Potentials of Minimally Invasive Technologies in Treatment for Early Gastric Cancer

A. Dylenok, V. Rybachkov, V. N. Malashenko, S. Kashin, Leonid B. Shybin
{"title":"Potentials of Minimally Invasive Technologies in Treatment for Early Gastric Cancer","authors":"A. Dylenok, V. Rybachkov, V. N. Malashenko, S. Kashin, Leonid B. Shybin","doi":"10.17816/pavlovj108923","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION: Gastric cancer remains one of the leading causes of oncological morbidity and mortality. \nAIM: To determine the effectiveness and safety of wedge resections of stomach in patients with early gastric cancer (EGC) in comparison with endoscopic intraluminal treatment methods. \nMATERIALS AND METHODS: Assessment of the immediate and long-term (5 years) prognosis of 164 patients with EGC who underwent wedge resection of stomach and endoscopic intraluminal interventions was performed. One hundred twenty eight patients were operated on in the volume of endoscopic intraluminal mucosal resection or submucosal dissection (the mean age 68.5 9.2 years; men 53.7%). In 36 patients (the mean age 65.3 7.8 years; men 66.7%), according to gastroscopy in combination with chromogastroscopy, narrow-band magnification endoscopy, the tumor dimensions exceeded those recommended for endoscopic methods. Due to contraindications for classic resection interventions in such patients, wedge resections of the stomach were performed. \nRESULTS: In the comparison groups there was no postoperative mortality, however, in the group with use of endoscopic methods, complications were noted (perforations of the stomach and bleeding). All the complications were eliminated endoscopically. In the group of wedge resections, there were no postoperative complications, but in the long-term result, the five-year survival rate was lower than in the group of endoscopic treatment (75.0% versus 92.2%; 2 = 8.10, p = 0.004) due to a more severe comorbid pathology in the patients of wedge resection group. \nCONCLUSION: Safety and equal effectiveness of wedge gastric resections was established in the long-term oncological result in patients with EGC in comparison with intraluminal endoscopic methods.","PeriodicalId":113364,"journal":{"name":"I.P. Pavlov Russian Medical Biological Herald","volume":"151 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"I.P. Pavlov Russian Medical Biological Herald","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17816/pavlovj108923","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Gastric cancer remains one of the leading causes of oncological morbidity and mortality. AIM: To determine the effectiveness and safety of wedge resections of stomach in patients with early gastric cancer (EGC) in comparison with endoscopic intraluminal treatment methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Assessment of the immediate and long-term (5 years) prognosis of 164 patients with EGC who underwent wedge resection of stomach and endoscopic intraluminal interventions was performed. One hundred twenty eight patients were operated on in the volume of endoscopic intraluminal mucosal resection or submucosal dissection (the mean age 68.5 9.2 years; men 53.7%). In 36 patients (the mean age 65.3 7.8 years; men 66.7%), according to gastroscopy in combination with chromogastroscopy, narrow-band magnification endoscopy, the tumor dimensions exceeded those recommended for endoscopic methods. Due to contraindications for classic resection interventions in such patients, wedge resections of the stomach were performed. RESULTS: In the comparison groups there was no postoperative mortality, however, in the group with use of endoscopic methods, complications were noted (perforations of the stomach and bleeding). All the complications were eliminated endoscopically. In the group of wedge resections, there were no postoperative complications, but in the long-term result, the five-year survival rate was lower than in the group of endoscopic treatment (75.0% versus 92.2%; 2 = 8.10, p = 0.004) due to a more severe comorbid pathology in the patients of wedge resection group. CONCLUSION: Safety and equal effectiveness of wedge gastric resections was established in the long-term oncological result in patients with EGC in comparison with intraluminal endoscopic methods.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
微创技术在早期胃癌治疗中的潜力
导读:胃癌仍然是肿瘤发病率和死亡率的主要原因之一。目的:探讨胃楔形切除术治疗早期胃癌(EGC)的有效性和安全性,并与内镜腔内治疗方法进行比较。材料和方法:对164例接受胃楔形切除术和内镜腔内介入治疗的EGC患者的近期和长期(5年)预后进行评估。128例患者行内镜下腔内粘膜切除或粘膜下剥离术,平均年龄68.5 - 9.2岁;男人53.7%)。36例患者(平均年龄65.3 - 7.8岁;男性66.7%),经胃镜检查联合胃镜染色、窄带放大内镜检查,肿瘤尺寸超出内镜方法推荐值。由于这类患者的经典切除干预的禁忌症,我们进行了胃楔形切除术。结果:在对照组中,无术后死亡,但在使用内镜方法的组中,注意到并发症(胃穿孔和出血)。所有并发症均经内镜检查消除。楔形切除组无术后并发症,但长期观察,5年生存率低于内镜治疗组(75.0% vs 92.2%;2 = 8.10, p = 0.004),因为楔形切除组患者的合并症病理更为严重。结论:与腔内内镜方法相比,楔形胃切除术在EGC患者的长期肿瘤学结果中具有安全性和同等有效性。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparative Evaluation of Effectiveness of Lesser Toe Surgical Correction Routine Coronary Angiography and Functional Cardiac Tests before Resection of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in Patients without Symptoms of Myocardial Infarction Elimination of Intestinal Hypoxia in Complex Treatment of Intestinal Failure (Case Report) Clinical Case of a Foreign Body in the Soft Tissues surrounding the Knee Joint: to Help the Practitione Breast Cancer Resistance Protein: Structure, Localization, Functions, Significance for Rational Pharmacotherapy
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1