ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2024
A retrospective study of provisional outcomes of intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy versus extracorporeal anastomosis during laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. a single -center.
Article in World journal 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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Gastric cancer (GC) treatment is increasingly undergoing laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) procedures. However, we conducted this research to evaluate postoperative outcomes, particularly surgical complications associated with intracorporeal and extracorporeal esophagojejunostomies using linear or circular stapling techniques following LTG for GC treatment. We aimed to compare short-term postoperative outcomes, such as surgical complications and anastomotic outcomes, between the two groups. Method From January 2020 to August 2022, we conducted a retrospective analysis of data from 160 consecutive patients diagnosed with GC who received either IEJ (n = 35) or EEJ (n = 125) during LTG. We utilized the Mann-Whitney U test to ascertain the statistical significance between the two groups. For comparing categorical variables, including numbers and percentages, we employed either the Pearson chi-square test, continuity correction, or Fisher's exact test as appropriate.ResultsThe operative time was similar (IEJ: 184.57 ± 36.489 vs. EEJ: 189.22 ± 43.584; P = 0.565), however, the number of positive lymph nodes was performed more in the IEJ group (IEJ: 4.71 ± 6.114 vs. EEJ: 6.39 ± 9.067 (P = 0.305). The blood loss in the IEJ group was lower than that of the EEJ (IEJ: 73.1429.182 vs. EEJ: 100.6461.693 mL, P = 0.012). There were three anastomosis leakages in the EEJ and one in the IEJ group (EEJ, 3.2% vs. IEJ, 2.8%; P > 0.999). Anastomosis bleeding only occurred in the EEJ (EEJ 1%; P = 0.003). Although the EEJ linear stapling technique had two deaths (EEJ, 1.6%).ConclusionAlthough EEJ is frequently utilized in the linear stapling technique, research indicates that the use of IEJ minimizes the incidence of complications in LTG.
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.