Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic gastrectomy versus conventional multi-port laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective study
Background We compared short-term perioperative outcomes after single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (SILG+1) and conventional multi-port laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (C-LAG) for gastric cancer. Methods The work was conducted between August 2017 and October 2019. A total of 90 p...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Surgical endoscopy 2022-05, Vol.36 (5), p.3298-3307 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 3307 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 3298 |
| container_title | Surgical endoscopy |
| container_volume | 36 |
| creator | Du, Guang-Sheng Jiang, En-Lai Qiu, Yuan Wang, Wen-Sheng Yin, Jiu-Heng Wang, Shuai Li, Yun-Bo Chen, Yi-Hui Yang, Hua Xiao, Wei-Dong |
| description | Background
We compared short-term perioperative outcomes after single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (SILG+1) and conventional multi-port laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (C-LAG) for gastric cancer.
Methods
The work was conducted between August 2017 and October 2019. A total of 90 patients with early or advanced gastric cancer were retrospectively analyzed: 43 patients of which underwent SILG+1, and 47 of which underwent C-LAG, respectively. These were divided into two groups: the total gastrectomy group (SILT+1 and C-LATG) and the distal gastrectomy group (SILD + 1 and C-LADG). The demographics, tumor characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and short-term complications of all enrolled patients were summarized and statistically analyzed.
Results
The mean incision length in SILT+1 group was 5.40 cm shorter than that in C-LATG group (3.15 ± 0.43 vs. 8.55 ± 2.72,
P
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00464-021-08643-3 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2555638101</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2555638101</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-e85563045e724a5e62dc5de8196b341e110ef595973ad99eea040f4298244e1f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1rFTEUhoMo9rb6B1xIwI2baD7nw50UtULBhboOaebMJWUmGXMyF-6_6U8116mKXbgKIc_zHnJeQl4I_kZw3r5FznWjGZeC8a7RiqlHZCe0kkxK0T0mO94rzmTb6zNyjnjLK98L85ScKa2E6hq5I3dfQ9xPwEL0AUOKdJlWpCkCW1IudHKLywl9WoKne4clgy9pPtIDZKygT_EAsVTRTXRepxIeekfmEAMWGP7xx5S3e831LnrI76ijGUq1lsqEA1As63B8Rp6MbkJ4fn9ekO8fP3y7vGLXXz59vnx_zbxqTWHQGdMorg20UjsDjRy8GaATfXOjtAAhOIymN32r3ND3AI5rPmrZd1JrEKO6IK-33CWnHytgsXNAD9PkIqQVrTSnAZ3goqKvHqC3ac11A5Vq6oZ1K1pVKblRvn4JM4x2yWF2-WgFt6f-7Nafrf3ZX_3Zk_TyPnq9mWH4o_wurAJqA7A-xT3kv7P_E_sT6Ayp7g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2649147173</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic gastrectomy versus conventional multi-port laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Du, Guang-Sheng ; Jiang, En-Lai ; Qiu, Yuan ; Wang, Wen-Sheng ; Yin, Jiu-Heng ; Wang, Shuai ; Li, Yun-Bo ; Chen, Yi-Hui ; Yang, Hua ; Xiao, Wei-Dong</creator><creatorcontrib>Du, Guang-Sheng ; Jiang, En-Lai ; Qiu, Yuan ; Wang, Wen-Sheng ; Yin, Jiu-Heng ; Wang, Shuai ; Li, Yun-Bo ; Chen, Yi-Hui ; Yang, Hua ; Xiao, Wei-Dong</creatorcontrib><description>Background
We compared short-term perioperative outcomes after single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (SILG+1) and conventional multi-port laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (C-LAG) for gastric cancer.
Methods
The work was conducted between August 2017 and October 2019. A total of 90 patients with early or advanced gastric cancer were retrospectively analyzed: 43 patients of which underwent SILG+1, and 47 of which underwent C-LAG, respectively. These were divided into two groups: the total gastrectomy group (SILT+1 and C-LATG) and the distal gastrectomy group (SILD + 1 and C-LADG). The demographics, tumor characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and short-term complications of all enrolled patients were summarized and statistically analyzed.
Results
The mean incision length in SILT+1 group was 5.40 cm shorter than that in C-LATG group (3.15 ± 0.43 vs. 8.55 ± 2.72,
P
< 0.001). This comparison between the SILD + 1 and the C-LADG group produced comparable results. The SILT+1 group underwent a 56.32 min longer operation than the C-LATG group (273.03 ± 66.80 vs. 216.71 ± 82.61,
P
= 0.0205). SILG+1 group had better postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) and cosmetic score than those of the C-LATG group (
P
< 0.05). There were no significant differences in preoperative demographics or 30-day postoperative complication rates between the SILG+1 and C-LAG groups. Tumor-related index, including mass size, histological type, number of retrieved lymph nodes, pathological tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage, and proximal and distal edges were all equivalent between the SILG+1 and the C-LAG group.
