Gastrectomy with Extended Lymphadenectomy: a North American Perspective
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, ISSN: 1091-255X, Vol: 22, Issue: 3, Page: 414-420
2018
- 6Citations
- 23Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations6
- Citation Indexes6
- CrossRef5
- Captures23
- Readers23
- 23
Article Description
Despite evidence of oncologic benefits from extended (D2) lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer from many East Asian studies, there is persistent debate over its use in the West, mainly due to perceived high rates of morbidity and mortality. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of D2 dissection in a high-volume North American center. A prospectively entered database of all patients undergoing gastrectomy for cancer at a North American referral center from 2005 to 2016 was reviewed. Wedge resections, thoracoabdominal approach, emergency surgery, palliative operations, and non-adenocarcinoma cases were excluded. Of 366 non-bariatric gastrectomies over this period, 175 met the inclusion criteria. Median age was 73 years and 69% were male. One hundred forty-one patients (80%) underwent D2 dissection, the rest having D1. There was no difference in postoperative complications (D1 = 44%: D2 = 42%), anastomotic leaks (D1 = 6%: D2 = 5%), and same-admission or 30-day mortality (D1 = 6%: D2 = 2%). D2 dissection was associated with higher pathological stage (72% > stage 1 vs 38% > stage 1; p < 0.05) and median lymph node yield (30 vs 14; p < 0.05), with no difference in complete resection (R0) rate (D1 = 98% vs D2 = 92%). Laparoscopic approach was employed in 34% (45/141) of D2 cases, resulting in shorter median length of stay (6 days vs 9; p < 0.05) and equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open D2. This study supports the use of D2 lymphadenectomy, by either open or laparoscopic approach, in high-volume North American centers as a safe and effective oncologic procedure for gastric cancer, with equivalent complication rates and superior lymph node yield to traditional D1 dissection.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1091255X23033024; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11605-017-3633-5; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85033457341&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29124550; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1091255X23033024; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11605-017-3633-5
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know