Improving the outcomes in gastric cancer surgery

doi:10.3748/wjg.v20.i38.13692

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 20, Issue 38

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (15705)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Tables (1-3) series.

Item

Count

PDF

929

WORD

226

HTML

6782

Tables (1-3)

189

Sum=8126

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

1074

Download

6505

Sum=7579

Oct 14, 2014 (publication date) through Nov 23, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (61)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Topic Highlight

World J Gastroenterol. Oct 14, 2014; 20(38): 13692-13704
Published online Oct 14, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i38.13692

Table 3 Summary of recently published meta-analysis examining laparoscopic distal gastrectomy vs open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Ref.	Trials included (n)	Laparoscopic/open procedures (n)	TumOR = characteristics	Operative time (min) (WMD)	Blood loss (mL) (WMD)	Harvested lymph nodes (WMD)	Length-of-stay (WMD)	Complication rates	Mortality
Memon et al[62], 2008	4 RCT’s	82/80	EGC, GC	+83 (P < 0.001)	-104 (P = 0.02)	-4.3 (P < 0.001)	-3.3 d (P = 0.14)	OR = 0.66 (P = 0.14)	OR = 0.94 (P = 0.94)
Chen et al[60], 2009	6 RCT’s	323/306	EGC	+87 (P < 0.001)	-108 (P = 0.001)	-4.9 (P < 0.001)	-2.0 d (P = 0.14)	RR = 0.61 (P = 0.01)	Risk difference 0.01 (P = 0.32)
Kodera et al[61], 2010	6 RCT’s	343/323	EGC, GC	+82 (P < 0.001)	-118 (P < 0.001)	-4.8 (P < 0.001)	NA	OR = 0.46 (P = 0.003)	OR = 0.17 (P = 0.86)
Ohtani et al[63], 2011	5 RCT’s	164/162	EGC, GC	+82 (P < 0.001)	-122 (P < 0.001)	-4.8 (P < 0.001)	-2.5 d (P = 0.04)	OR = 0.38 (P = 0.01)	OR = 0.47 (P = 0.54)
Viñuela et al[59], 2012	6 RCT’s	1658/1397	ECG, GC	+48.3 (P < 0.001)	-118 (P < 0.001)	-3.9 (P < 0.001)	-3.6 (P < 0.001)	OR = 0.59 (P < 0.001)	OR = 0.64 (P = 0.39)
Viñuela et al[59], 2012	19 NRCT’s	1658/1397	ECG, GC	+48.3 (P < 0.001)	-118 (P < 0.001)	-3.9 (P < 0.001)	-3.6 (P < 0.001)	OR = 0.59 (P < 0.001)	OR = 0.64 (P = 0.39)

RCT: Randomized controlled trial; NRCT: Non-randomized controlled trial; EGC: Early gastric cancer; GC: Gastric cancer (all stages); WMD: Weighted mean difference; NA: Not available.

Citation: Tegels JJ, De Maat MF, Hulsewé KW, Hoofwijk AG, Stoot JH. Improving the outcomes in gastric cancer surgery. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20(38): 13692-13704
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v20/i38/13692.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i38.13692