| Title |
Short- and Long-Term Outcomes After Laparoscopic Versus Open Total Gastrectomy for Elderly Gastric Cancer Patients: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11605-015-2912-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jun Lu, Chang-Ming Huang, Chao-Hui Zheng, Ping Li, Jian-Wei Xie, Jia-Bin Wang, Jian-Xian Lin, Qi-Yue Chen, Long-Long Cao, Mi Lin |
| Abstract |
To date, it has been unclear whether laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LTG) was a suitable treatment for elderly patients (aged 65 years and older) with gastric cancer. The aim of the present study was to clarify the value of LTG in the elderly using a propensity score matching method. We prospectively collected data from 675 elderly gastric cancer patients who underwent total gastrectomies at our institution between January 2002 and February 2012. Propensity score matching was applied at a ratio of 1:1 to compare the LTG and open total gastrectomy (OTG) groups. The operation results, hospital courses, and survival rates were compared between the matched groups. The LTG group had a significantly shorter mean operating time (194 vs. 267 min, P < 0.001) and significantly less intraoperative blood loss (92 vs. 204 ml, P < 0.001). The total number of collected lymph nodes was similar in the two groups. Postoperatively, the length of hospital stay was shorter in the LTG group than in the OTG group (median 14.4 vs. 16.6 days; P = 0.001); however, no significant intergroup differences were found in morbidity or mortality. Furthermore, the 3-year overall survival (OS) rate was similar between the two groups (P = 0.517). LTG for elderly gastric cancer is feasible and safe with acceptable oncologic outcomes. Therefore, patient age alone should not be considered a contraindication in the decision between LTG and OTG treatment options. A high-volume prospective study is needed to confirm this rationale. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 46% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 August 2015.
All research outputs
#22,778,604
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
#2,085
of 2,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,640
of 276,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
#38
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,489 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 276,258 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.