Table 1.
Publication | Study design | Cases (L/O) | Type of gastrectomy | Type of laparoscopy | Mean follow-up (mo) | Matching criteria1 | Quality score |
Shinohara et al[32] | Non-RCT | 186/123 | DG, TG, PG | TLG | 48.8 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 | 8 |
Kim et al[31] | Non-RCT | 88/88 | DG, TG, PG | LAG | L: 53.7; O: 58.1 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 | 8 |
Wang et al[30] | Non-RCT | 210/180 | DG, TG, PG | LAG | L: median 24; O: median 26 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 7 |
Sato et al[29] | Non-RCT | 32/118 | DG, TG, PG | LAG | 43 | 1 | 7 |
Hamabe et al[28] | Non-RCT | 66/101 | DG, TG | LAG | L: 30.4; O: 53.5 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 | 6 |
Chen et al[27] | Non-RCT | 224/112 | DG, TG | LAG | NS | 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 | 7 |
Zang et al[26] | Non-RCT | 156/156 | TG | LAG | NS | 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 | 6 |
Shuang et al[25] | Non-RCT | 35/35 | DG | LAG | L: 36.5; O: 38.5 | 5, 8 | 6 |
Scatizzi et al[24] | Non-RCT | 30/30 | DG | TLG | 18 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 | 7 |
Cai et al[23] | RCT | 49/47 | DG, TG, PG | LAG | 22.1 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | RCT |
Huang et al[22] | Non-RCT | 66/69 | DG | LAG | Range: 1-19 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 | 7 |
Du et al[21] | Non-RCT | 82/94 | TG | LAG | 2.5 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 | 7 |
Du et al[20] | Non-RCT | 78/90 | DG | LAG | 25.2 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | 7 |
Hur et al[19] | Non-RCT | 26/25 | DG | LAG | 29.0 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 | 7 |
Matching criteria: 1 = age; 2 = sex; 3 = pathologic tumor-node-metastasis stage; 4 = type of gastrectomy; 5 = resection margin; 6 = tumor size; 7 = histologic type; 8 = reconstruction; 9 = adjuvant treatment. DG: Distal gastrectomy; L: Laparoscopic gastrectomy; LAG: Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy; NS: Not stated; O: Open gastrectomy; PG: Proximal gastrectomy; RCT: Randomized controlled trial; TG: Total gastrectomy; TLG: Total laparoscopic gastrectomy.