Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 376

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Laparoscopy-Assisted Billroth I Gastrectomy Compared With Conventional Open Gastrectomy

Adachi, Yosuke·2000·Archives of Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although several studies compare surgical results of laparoscopic and open colonic resections, there is no study of laparoscopic gastrectomy compared with open gastrectomy. HYPOTHESIS: When compared with conventional open gastrectomy, laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy is less invasive in patients with early-stage gastric cancer. DESIGN: Retrospective review of operative data, blood analyses, and postoperative clinical course after Billroth I gastrectomy. SETTING: University hospital in Japan. PATIENTS: The study included 102 patients who were treated with Billroth I gastrectomy for early-stage gastric cancer from January 1993 to July 1999: 49 with laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy and 53 with conventional open gastrectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic features examined were operation time; blood loss; blood cell counts of leukocytes, granulocytes, and lymphocytes; serum levels of C-reactive protein, interleukin 6, total protein, and albumin; body temperature; weight loss; analgesic requirements; time to first flatus; time to liquid diet; length of postoperative hospital stay; complications; proximal margin of the resected stomach; and number of harvested lymph nodes. RESULTS: Significant differences (P<.05) were present between laparoscopy-assisted and conventional open gastrectomy when the following features were compared: blood loss (158 vs 302 mL), leukocyte count on day 1 (9.42 vs 11.14 x 10(9)/L) and day 3 (6.99 vs 8.22 x 10(9)/L), granulocyte count on day 1 (7.28 vs 8.90 x 10(9)/L), C-reactive protein level on day 7 (2.91 vs 5.19 mg/dL), interleukin 6 level on day 3 (4.2 vs 26.0 U/mL), serum albumin level on day 7 (35.6 vs 33.9 g/L), number of times analgesics given (3.3 vs 6.2), time to first flatus (3.9 vs 4.5 days), time to liquid diet (5.0 vs 5.7 days), postoperative hospital stay (17.6 vs 22.5 days), and weight loss on day 14 (5.5% vs 7.1%). There was no significant difference between laparoscopy-assisted and conventional open gastrectomy with regard to operation time (246 vs 228 minutes), proximal margin (6.2 vs 6.0 cm), number of harvested lymph nodes (18.4 vs 22.1), and complication rate (8% vs 21%). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy, when compared with conventional open gastrectomy, has several advantages, including less surgical trauma, less impaired nutrition, less pain, rapid return of gastrointestinal function, and shorter hospital stay, with no decrease in operative curability. When performed by a skilled surgeon, laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy is a safe and useful technique for patients with early-stage gastric cancer.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archsurg.135.7.806

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 376

Metadata

Authors
Adachi, Y.
Venue
Archives of Surgery
Published
2000-07-01
Volume
135
Issue
7
Pages
806
ISSN
0004-0010 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2124482119
Cited by
376
References
0
FWCI
10.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Laparoscopy-Assisted Billroth I Gastrectomy Compared With Conventional Open Gastrectomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archsurg.135.7.806
The paper
Adachi, Y. (2000). Laparoscopy-Assisted Billroth I Gastrectomy Compared With Conventional Open Gastrectomy. Archives of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.135.7.806

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.