| Title |
Minimally Invasive Versus Open Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis of Short‐Term Outcomes and Completeness of Resection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgery, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00268-015-3223-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jennifer Straatman, Nicole van der Wielen, Miguel A. Cuesta, Elly S. de Lange – de M. Klerk, Elise P. Jansma, Donald L. van der Peet |
| Abstract |
Minimally invasive surgical techniques for gastric cancer are gaining more acceptance worldwide as an alternative to open resection. In order to assess the role of minimally invasive and open techniques in total gastrectomy for cancer, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Articles comparing minimally invasive versus open total gastrectomy were reviewed, collected from the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Two different authors (JS and NW) independently selected and assessed the articles. Outcomes regarding operative results, postoperative recovery, morbidity, mortality, and oncological outcomes were analyzed. Statistical analysis portrayed the weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95 % confidence interval and odds ratio (OR). Out of 1242 papers, 12 studies were selected, including a total of 1360 patients, of which 592 underwent minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG). Compared to open total gastrectomy (OTG), MITG showed a longer operation time (WMD: 48.06 min, P < 0.00001), less operative blood loss (WMD: -160.70 mL, P < 0.00001), faster postoperative recovery, measured as shorter time to first flatus (WMD -1.05 days, P < 0.00001), shorter length of hospital stay (WMD: -2.43 days, P = 0.0002), less postoperative complications (OR 0.66, P = 0.02), similar mortality rates (OR 0.60, P = 0.52), and similar rates in lymph node yield (WMD -2.30, P = 0.06). Minimally invasive total gastrectomy showed faster postoperative recovery and less postoperative complications, whereas completeness of the resection was similar in both groups. Duration of surgery was longer in the minimally invasive group. Only comparative non-randomized studies were available, further emphasizing the need for a prospective randomized trial comparing MITG and OTG. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 17% |
| Researcher | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 22% |
| Unknown | 10 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 60% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 12 | 21% |
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 10 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,346,908
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#3,037
of 4,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,745
of 267,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#32
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 267,498 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.