You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Totally laparoscopic versus laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy for upper and middle gastric cancer: a single-unit experience of 253 cases with meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12957-016-0860-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ke Chen, Yu Pan, Jia-Qin Cai, Di Wu, Jia-Fei Yan, Ding-Wei Chen, Hong-Mei Yu, Xian-Fa Wang |
| Abstract |
Laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) is the most commonly used methods of laparoscopic gastrectomy for upper and middle gastric cancer. However, totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) is unpopular because reconstruction is difficult, especially for the intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy. We adopted TLTG with various types of intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy. In this study, we compared LATG and TLTG to evaluate their outcomes. From March 2006 to September 2015, 253 patients with upper and middle gastric cancer underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG), 145 patients underwent LATG, and 108 patients underwent TLTG. The clinicopathological characteristics and postoperative outcomes were retrospectively compared between the two groups. Furthermore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. The operation time and estimated blood loss were similar between the groups. There were no significant differences in first flatus, diet initiation, and postoperative hospital stay. The surgical complication rates were 17.2 % (25/145) and 13.9 % (15/108) in the LATG and TLTG groups, respectively. The meta-analysis also revealed no significant differences in the operation time, estimated blood loss, time to first flatus, length of hospital stay, overall, and anastomosis-related complications among the groups. TLTG is a feasible choice for gastric cancer patients, with comparable results to the LATG approach. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 47% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 37% |