical Research Center Oulu, Oulu University Hospital and University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
FINEGO Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this study was to examine the rates of 90-day anastomotic complications and other postoperative complications after total or partial gastrectomy with antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction in a population-based setting.

methodsThis population-based nationwide retrospective cohort study included all patients undergoing total or partial gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in Finland in 2005-2016, with follow-up until 31 December 2019. Logistic regression provided odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of 90-day mortality. Results were adjusted for age, sex, year of the surgery, comorbidities, tumor locations, pathological stage, and neoadjuvant therapy.

resultsA total of 2063 patients having gastrectomy with antecolic (n = 814) or retrocolic (n = 1249) reconstruction were identified from the registries. The anastomotic complication rate was 3.8% with antecolic reconstruction and 5.0% with retrocolic reconstruction. Antecolic reconstruction was not associated with a higher risk of anastomotic complications compared with retrocolic reconstruction in the adjusted analysis (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44-1.09) of the whole cohort or in the predefined subgroups. The reoperation rate was 8.2% with antecolic reconstruction and 7.7% with retrocolic reconstruction, without statistical significance. In subgroup analysis of total gastrectomy patients, the risk of major complications was lower with antecolic reconstruction compared with retrocolic reconstruction (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.86).

conclusionsThe rate of anastomotic complications did not differ after antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction after total or partial gastrectomy. In total gastrectomies, the risk of major complications was lower after antecolic compared with retrocolic reconstruction.

Indexed as

GastrectomyPlastic Surgery ProceduresPostoperative ComplicationsStomach NeoplasmsAdenocarcinomaAgedAnastomosis, SurgicalFemaleFinlandFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisReoperationRetrospective StudiesAntecolicGastrectomyGastric cancerRetrocolic

Identifiers

PMID38750189
PMCPMC11236863

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.