Oncologic specimen from laparoscopic assisted gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma is comparable to D1-open surgery: the experience of a Canadian centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Eastern experience has reported the safety of laparoscopic assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for gastric cancer. Its use in Western countries is still debated owing to concerns about its oncologic equivalence to open gastrectomy (OG). We sought to review and compare their operative outcomes and oncologic specimen quality (number of harvested lymph nodes and surgical margins) for gastric adenocarcinoma (GA). METHODS: We reviewed the charts of all patients undergoing LAG (2007-2010) and OG (2000-2010) for GA in a single institution. Several surgeons performed the OGs, whereas 1 fellowship-trained laparoscopic surgeon performed LAGs. The primary outcome was quality of the surgical specimen, assessed by the number of harvested lymph nodes (LNs) and margin status. Secondary outcomes were perioperative events. Data were analyzed as intention to treat. RESULTS: We retrieved 60 cases (47 OGs, 13 LAGs). The conversion rate was 23%. Mean operative time was 115 minutes longer and blood loss was 425 mL less (both p < 0.001) for LAGs. A mean of 14.4 (standard deviation [SD] 9.8) and 11.2 (SD 8.2) LNs were harvested for OGs and LAGs, respectively (p = 0.29). Negative margins were achieved for all patients. Mean length of stay was similar (LAG: 19 d v. OG: 18.9 d; p = 0.91). The groups did not differ on major postoperative complications (12.7% v. 23.1%; p = 0.39) or operative mortality (2.1% v. 7.7%; p = 0.32). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic assisted gastrectomy is a challenging but safe and feasible procedure in experienced hands. It offers the same radical resection as OG regarding negative margins and LN retrieval. Long-term follow-up is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".