3.9 Article

Production of Intraperitoneal Interleukin-6 Following Open or Laparoscopic Assisted Distal Gastrectomy

期刊

INTERNATIONAL SURGERY
卷 99, 期 6, 页码 812-818

出版社

INT COLLEGE OF SURGEONS
DOI: 10.9738/INTSURG-D-14-00090.1

关键词

Interleukin (IL)-6; Cytokine; Peritoneal fluid; Surgical stress; Gastric cancer; Laparoscopic surgery; Gastrectomy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The interleukin (IL)-6 concentration in plasma or serum has been considered to represent the degree of stress resulting from surgery. However, IL-6 in peritoneal fluid has rarely been considered. The aim of this study was to assess the concentration and amount of IL-6 in peritoneal fluid as indicators of surgical stress. To obtain basic data on peritoneal release of IL-6 during gastric cancer surgery, we measured IL-6 in peritoneal drainage samples, stored for up to 72 hours postoperatively, from patients who had undergone conventional open (ODG group, n = 20) and laparoscopic-assisted (LADG group, n = 19) distal gastrectomy. Within 24 hours, 61 and 77% of the IL-6 was released into the peritoneal cavity in the LADG and ODG groups, respectively. In both groups, the concentration and amount of peritoneal fluid IL-6 were significantly correlated with each other (LADG group: Spearman's rank correlation test [rS] = 0.48, P = 0.04; ODG group: rS = 0.58, P = 0.01). The concentration and amount of IL-6 in peritoneal fluid was 2.8- and 3.6-fold higher in the ODG than in the LADG group, respectively (P < 0.01). With regard to the relationship between the serum C-reactive protein (CRP) peak and the concentration or amount of peritoneal fluid IL-6 released within 24 hours, only the concentration of peritoneal fluid IL-6 in the LADG group was significantly correlated (rS = 0.60, P = 0.01) with the serum CRP peak. Our findings suggest that the amount and concentration of IL-6 released into the peritoneal cavity for up to 24 hours after surgery can each be a reliable parameter for assessment of surgical stress.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据