Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy With D2 Lymph Node Dissection for Gastric Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer. DESIGN: Review of findings from a prospectively acquired institutional database. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: Fifty-five consecutive patients operated on by the same surgeon between October 1997 and March 2008. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blood loss, complication rate, and survival. RESULTS: All operations were accomplished without conversion to open laparotomy. The median operative time was 406 minutes. The median blood loss was 102 mL. A median of 46 lymph nodes were harvested. The TNM stages of the tumor were I in 17 patients (31%), II in 12 (22%), III in 16 (29%), and IV in 10 (18%). A total of 21 complications occurred in 18 patients (33%) with no postoperative mortality. At last follow-up, 44 of the 55 patients were alive without tumor recurrence and 3 with recurrence at a median follow-up of 16 months, whereas 8 had died of recurrence or another cause. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rate of zero and acceptable morbidity of our series indicate that laparoscopic total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is technically feasible and safe in the hands of experienced surgeons. Long-term follow-up is mandatory to validate oncologic outcome.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".