Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2018
Feasibility of Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Stage I Gastric Cancer in Patients Outside of Clinical Trials.
Сравнительное 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.
Fujiya Keiichi, Tokunaga Masanori, Nishiwaki Noriyuki, Furukawa Kenichiro, Omori Hayato, Kaji Sanae, Makuuchi Rie, Irino Tomoyuki, Tanizawa Yutaka, Bando Etsuro, Kawamura Taiichi, Terashima Masanori
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials, including the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) 0912 trial, have shown the safety of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for select healthy patients. It is unclear whether LADG is feasible in patients who do not meet trial eligibility criteria.
METHODS: The present study retrospectively reviewed 547 patients with clinical stage I gastric cancer who underwent distal or pylorus-preserving gastrectomy. Of these, 185 were identified as not fulfilling the eligibility criteria of JCOG 0912; the short-term surgical outcomes between LADG and open distal gastrectomy (ODG) were compared in this group before and after propensity score matching.
RESULTS: Patients who were not eligible for inclusion in the trial comprised 33.8% of the total. After matching, there were 59 patients each in the LADG and ODG groups, with an improved balance of confounding factors between the two groups. LADG was associated with significantly longer operation time, less blood loss, and shorter postoperative hospital stay than ODG. The rate of overall postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo Grade II or higher did not differ significantly between the LADG and ODG groups (23.7 vs. 18.6%, respectively; p = 0.653). The incidence of pneumonia (6.8 vs. 5.1%), intra-abdominal infectious complications (5.1 vs. 3.4%), and stasis syndrome (5.1 vs. 3.4%) was also comparable between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: LADG was as safe as ODG in patients who did not meet the eligibility criteria of JCOG 0912. LADG could be a standard treatment option for patients with stage I gastric cancer, regardless of their general condition.
METHODS: The present study retrospectively reviewed 547 patients with clinical stage I gastric cancer who underwent distal or pylorus-preserving gastrectomy. Of these, 185 were identified as not fulfilling the eligibility criteria of JCOG 0912; the short-term surgical outcomes between LADG and open distal gastrectomy (ODG) were compared in this group before and after propensity score matching.
RESULTS: Patients who were not eligible for inclusion in the trial comprised 33.8% of the total. After matching, there were 59 patients each in the LADG and ODG groups, with an improved balance of confounding factors between the two groups. LADG was associated with significantly longer operation time, less blood loss, and shorter postoperative hospital stay than ODG. The rate of overall postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo Grade II or higher did not differ significantly between the LADG and ODG groups (23.7 vs. 18.6%, respectively; p = 0.653). The incidence of pneumonia (6.8 vs. 5.1%), intra-abdominal infectious complications (5.1 vs. 3.4%), and stasis syndrome (5.1 vs. 3.4%) was also comparable between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: LADG was as safe as ODG in patients who did not meet the eligibility criteria of JCOG 0912. LADG could be a standard treatment option for patients with stage I gastric cancer, regardless of their general condition.