ArticleBMC surgery2025
Laparoscopic ultrasound versus intraoperative gastroscopy for tumor localization in laparoscopic gastrectomy: a comparative cohort study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrecise tumor localization remains a technical challenge in laparoscopic gastrectomy. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) as an alternative to conventional intraoperative gastroscopy (IOG) for tumor localization during laparoscopic radical gastrectomy.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 58 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical gastrectomy between February 2023 and December 2024. Patients were categorized into LUS-guided (n = 22) and conventional IOG-guided (n = 36) localization groups. Intraoperative parameters (localization success, procedural times, blood loss), postoperative recovery metrics, complications, pathological outcomes, and short-term oncological results were compared between the two groups. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median with interquartile range and compared using Student’s t-test or Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies (%) and compared using χ² test or Fisher’s exact test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsLUS demonstrated comparable localization success rates (95.5% vs. 100%, p = 0.379) with significantly shorter mean localization time (3.83 ± 0.26 vs. 4.06 ± 0.16 min, p = 0.001) and reduced total operative time (218.68 ± 28.48 vs. 240.69 ± 26.71 min, p = 0.004). Both groups showed equivalent safety profiles with no significant differences in complication rates (27.2% vs. 30.6%, p = 1.000). Pathological outcomes were excellent in both groups, with 100% R0 resection rates and comparable lymph node yields (32.5 vs. 38.0, p = 0.320). Short-term recurrence rates were equivalent (4.5% vs. 5.6%, p = 1.000) after a mean follow-up of 12 months.
conclusionLUS-guided tumor localization represents an efficient and effective alternative to IOG, significantly reducing operative time while maintaining equivalent safety and oncological outcomes. This surgeon-controlled technique integrates seamlessly into the laparoscopic workflow and offers a practical solution for intraoperative tumor localization in minimally invasive gastric surgery.
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.