Title |
Laparoscopic versus open wedge resection for gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the stomach: a single-center 8-year retrospective cohort study of 156 patients with long-term follow-up
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Surgery, May 2015
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12893-015-0040-2 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Jia-Qin Cai, Ke Chen, Yi-Ping Mou, Yu Pan, Xiao-Wu Xu, Yu-Cheng Zhou, Chao-Jie Huang |
Abstract |
The aim of this study was to compared laparoscopic (LWR) and open wedge resection (OWR) for the treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). The data of 156 consecutive GISTs patients underwent LWR or OWR between January 2006 and December 2013 were collected retrospectively. The surgical outcomes and the long-term survival rates were compared. Besides, a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Clinicopathological characteristics of the patients were similar between the two groups. The LWR group was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (67.3 vs. 142.7 ml, P < 0.001), earlier postoperative flatus (2.3 vs. 3.2 days, P < 0.001), earlier oral intake (3.2 vs. 4.1 days, P < 0.001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (6.0 vs. 8.0 days, P = 0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications was lower in LWR group but did not reach statistical significance (4/90, 4.4% vs. 8/66, 12.1%, P = 0.12). No significant difference was observed in 3-year relapse-free survival rate between the two groups (98.6% vs. 96.4%, P > 0.05). The meta-analysis revealed similar results except less overall complications in the LWR group (RR = 0.49, 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.95, P = 0.04). And the recurrence risk was similar in two group (RR = 0.80, 95% CI, 0.28 to 2.27, P > 0.05). LWR is a technically and oncologically safe and feasible approach for gastric GISTs compared with OWR. Moreover, LWR appears to be a preferable choice with mini-invasive benefits. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 33% |
Greece | 1 | 33% |
Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 21% |
Student > Master | 3 | 16% |
Researcher | 3 | 16% |
Other | 2 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
Other | 3 | 16% |
Unknown | 2 | 11% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 58% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 11% |
Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
Design | 1 | 5% |
Unknown | 4 | 21% |