{"title":"基于系统胃系膜切除概念的腹腔镜胃癌根治性清扫的疗效:回顾性研究。","authors":"Jun Wei, Yi-Min Wang, Bo Xie, Ya-Guo Wang","doi":"10.62713/aic.4293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Laparoscopic systematic mesogastric excision (LSME) is an innovative theory and may lead to better outcomes for the treatment of locally advanced gastric cancers (LAGC). The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes after LSME to those after traditional laparoscopic D2 dissection (TLD2) in patients with LAGC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From January 2018 to December 2020, 675 patients with LAGC underwent LSME and TLD2 at The First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical University. Of these, 202 conformed to the inclusion criteria and were included in the study after propensity score matching (PSM). The primary endpoints of this study were 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included surgical outcomes and postoperative complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The demographic and pathological characteristics of the patients in both groups were well balanced after PSM. The 5-year DFS rates were 25.2% and 39.2% in the TLD2 group and the LSME group (<i>p</i> = 0.044), respectively. The difference in 5-year overall survival between the two groups was not statistically significant (39.1% in TLD2 vs. 43.2% in LSME, <i>p</i> = 0.370). LSME was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (21.3 ± 9.1 mL in LSME vs. 33.3 ± 11.9 mL in TLD2, <i>p</i> < 0.001), more dissected lymph nodes (LNs) (45.0 ± 16.0 LNs in LSME vs. 40.0 ± 14.0 LNs in TLD2; <i>p</i> = 0.019), and fewer lower limb thromboses (LSME: 6.9% vs. TLD2: 17.8%; <i>p</i> = 0.019). The other postoperative morbidities were similar.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LSME is safe for the treatment of LAGC because it results in fewer postoperative complications. Compared with TLD2, LSME may decrease local recurrence rate and improve 5-year DFS, but there is no significant difference in 5-year OS.</p>","PeriodicalId":8210,"journal":{"name":"Annali italiani di chirurgia","volume":"97 3","pages":"504-514"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes of Laparoscopic Radical Dissection in Gastric Cancer Patients Based on the Systematic Mesogastric Excision Concept: A Retrospective Study.\",\"authors\":\"Jun Wei, Yi-Min Wang, Bo Xie, Ya-Guo Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.62713/aic.4293\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Laparoscopic systematic mesogastric excision (LSME) is an innovative theory and may lead to better outcomes for the treatment of locally advanced gastric cancers (LAGC). The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes after LSME to those after traditional laparoscopic D2 dissection (TLD2) in patients with LAGC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From January 2018 to December 2020, 675 patients with LAGC underwent LSME and TLD2 at The First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical University. Of these, 202 conformed to the inclusion criteria and were included in the study after propensity score matching (PSM). The primary endpoints of this study were 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included surgical outcomes and postoperative complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The demographic and pathological characteristics of the patients in both groups were well balanced after PSM. The 5-year DFS rates were 25.2% and 39.2% in the TLD2 group and the LSME group (<i>p</i> = 0.044), respectively. The difference in 5-year overall survival between the two groups was not statistically significant (39.1% in TLD2 vs. 43.2% in LSME, <i>p</i> = 0.370). LSME was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (21.3 ± 9.1 mL in LSME vs. 33.3 ± 11.9 mL in TLD2, <i>p</i> < 0.001), more dissected lymph nodes (LNs) (45.0 ± 16.0 LNs in LSME vs. 40.0 ± 14.0 LNs in TLD2; <i>p</i> = 0.019), and fewer lower limb thromboses (LSME: 6.9% vs. TLD2: 17.8%; <i>p</i> = 0.019). The other postoperative morbidities were similar.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LSME is safe for the treatment of LAGC because it results in fewer postoperative complications. Compared with TLD2, LSME may decrease local recurrence rate and improve 5-year DFS, but there is no significant difference in 5-year OS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8210,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annali italiani di chirurgia\",\"volume\":\"97 3\",\"pages\":\"504-514\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annali italiani di chirurgia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.62713/aic.4293\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annali italiani di chirurgia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62713/aic.4293","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:腹腔镜系统肠系膜切除术(LSME)是一种创新的理论,可能为局部晚期胃癌(LAGC)的治疗带来更好的结果。本研究的目的是比较LSME和传统腹腔镜下D2剥离(TLD2)治疗LAGC患者的结果。方法:2018年1月至2020年12月,675例LAGC患者在蚌埠医科大学第一附属医院接受了LSME和TLD2治疗。其中202例符合纳入标准,经倾向评分匹配(PSM)纳入研究。该研究的主要终点是5年无病生存期(DFS)和总生存期(OS)。次要终点包括手术结果和术后并发症。结果:两组患者经PSM后人口学特征和病理特征平衡良好。TLD2组和LSME组的5年DFS分别为25.2%和39.2% (p = 0.044)。两组5年总生存率差异无统计学意义(TLD2组39.1% vs LSME组43.2%,p = 0.370)。LSME与术中出血量较少相关(LSME为21.3±9.1 mL, TLD2为33.3±11.9 mL, p < 0.001),更多的淋巴结(LNs) (LSME为45.0±16.0 LNs, TLD2为40.0±14.0 LNs, p = 0.019),下肢血栓形成较少(LSME: 6.9%, TLD2: 17.8%, p = 0.019)。其他术后并发症相似。结论:LSME治疗LAGC是安全的,术后并发症少。与TLD2相比,LSME可降低局部复发率,改善5年DFS,但5年OS无显著差异。
Outcomes of Laparoscopic Radical Dissection in Gastric Cancer Patients Based on the Systematic Mesogastric Excision Concept: A Retrospective Study.
Aim: Laparoscopic systematic mesogastric excision (LSME) is an innovative theory and may lead to better outcomes for the treatment of locally advanced gastric cancers (LAGC). The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes after LSME to those after traditional laparoscopic D2 dissection (TLD2) in patients with LAGC.
Methods: From January 2018 to December 2020, 675 patients with LAGC underwent LSME and TLD2 at The First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical University. Of these, 202 conformed to the inclusion criteria and were included in the study after propensity score matching (PSM). The primary endpoints of this study were 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included surgical outcomes and postoperative complications.
Results: The demographic and pathological characteristics of the patients in both groups were well balanced after PSM. The 5-year DFS rates were 25.2% and 39.2% in the TLD2 group and the LSME group (p = 0.044), respectively. The difference in 5-year overall survival between the two groups was not statistically significant (39.1% in TLD2 vs. 43.2% in LSME, p = 0.370). LSME was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (21.3 ± 9.1 mL in LSME vs. 33.3 ± 11.9 mL in TLD2, p < 0.001), more dissected lymph nodes (LNs) (45.0 ± 16.0 LNs in LSME vs. 40.0 ± 14.0 LNs in TLD2; p = 0.019), and fewer lower limb thromboses (LSME: 6.9% vs. TLD2: 17.8%; p = 0.019). The other postoperative morbidities were similar.
Conclusions: LSME is safe for the treatment of LAGC because it results in fewer postoperative complications. Compared with TLD2, LSME may decrease local recurrence rate and improve 5-year DFS, but there is no significant difference in 5-year OS.
期刊介绍:
Annali Italiani di Chirurgia is a bimonthly journal and covers all aspects of surgery:elective, emergency and experimental surgery, as well as problems involving technology, teaching, organization and forensic medicine. The articles are published in Italian or English, though English is preferred because it facilitates the international diffusion of the journal (v.Guidelines for Authors and Norme per gli Autori). The articles published are divided into three main sections:editorials, original articles, and case reports and innovations.