. 2021 Jan 27;5(3):278–286. doi: 10.1002/ags3.12430

TABLE 3.

Studies examining the nutritional advantages of LSTG over LTG or LPG

References	Year	Study design	Procedure	Sample size (n)	Comparisons of nutritional parameters (at 1 y postoperatively)
References	Year	Study design	Procedure	Sample size (n)	BW	Hb	Alb	TP	PNI
Kano et al	2020	Retrospective	LSTG	110	STG = PG	STG = PG (STG < PG at 2 and 3 y postoperatively)	STG = PG	STG = PG	N/A
Kano et al	2020	Retrospective	LPG (EG‐DFT)	51	STG = PG	STG = PG (STG < PG at 2 and 3 y postoperatively)	STG = PG	STG = PG	N/A
Furukawa et al	2018	Retrospective	LSTG	38	STG > TG	STG > TG	N/A	N/A	STG = TG
			LTG	48	STG > TG	STG > TG	N/A	N/A	STG = TG
			LPG (EG or DT)	27	STG = PG	N/A	STG > PG	N/A	STG > PG
Kosuga et al	2014	Retrospective	LSTG	57	STG > TG	N/A	STG > TG	STG > TG	N/A
Kosuga et al	2014	Retrospective	LTG	110	STG > TG	N/A	STG > TG	STG > TG	N/A

Abbreviations: Alb, albumin; BW, body weight; DFT, double flap technique; DT, double tract; EG, esophagogastrostomy; Hb, hemoglobin; LPG, laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy; LSTG, laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy; LTG, laparoscopic total gastrectomy; N/A, not available; PG, proximal gastrectomy; PNI, prognostic nutritional index; STG, subtotal gastrectomy; TG, total gastrectomy; TP, total protein.