4.4 Article

Postoperative quality of life after laparoscopy-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy compared With laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy: A cross-sectional postal questionnaire survey

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 213, Issue 4, Pages 763-770

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.09.041

Keywords

Laparoscopy-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy; Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy; PGSAS-45; Propensity score; QOL

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Little is known about postgastrectomy syndrome and quality of life (QOL after laparoscopy-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (LAPPG). The aim of this study was to assess postgastrectomy syndrome and QOL after LAPPG as compared with laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with Billroth-I reconstruction (LADGBI). Methods: Postgastrectomy Syndrome Assessment Scale-45 (PGSAS-45) questionnaires were sent by mail to 167 patients. To balance the characteristics of the groups, propensity score matching was performed. Results: Of the 167 patients sent questionnaires, 112 (67%) responded, including 47 who underwent LAPPG and 65 who underwent LADGBI. After propensity score matching, the LAPPG group scored significantly better on the diarrhea and dumping subscales. Multiple regression analysis showed that female sex and LADGBI were independent factors predicting dumping. Evaluation of outcome measures for singular symptom showed that the LAPPG group scored significantly worse on the acid regurgitation subscale, but significantly better on the lower abdominal pain and early dumping abdominal subscales. Conclusion: LAPPG is superior to LADGBI for ameliorating postgastrectomy syndrome and maintaining QOL. LAPPG is recommended for patients with cT1N0 middle third gastric cancer. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available