韩国缩口胃切除术与多口胃切除术的比较:2019年胃癌的特设分析和全国调查

IF 3.2 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Duyeong Hwang, Mira Yoo, Guan Hong Min, Eunju Lee, So Hyun Kang, Young Suk Park, Sang-Hoon Ahn, Hyung-Ho Kim, Yun-Suhk Suh
{"title":"韩国缩口胃切除术与多口胃切除术的比较:2019年胃癌的特设分析和全国调查","authors":"Duyeong Hwang, Mira Yoo, Guan Hong Min, Eunju Lee, So Hyun Kang, Young Suk Park, Sang-Hoon Ahn, Hyung-Ho Kim, Yun-Suhk Suh","doi":"10.5230/jgc.2025.25.e15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and current status of reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RLDG) compared with multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) based on a 2019 nationwide survey of surgical gastric cancer treatments by the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study was conducted retrospectively from March to December 2020 using data from the 2019 KGCA nationwide survey database. To compare RLDG and MLDG based on age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histological type, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis, propensity score matching was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 14,076 registered patients with gastric cancer, the five-port approach was the most favored for multiport gastrectomy, accounting for 6,396 (70.9%) cases, followed by the four-port approach, with 1,462 (16.2%) cases. The single-port approach was used in 303 (3.4%) cases, the two-port approach in 95 (1.1%) cases, and the three-port approach in 731 (8.1%) cases. RLDG was performed in 805 patients (6.4%), MLDG was conducted in 4,831 patients (34.3%), and 804 patients were 1:1 matched in each group. The average operation time was shorter in the RLDG (168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P<i><</i>0.001). No significant difference was found in blood loss (84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, <i>P=</i>0.152), overall complication rates (11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254), or complications ≥ to grade IIIa (3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study revealed that RLDG is a safe and effective surgical option for gastric cancer with the potential to offer shorter operation times without increasing the risk of complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":56072,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gastric Cancer","volume":"25 2","pages":"330-342"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Reduced Port Gastrectomy and Multiport Gastrectomy in Korea: Ad Hoc Analysis and Nationwide Survey on Gastric Cancer 2019.\",\"authors\":\"Duyeong Hwang, Mira Yoo, Guan Hong Min, Eunju Lee, So Hyun Kang, Young Suk Park, Sang-Hoon Ahn, Hyung-Ho Kim, Yun-Suhk Suh\",\"doi\":\"10.5230/jgc.2025.25.e15\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and current status of reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RLDG) compared with multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) based on a 2019 nationwide survey of surgical gastric cancer treatments by the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study was conducted retrospectively from March to December 2020 using data from the 2019 KGCA nationwide survey database. To compare RLDG and MLDG based on age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histological type, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis, propensity score matching was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 14,076 registered patients with gastric cancer, the five-port approach was the most favored for multiport gastrectomy, accounting for 6,396 (70.9%) cases, followed by the four-port approach, with 1,462 (16.2%) cases. The single-port approach was used in 303 (3.4%) cases, the two-port approach in 95 (1.1%) cases, and the three-port approach in 731 (8.1%) cases. RLDG was performed in 805 patients (6.4%), MLDG was conducted in 4,831 patients (34.3%), and 804 patients were 1:1 matched in each group. The average operation time was shorter in the RLDG (168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P<i><</i>0.001). No significant difference was found in blood loss (84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, <i>P=</i>0.152), overall complication rates (11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254), or complications ≥ to grade IIIa (3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study revealed that RLDG is a safe and effective surgical option for gastric cancer with the potential to offer shorter operation times without increasing the risk of complications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56072,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Gastric Cancer\",\"volume\":\"25 2\",\"pages\":\"330-342\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Gastric Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2025.25.e15\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gastric Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2025.25.e15","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在基于韩国胃癌协会(KGCA) 2019年全国胃癌手术治疗调查,评估微创腹腔镜远端胃切除术(RLDG)与多口腹腔镜远端胃切除术(MLDG)的疗效和现状。材料和方法:本研究于2020年3月至12月回顾性进行,数据来自2019年KGCA全国调查数据库。为了比较RLDG和MLDG在年龄、性别、体重指数、美国麻醉医师学会评分、组织学类型、肿瘤侵袭和淋巴结转移方面的差异,进行倾向评分匹配。结果:在14076例登记在册的胃癌患者中,五口入路在多口胃切除术中最受青睐,占6396例(70.9%),其次是四口入路,占1462例(16.2%)。单口入路303例(3.4%),双口入路95例(1.1%),三口入路731例(8.1%)。RLDG 805例(6.4%),MLDG 4831例(34.3%),两组按1:1匹配804例。RLDG组的平均手术时间更短(168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P0.001)。出血量(84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, P=0.152)、总并发症发生率(11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254)、并发症≥IIIa级(3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240)均无显著差异。结论:本研究显示RLDG是一种安全有效的胃癌手术选择,具有缩短手术时间且不增加并发症风险的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Reduced Port Gastrectomy and Multiport Gastrectomy in Korea: Ad Hoc Analysis and Nationwide Survey on Gastric Cancer 2019.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and current status of reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RLDG) compared with multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) based on a 2019 nationwide survey of surgical gastric cancer treatments by the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA).

Materials and methods: The study was conducted retrospectively from March to December 2020 using data from the 2019 KGCA nationwide survey database. To compare RLDG and MLDG based on age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histological type, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis, propensity score matching was performed.

Results: Of the 14,076 registered patients with gastric cancer, the five-port approach was the most favored for multiport gastrectomy, accounting for 6,396 (70.9%) cases, followed by the four-port approach, with 1,462 (16.2%) cases. The single-port approach was used in 303 (3.4%) cases, the two-port approach in 95 (1.1%) cases, and the three-port approach in 731 (8.1%) cases. RLDG was performed in 805 patients (6.4%), MLDG was conducted in 4,831 patients (34.3%), and 804 patients were 1:1 matched in each group. The average operation time was shorter in the RLDG (168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P<0.001). No significant difference was found in blood loss (84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, P=0.152), overall complication rates (11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254), or complications ≥ to grade IIIa (3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240).

Conclusions: This study revealed that RLDG is a safe and effective surgical option for gastric cancer with the potential to offer shorter operation times without increasing the risk of complications.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Gastric Cancer
Journal of Gastric Cancer Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Cancer Research
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
12.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The Journal of Gastric Cancer (J Gastric Cancer) is an international peer-reviewed journal. Each issue carries high quality clinical and translational researches on gastric neoplasms. Editorial Board of J Gastric Cancer publishes original articles on pathophysiology, molecular oncology, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of gastric cancer as well as articles on dietary control and improving the quality of life for gastric cancer patients. J Gastric Cancer includes case reports, review articles, how I do it articles, editorials, and letters to the editor.
×
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