Surgical endoscopy · 2022
Late complication after gastrectomy for clinical stage I cancer: supplementary analysis of JCOG0912.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hikage Makoto, Hato Shinji, Uemura Kohei, Yura Masahiro, Sato Yuya, Matsushita Hisayuki, Cho Haruhiko, Hiki Naoki, Kunisaki Chikara, Inoue Kentaro, Choda Yasuhiro, Boku Narikazu, Yoshikawa Takaki, Katai Hitoshi, Terashima Masanori
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Late complications following gastric cancer surgery, including postgastrectomy syndromes, are complex problems requiring a solution. Reported risk factors for developing late complications include surgery-related factors, such as the surgical approach and the extent of resection and reconstruction. However, this has not been assessed in a prospective study with a large sample size. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate associations between surgery-related factors and the development of late complications. Data from the JCOG0912 trial were used. It compared laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) to open distal gastrectomy (ODG) in clinical stage I gastric cancer patients.
METHODS: This study included 881/921 patients enrolled in the JCOG0912 trial. The incidence of late complications was compared between the ODG and the LADG arms. In addition, associations between surgery-related factors and the development of late complications were assessed by multivariable analyses using the proportional odds model to identify relevant risk factors.
RESULTS: There was no difference in the type or number of patients with late complications between the LADG and the ODG arms. The multivariable analysis for each late complication revealed that the Billroth-I reconstruction (vs. R-en-Y or Billroth-II) had a lower risk of cholecystitis [odds ratio (OR) 0.187, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.039-0.905, P = 0.037] or ileus (OR 0.116, 95%CI 0.033-0.406, P < 0.001), and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (vs. R-en-Y or Billroth-II) had a higher risk of reflux esophagitis (OR 3.348, 95% CI 1.371-8.176, P = 0.008). The surgical approach was not a risk factor for any late complications.
CONCLUSION: Differences in surgical approaches did not constitute a risk for developing late complications after gastrectomy. Billroth-I reconstruction reduced the risk of ileus and cholecystitis, but pylorus-preserving gastrectomy carried a risk for reflux esophagitis.
METHODS: This study included 881/921 patients enrolled in the JCOG0912 trial. The incidence of late complications was compared between the ODG and the LADG arms. In addition, associations between surgery-related factors and the development of late complications were assessed by multivariable analyses using the proportional odds model to identify relevant risk factors.
RESULTS: There was no difference in the type or number of patients with late complications between the LADG and the ODG arms. The multivariable analysis for each late complication revealed that the Billroth-I reconstruction (vs. R-en-Y or Billroth-II) had a lower risk of cholecystitis [odds ratio (OR) 0.187, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.039-0.905, P = 0.037] or ileus (OR 0.116, 95%CI 0.033-0.406, P < 0.001), and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (vs. R-en-Y or Billroth-II) had a higher risk of reflux esophagitis (OR 3.348, 95% CI 1.371-8.176, P = 0.008). The surgical approach was not a risk factor for any late complications.
CONCLUSION: Differences in surgical approaches did not constitute a risk for developing late complications after gastrectomy. Billroth-I reconstruction reduced the risk of ileus and cholecystitis, but pylorus-preserving gastrectomy carried a risk for reflux esophagitis.