| Title |
Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy versus laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for middle-third advanced gastric cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-017-5919-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhengyan Li, Gang Ji, Bin Bai, Deliang Yu, Yezhou Liu, Bo Lian, Qingchuan Zhao |
| Abstract |
There still remains controversy for the choice of resection extent for gastric cancer involving the middle-third of the stomach. The aim of this study was to compare the technical feasibility and long-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) versus laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for middle-third advanced gastric cancer (AGC) and to determine which is the optimal surgical procedure. For this study, clinical data for 379 patients who underwent LADG or LATG with D2 lymph node dissection between April 2005 and June 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. The short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the propensity score-matched groups. The LADG group had a significantly shorter operating time (212.74 vs. 241.79 min, P < 0.001), less estimated blood loss (114.38 vs. 181.51 ml, P = 0.000), shorter first flatus and postoperative hospital stay. Additionally, the total cost of hospitalization was significantly higher in the LATG group than LADG group (71187.58 vs. 65783.25 RMB, P = 0.000). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications rate between the LADG group and the LATG group. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 64.4% in the LADG group and 61.0% in the LATG group (P = 0.548). The resection extent was not an independent prognostic factor for the OS. LADG with D2 nodal dissection is a feasible treatment strategy for middle-third AGC with better short-term outcomes and similar long-term survival rates compared with LATG. We recommended that DG should be the optimal surgical procedure for middle one-third AGC under the premise of negative proximal resection margin. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Mexico | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 20% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 47% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2018.
All research outputs
#12,997,148
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#2,617
of 6,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,450
of 329,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#69
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,101 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,244 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.