超重和肥胖胃癌患者单切口腹腔镜远端胃切除术的安全性和可行性:倾向评分匹配分析。

IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Gastric Cancer Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1007/s10120-024-01530-5
Eunju Lee, Yun-Suhk Suh, Mira Yoo, Duyeong Hwang, So Hyun Kang, Sangjun Lee, Young Suk Park, Sang-Hoon Ahn, Seong-Ho Kong, Do Joong Park, Hyuk-Joon Lee, Hyung-Ho Kim, Han-Kwang Yang
{"title":"超重和肥胖胃癌患者单切口腹腔镜远端胃切除术的安全性和可行性:倾向评分匹配分析。","authors":"Eunju Lee, Yun-Suhk Suh, Mira Yoo, Duyeong Hwang, So Hyun Kang, Sangjun Lee, Young Suk Park, Sang-Hoon Ahn, Seong-Ho Kong, Do Joong Park, Hyuk-Joon Lee, Hyung-Ho Kim, Han-Kwang Yang","doi":"10.1007/s10120-024-01530-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The technical challenges and safety concerns of single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy for overweight and obese gastric cancer patients remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (SIDG) compared to multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) in overweight and obese gastric cancer patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study retrospectively analyzed overweight and obese patients (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m<sup>2</sup>) and pathologic stage T1 primary gastric adenocarcinoma treated with either SIDG or MLDG. The SIDG and MLDG groups were propensity score matched at a 1:2 ratio using age, sex, height, body weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, year of surgery, pathologic N stage, and anastomosis method as covariates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After 1:2 matching, the study included patients who underwent SIDG (n = 179) and MLDG (n = 358). No significant difference in the number of retrieved lymph nodes was found between the SIDG and MLDG groups (52.8 ± 19.3 vs. 53.9 ± 21.0, P = 0.56). Operation times were significantly shorter in the SIDG group (170.8 ± 60.0 min vs. 186.1 ± 52.6 min, P = 0.004). The postoperative hospital length of stay was comparable between the 2 groups (SIDG: 5.9 ± 3.4 days vs. MLDG: 6.3 ± 5.1 days, P = 0.23), as was postoperative complication rate (SIDG: 13.4% vs. MLDG: 12.8%, P = 0.89).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SIDG was shown to be as safe and feasible as MLDG for overweight and obese gastric cancer patients, with comparable early postoperative complication rates without compromising operation time compared to MLDG.</p>","PeriodicalId":12684,"journal":{"name":"Gastric Cancer","volume":" ","pages":"1136-1146"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11335889/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in overweight and obese gastric cancer patients: a propensity score-matched analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Eunju Lee, Yun-Suhk Suh, Mira Yoo, Duyeong Hwang, So Hyun Kang, Sangjun Lee, Young Suk Park, Sang-Hoon Ahn, Seong-Ho Kong, Do Joong Park, Hyuk-Joon Lee, Hyung-Ho Kim, Han-Kwang Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10120-024-01530-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The technical challenges and safety concerns of single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy for overweight and obese gastric cancer patients remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (SIDG) compared to multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) in overweight and obese gastric cancer patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study retrospectively analyzed overweight and obese patients (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m<sup>2</sup>) and pathologic stage T1 primary gastric adenocarcinoma treated with either SIDG or MLDG. The SIDG and MLDG groups were propensity score matched at a 1:2 ratio using age, sex, height, body weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, year of surgery, pathologic N stage, and anastomosis method as covariates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After 1:2 matching, the study included patients who underwent SIDG (n = 179) and MLDG (n = 358). No significant difference in the number of retrieved lymph nodes was found between the SIDG and MLDG groups (52.8 ± 19.3 vs. 53.9 ± 21.0, P = 0.56). Operation times were significantly shorter in the SIDG group (170.8 ± 60.0 min vs. 186.1 ± 52.6 min, P = 0.004). The postoperative hospital length of stay was comparable between the 2 groups (SIDG: 5.9 ± 3.4 days vs. MLDG: 6.3 ± 5.1 days, P = 0.23), as was postoperative complication rate (SIDG: 13.4% vs. MLDG: 12.8%, P = 0.89).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SIDG was shown to be as safe and feasible as MLDG for overweight and obese gastric cancer patients, with comparable early postoperative complication rates without compromising operation time compared to MLDG.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12684,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gastric Cancer\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1136-1146\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11335889/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gastric Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-024-01530-5\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastric Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-024-01530-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:对超重和肥胖胃癌患者进行单切口腹腔镜胃切除术的技术挑战和安全问题仍不清楚。本研究旨在评估单切口腹腔镜远端胃切除术(SIDG)与多孔腹腔镜远端胃切除术(MLDG)在超重和肥胖胃癌患者中的安全性和可行性:本研究对超重和肥胖(体重指数≥ 25 kg/m2)且病理分期为 T1 的原发性胃腺癌患者接受 SIDG 或 MLDG 治疗的情况进行了回顾性分析。以年龄、性别、身高、体重、美国麻醉医师协会分类、手术年份、病理 N 分期和吻合方法为协变量,按 1:2 的比例对 SIDG 组和 MLDG 组进行倾向评分匹配:经过1:2配对后,研究纳入了接受SIDG(n = 179)和MLDG(n = 358)手术的患者。SIDG组和MLDG组取回的淋巴结数量无明显差异(52.8 ± 19.3 vs. 53.9 ± 21.0,P = 0.56)。SIDG 组的手术时间明显更短(170.8 ± 60.0 分钟 vs 186.1 ± 52.6 分钟,P = 0.004)。两组的术后住院时间相当(SIDG:5.9 ± 3.4 天 vs MLDG:6.3 ± 5.1 天,P = 0.23),术后并发症发生率也相当(SIDG:13.4% vs MLDG:12.8%,P = 0.89):结论:对于超重和肥胖的胃癌患者,SIDG与MLDG一样安全可行,与MLDG相比,术后早期并发症发生率相当,且不影响手术时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in overweight and obese gastric cancer patients: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Background: The technical challenges and safety concerns of single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy for overweight and obese gastric cancer patients remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (SIDG) compared to multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) in overweight and obese gastric cancer patients.

Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed overweight and obese patients (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2) and pathologic stage T1 primary gastric adenocarcinoma treated with either SIDG or MLDG. The SIDG and MLDG groups were propensity score matched at a 1:2 ratio using age, sex, height, body weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, year of surgery, pathologic N stage, and anastomosis method as covariates.

Results: After 1:2 matching, the study included patients who underwent SIDG (n = 179) and MLDG (n = 358). No significant difference in the number of retrieved lymph nodes was found between the SIDG and MLDG groups (52.8 ± 19.3 vs. 53.9 ± 21.0, P = 0.56). Operation times were significantly shorter in the SIDG group (170.8 ± 60.0 min vs. 186.1 ± 52.6 min, P = 0.004). The postoperative hospital length of stay was comparable between the 2 groups (SIDG: 5.9 ± 3.4 days vs. MLDG: 6.3 ± 5.1 days, P = 0.23), as was postoperative complication rate (SIDG: 13.4% vs. MLDG: 12.8%, P = 0.89).

Conclusions: SIDG was shown to be as safe and feasible as MLDG for overweight and obese gastric cancer patients, with comparable early postoperative complication rates without compromising operation time compared to MLDG.

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
Gastric Cancer
Gastric Cancer 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
14.70
自引率
2.70%
发文量
80
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Gastric Cancer is an esteemed global forum that focuses on various aspects of gastric cancer research, treatment, and biology worldwide. The journal promotes a diverse range of content, including original articles, case reports, short communications, and technical notes. It also welcomes Letters to the Editor discussing published articles or sharing viewpoints on gastric cancer topics. Review articles are predominantly sought after by the Editor, ensuring comprehensive coverage of the field. With a dedicated and knowledgeable editorial team, the journal is committed to providing exceptional support and ensuring high levels of author satisfaction. In fact, over 90% of published authors have expressed their intent to publish again in our esteemed journal.
期刊最新文献
Survival outcomes of patients with gastric cancer treated with first-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy based on claudin 18.2 expression. Decorin as a key marker of desmoplastic cancer-associated fibroblasts mediating first-line immune checkpoint blockade resistance in metastatic gastric cancer. Predictors of tolerability for postoperative adjuvant S1 plus docetaxel chemotherapy for gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective study. Short-term outcomes of a phase II trial of perioperative capecitabine plus oxaliplatin therapy for advanced gastric cancer with extensive lymph node metastases (OGSG1701). Advantages of adjuvant chemotherapy using S-1 following minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer versus open surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis.
×
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