Short-term outcomes depending on type of oesophagojejunostomy in laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: retrospective study based on a Korean Nationwide Survey for Gastric Cancer in 2019.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
BJS Open Pub Date : 2024-10-29 DOI:10.1093/bjsopen/zrae129
Gun Kang, Jiyeong Kim, Ju-Hee Lee
{"title":"Short-term outcomes depending on type of oesophagojejunostomy in laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: retrospective study based on a Korean Nationwide Survey for Gastric Cancer in 2019.","authors":"Gun Kang, Jiyeong Kim, Ju-Hee Lee","doi":"10.1093/bjsopen/zrae129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The study aimed to assess postoperative complication rates of different oesophagojejunostomy (EJ) techniques used in laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 1155 patients who underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy were retrospectively selected from the data obtained from the Korean Nationwide Survey for gastric cancer in 2019. Morbidity rate was compared between patients who received intracorporeal or extracorporeal EJ using linear or circular staplers during laparoscopic total gastrectomy. The variables of the groups were balanced using the inverse probability of treatment weighting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven hundred and seventy-three patients received intracorporeal EJ using a linear stapler (IL), 137 received intracorporeal EJ using a circular stapler (IC), 134 received extracorporeal EJ using a linear stapler (EL) and 111 received extracorporeal EJ using a circular stapler (EC). The overall complication rates were lower in the extracorporeal group (EL: 13.4% versus EC: 12.6%) compared to the intracorporeal group (IL: 22.6% versus IC: 17.5%) (P = 0.006). Fewer major complications were observed in the extracorporeal group (EL: 1.4% versus EC: 1.8%) compared to the intracorporeal group (IL: 9.4% versus IC: 7.3%) (P = 0.004). There was no significant difference in EJ-related complications between the groups (P = 0.418 in EJ leakage and P = 0.474 in EJ stricture). Multivariable analysis showed that the IL method correlated with more overall and major complications than the extracorporeal method.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this study suggest that despite its widespread use, the IL method is a challenging procedure with higher complication rates than the extracorporeal method. Further high-quality studies are required to confirm the results.</p>","PeriodicalId":9028,"journal":{"name":"BJS Open","volume":"8 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11528302/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJS Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrae129","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The study aimed to assess postoperative complication rates of different oesophagojejunostomy (EJ) techniques used in laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Methods: A total of 1155 patients who underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy were retrospectively selected from the data obtained from the Korean Nationwide Survey for gastric cancer in 2019. Morbidity rate was compared between patients who received intracorporeal or extracorporeal EJ using linear or circular staplers during laparoscopic total gastrectomy. The variables of the groups were balanced using the inverse probability of treatment weighting.

Results: Seven hundred and seventy-three patients received intracorporeal EJ using a linear stapler (IL), 137 received intracorporeal EJ using a circular stapler (IC), 134 received extracorporeal EJ using a linear stapler (EL) and 111 received extracorporeal EJ using a circular stapler (EC). The overall complication rates were lower in the extracorporeal group (EL: 13.4% versus EC: 12.6%) compared to the intracorporeal group (IL: 22.6% versus IC: 17.5%) (P = 0.006). Fewer major complications were observed in the extracorporeal group (EL: 1.4% versus EC: 1.8%) compared to the intracorporeal group (IL: 9.4% versus IC: 7.3%) (P = 0.004). There was no significant difference in EJ-related complications between the groups (P = 0.418 in EJ leakage and P = 0.474 in EJ stricture). Multivariable analysis showed that the IL method correlated with more overall and major complications than the extracorporeal method.

Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that despite its widespread use, the IL method is a challenging procedure with higher complication rates than the extracorporeal method. Further high-quality studies are required to confirm the results.

腹腔镜胃癌全胃切除术中食管空肠吻合术类型的短期疗效:基于2019年韩国全国胃癌调查的回顾性研究。
背景:该研究旨在评估腹腔镜胃癌全胃切除术中使用的不同食管空肠吻合术(EJ)术后并发症发生率:该研究旨在评估腹腔镜胃癌全胃切除术中使用的不同食管空肠吻合术(EJ)技术的术后并发症发生率:从2019年韩国全国胃癌调查数据中回顾性选取了1155名接受腹腔镜全胃切除术的患者。比较了在腹腔镜全胃切除术中使用线性或圆形订书机进行体外或体外 EJ 的患者的发病率。各组的变量采用逆概率治疗加权法进行平衡:结果:773 名患者接受了使用线性订书机(IL)的体外 EJ,137 名患者接受了使用圆形订书机(IC)的体外 EJ,134 名患者接受了使用线性订书机(EL)的体外 EJ,111 名患者接受了使用圆形订书机(EC)的体外 EJ。体外组的总体并发症发生率(EL:13.4% 对 EC:12.6%)低于体内组(IL:22.6% 对 IC:17.5%)(P = 0.006)。与体外组(IL:9.4% 对 IC:7.3%)相比,体外组的主要并发症较少(EL:1.4% 对 EC:1.8%)(P = 0.004)。两组之间在 EJ 相关并发症方面没有明显差异(EJ 漏:P = 0.418;EJ 狭窄:P = 0.474)。多变量分析显示,与体外循环方法相比,IL 方法与更多的总体并发症和主要并发症相关:本研究结果表明,尽管IL法被广泛使用,但它是一种具有挑战性的手术,并发症发生率高于体外法。需要更多高质量的研究来证实这些结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BJS Open
BJS Open SURGERY-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.20%
发文量
144
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信