The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Laparoscopic Versus Open Subtotal Gastrectomy for Distal Gastric Cancer: Five-Year Results of a Randomized Prospective Trial
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare technical feasibility and both early and 5-year clinical outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted and open radical subtotal gastrectomy for distal gastric cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The role of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer has not yet been defined, and many doubts remain about the ability to satisfy all the oncologic criteria met during conventional, open surgery. METHODS: This study was designed as a prospective, randomized clinical trial with a total of 59 patients. Twenty-nine (49.1%) patients were randomized to undergo open subtotal gastrectomy (OG), while 30 (50.9%) patients were randomized to the laparoscopic group (LG). Demographics, ASA status, pTNM stage, histologic type of the tumor, number of resected lymph nodes, postoperative complications, and 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were studied to assess outcome differences between the groups. RESULTS: The demographics, preoperative data, and characteristics of the tumor were similar. The mean number of resected lymph nodes was 33.4 +/- 17.4 in the OG group and 30.0 +/- 14.9 in the LG (P = not significant). Operative mortality rates were 6.7% (2 patients) in the OG and 3.3% (1 patient) in the LG (P = not significant); morbidity rates were 27.6% and 26.7%, respectively (P = not significant). Five-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 55.7% and 54.8% and 58.9% and 57.3% in the OG and the LG, respectively (P = not significant). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical subtotal gastrectomy for distal gastric cancer is a feasible and safe oncologic procedure with short- and long-term results similar to those obtained with an open approach. Additional benefits for the LG were reduced blood loss, shorter time to resumption of oral intake, and earlier discharge from hospital.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Kim, H.-H., Hyung, W. J., Cho, G. S., Kim, M. C., Han, S.-U., Kim, W., Ryu, S.-W., Lee, H.-J., & Song, K. Y. (2010) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3181cc8f6b · Cited by 758
Kim, Y.-W., Baik, Y. H., Yun, Y. H., Nam, B. H., Kim, D. H., Choi, I. J., & Bae, J.-M. (2008) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e318185e62e · Cited by 608
Metadata
- Authors
- Huscher, C. G. S., Mingoli, A., Sgarzini, G., Sansonetti, A., Di Paola, M., Recher, A., & Ponzano, C.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2005-02
- Volume
- 241
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 232-237
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1968934186
- Cited by
- 860
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Laparoscopic Versus Open Subtotal Gastrectomy for Distal Gastric Cancer: Five-Year Results of a Randomized Prospective Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.sla.0000151892.35922.f2
- The paper
- Huscher, C. G. S., Mingoli, A., Sgarzini, G., Sansonetti, A., Di Paola, M., Recher, A., & Ponzano, C. (2005). Laparoscopic Versus Open Subtotal Gastrectomy for Distal Gastric Cancer: Five-Year Results of a Randomized Prospective Trial. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000151892.35922.f2
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.