IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0177193.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs. open resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Author

Listed:
  • Liangying Ye
  • Xiaojing Wu
  • Tongwei Wu
  • Qijing Wu
  • Zhao Liu
  • Chuan Liu
  • Sen Li
  • Tao Chen

Abstract

Background: This meta-analysis compared laparoscopic surgery (LAP) and open resection (OPEN) for the treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) with regard to feasibility and safety. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published before March 2016 comparing the LAP and OPEN procedures for GISTs. RevMan 5.1 software was used for the meta-analysis. Results: In total, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The mean tumor sizes in the OPEN and LAP groups were 4.54 and 5.67 cm. Compared with the OPEN patients, the LAP patients experienced shorter surgical times (P = 0.05), less blood loss (P 5 cm), the present study did not report significant differences in operation time (P = 0.93), postoperative complications (P = 0.30), or recurrence rate (P = 0.61) between the two groups, though LAP was associated with favorable results regarding blood loss (P = 0.03) and hospital stay (P 5 cm, no significant difference was detected between LAP and OPEN if patient selection and intraoperative decisions were carefully considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Liangying Ye & Xiaojing Wu & Tongwei Wu & Qijing Wu & Zhao Liu & Chuan Liu & Sen Li & Tao Chen, 2017. "Meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs. open resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0177193
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177193
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177193
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177193&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0177193?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:pone00:0177193. 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.