IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0173416.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gastric-tube versus whole-stomach esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Wenxiong Zhang
  • Dongliang Yu
  • Jinhua Peng
  • Jianjun Xu
  • Yiping Wei

Abstract

Objectives: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the gastric-tube vs. whole-stomach for esophageal cancer in order to determine the optimal surgical technique of esophagectomy. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Clinical trials that compared the gastric-tube versus whole-stomach for esophageal cancer were selected. The clinical endpoints included anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis, reflux esophagitis, pneumonia, delayed gastric emptying, and thoracic stomach syndrome. Results: A total of 6 articles (1571 patients) were included. Compared to the whole-stomach approach, the gastric-tube approach was associated with a lower incidence of reflux esophagitis (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16 to 0.81, p = 0.01) and thoracic stomach syndrome (95% CI: 0.17 to 0.55, p

Suggested Citation

  • Wenxiong Zhang & Dongliang Yu & Jinhua Peng & Jianjun Xu & Yiping Wei, 2017. "Gastric-tube versus whole-stomach esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-10, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0173416
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173416
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173416
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173416&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0173416?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0173416. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.