Conclusions
This retrospective study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of SILG+1 with D1+ or D2 lymphadenectomy for the treatment of early and advanced gastric cancers, compared with C-LAG.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0930-2794</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-2218</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08643-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34313862</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Abdomen ; Abdominal Surgery ; Committees ; Dissection ; Endoscopy ; Gastrectomy - methods ; Gastric cancer ; Gastroenterology ; Gastrointestinal surgery ; Gynecology ; Hepatology ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Laparoscopy - methods ; Lymph Node Excision - methods ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Metastasis ; Patients ; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology ; Postoperative Complications - etiology ; Postoperative Complications - surgery ; Proctology ; Retrospective Studies ; Stomach Neoplasms - pathology ; Surgery ; Surgical Wound - complications ; Treatment Outcome ; Veins & arteries</subject><ispartof>Surgical endoscopy, 2022-05, Vol.36 (5), p.3298-3307</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021</rights><rights>2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-e85563045e724a5e62dc5de8196b341e110ef595973ad99eea040f4298244e1f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-e85563045e724a5e62dc5de8196b341e110ef595973ad99eea040f4298244e1f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00464-021-08643-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00464-021-08643-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906,41469,42538,51300</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34313862$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Du, Guang-Sheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, En-Lai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qiu, Yuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Wen-Sheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yin, Jiu-Heng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Shuai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Yun-Bo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Yi-Hui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Hua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xiao, Wei-Dong</creatorcontrib><title>Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic gastrectomy versus conventional multi-port laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective study</title><title>Surgical endoscopy</title><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><description>Background
We compared short-term perioperative outcomes after single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (SILG+1) and conventional multi-port laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (C-LAG) for gastric cancer.
Methods
The work was conducted between August 2017 and October 2019. A total of 90 patients with early or advanced gastric cancer were retrospectively analyzed: 43 patients of which underwent SILG+1, and 47 of which underwent C-LAG, respectively. These were divided into two groups: the total gastrectomy group (SILT+1 and C-LATG) and the distal gastrectomy group (SILD + 1 and C-LADG). The demographics, tumor characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and short-term complications of all enrolled patients were summarized and statistically analyzed.
Results
The mean incision length in SILT+1 group was 5.40 cm shorter than that in C-LATG group (3.15 ± 0.43 vs. 8.55 ± 2.72,
P
< 0.001). This comparison between the SILD + 1 and the C-LADG group produced comparable results. The SILT+1 group underwent a 56.32 min longer operation than the C-LATG group (273.03 ± 66.80 vs. 216.71 ± 82.61,
P
= 0.0205). SILG+1 group had better postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) and cosmetic score than those of the C-LATG group (
P
< 0.05). There were no significant differences in preoperative demographics or 30-day postoperative complication rates between the SILG+1 and C-LAG groups. Tumor-related index, including mass size, histological type, number of retrieved lymph nodes, pathological tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage, and proximal and distal edges were all equivalent between the SILG+1 and the C-LAG group.
Conclusions
This retrospective study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of SILG+1 with D1+ or D2 lymphadenectomy for the treatment of early and advanced gastric cancers, compared with C-LAG.</description><subject>Abdomen</subject><subject>Abdominal Surgery</subject><subject>Committees</subject><subject>Dissection</subject><subject>Endoscopy</subject><subject>Gastrectomy - methods</subject><subject>Gastric cancer</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal surgery</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Hepatology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Lymph Node Excision - methods</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Metastasis</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - etiology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - surgery</subject><subject>Proctology</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Stomach Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Wound - complications</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Veins & arteries</subject><issn>0930-2794</issn><issn>1432-2218</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1rFTEUhoMo9rb6B1xIwI2baD7nw50UtULBhboOaebMJWUmGXMyF-6_6U8116mKXbgKIc_zHnJeQl4I_kZw3r5FznWjGZeC8a7RiqlHZCe0kkxK0T0mO94rzmTb6zNyjnjLK98L85ScKa2E6hq5I3dfQ9xPwEL0AUOKdJlWpCkCW1IudHKLywl9WoKne4clgy9pPtIDZKygT_EAsVTRTXRepxIeekfmEAMWGP7xx5S3e831LnrI76ijGUq1lsqEA1As63B8Rp6MbkJ4fn9ekO8fP3y7vGLXXz59vnx_zbxqTWHQGdMorg20UjsDjRy8GaATfXOjtAAhOIymN32r3ND3AI5rPmrZd1JrEKO6IK-33CWnHytgsXNAD9PkIqQVrTSnAZ3goqKvHqC3ac11A5Vq6oZ1K1pVKblRvn4JM4x2yWF2-WgFt6f-7Nafrf3ZX_3Zk_TyPnq9mWH4o_wurAJqA7A-xT3kv7P_E_sT6Ayp7g</recordid><startdate>20220501</startdate><enddate>20220501</enddate><creator>Du, Guang-Sheng</creator><creator>Jiang, En-Lai</creator><creator>Qiu, Yuan</creator><creator>Wang, Wen-Sheng</creator><creator>Yin, Jiu-Heng</creator><creator>Wang, Shuai</creator><creator>Li, Yun-Bo</creator><creator>Chen, Yi-Hui</creator><creator>Yang, Hua</creator><creator>Xiao, Wei-Dong</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220501</creationdate><title>Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic gastrectomy versus conventional multi-port laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective study</title><author>Du, Guang-Sheng ; Jiang, En-Lai ; Qiu, Yuan ; Wang, Wen-Sheng ; Yin, Jiu-Heng ; Wang, Shuai ; Li, Yun-Bo ; Chen, Yi-Hui ; Yang, Hua ; Xiao, Wei-Dong</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-e85563045e724a5e62dc5de8196b341e110ef595973ad99eea040f4298244e1f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Abdomen</topic><topic>Abdominal Surgery</topic><topic>Committees</topic><topic>Dissection</topic><topic>Endoscopy</topic><topic>Gastrectomy - methods</topic><topic>Gastric cancer</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal surgery</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Hepatology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Lymph Node Excision - methods</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Metastasis</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - etiology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - surgery</topic><topic>Proctology</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Stomach Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Wound - complications</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Veins & arteries</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Du, Guang-Sheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, En-Lai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qiu, Yuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Wen-Sheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yin, Jiu-Heng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Shuai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Yun-Bo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Yi-Hui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Hua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xiao, Wei-Dong</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Surgical endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Du, Guang-Sheng</au><au>Jiang, En-Lai</au><au>Qiu, Yuan</au><au>Wang, Wen-Sheng</au><au>Yin, Jiu-Heng</au><au>Wang, Shuai</au><au>Li, Yun-Bo</au><au>Chen, Yi-Hui</au><au>Yang, Hua</au><au>Xiao, Wei-Dong</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic gastrectomy versus conventional multi-port laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective study</atitle><jtitle>Surgical endoscopy</jtitle><stitle>Surg Endosc</stitle><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><date>2022-05-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>3298</spage><epage>3307</epage><pages>3298-3307</pages><issn>0930-2794</issn><eissn>1432-2218</eissn><abstract>Background
We compared short-term perioperative outcomes after single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (SILG+1) and conventional multi-port laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (C-LAG) for gastric cancer.
Methods
The work was conducted between August 2017 and October 2019. A total of 90 patients with early or advanced gastric cancer were retrospectively analyzed: 43 patients of which underwent SILG+1, and 47 of which underwent C-LAG, respectively. These were divided into two groups: the total gastrectomy group (SILT+1 and C-LATG) and the distal gastrectomy group (SILD + 1 and C-LADG). The demographics, tumor characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and short-term complications of all enrolled patients were summarized and statistically analyzed.
Results
The mean incision length in SILT+1 group was 5.40 cm shorter than that in C-LATG group (3.15 ± 0.43 vs. 8.55 ± 2.72,
P
< 0.001). This comparison between the SILD + 1 and the C-LADG group produced comparable results. The SILT+1 group underwent a 56.32 min longer operation than the C-LATG group (273.03 ± 66.80 vs. 216.71 ± 82.61,
P
= 0.0205). SILG+1 group had better postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) and cosmetic score than those of the C-LATG group (
P
< 0.05). There were no significant differences in preoperative demographics or 30-day postoperative complication rates between the SILG+1 and C-LAG groups. Tumor-related index, including mass size, histological type, number of retrieved lymph nodes, pathological tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage, and proximal and distal edges were all equivalent between the SILG+1 and the C-LAG group.
Conclusions
This retrospective study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of SILG+1 with D1+ or D2 lymphadenectomy for the treatment of early and advanced gastric cancers, compared with C-LAG.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>34313862</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00464-021-08643-3</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0930-2794 |
| ispartof | Surgical endoscopy, 2022-05, Vol.36 (5), p.3298-3307 |
| issn | 0930-2794 1432-2218 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2555638101 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals |
| subjects | Abdomen Abdominal Surgery Committees Dissection Endoscopy Gastrectomy - methods Gastric cancer Gastroenterology Gastrointestinal surgery Gynecology Hepatology Humans Laparoscopy Laparoscopy - methods Lymph Node Excision - methods Medicine Medicine & Public Health Metastasis Patients Postoperative Complications - epidemiology Postoperative Complications - etiology Postoperative Complications - surgery Proctology Retrospective Studies Stomach Neoplasms - pathology Surgery Surgical Wound - complications Treatment Outcome Veins & arteries |
| title | Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic gastrectomy versus conventional multi-port laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T12%3A31%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Single-incision%20plus%20one-port%20laparoscopic%20gastrectomy%20versus%20conventional%20multi-port%20laparoscopy-assisted%20gastrectomy%20for%20gastric%20cancer:%20a%20retrospective%20study&rft.jtitle=Surgical%20endoscopy&rft.au=Du,%20Guang-Sheng&rft.date=2022-05-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=3298&rft.epage=3307&rft.pages=3298-3307&rft.issn=0930-2794&rft.eissn=1432-2218&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00464-021-08643-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2555638101%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2649147173&rft_id=info:pmid/34313862&rfr_iscdi=true |