4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer in patients with body mass index of 30 kg/m(2) or more

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3953-4

关键词

Gastric cancer; Laparoscopic gastrectomy; Obesity; Body mass index; Visceral fat area

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High body mass index (BMI) and high visceral fat area (VFA) are known to be a preoperative risk factor for laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer. However, the impact of obesity on LG still remains controversial. In the present study, we compared the operative outcomes of LG with those of OG in patients with BMI of 30 kg/m(2) or more. Seventy-seven patients who underwent distal or total gastrectomy for gastric cancer were enrolled. The patients were divided into two groups by approach method; an OG group (n = 19) and a LG group (n = 62). Aquarius iNtuition(A (R)) program was used to measure VFA. The operation time, estimated blood loss, complication rate, the number of retrieved lymph nodes, and patient survival were compared between two groups. The mean BMI and VFA were 31.6 kg/m(2) and 195.3 cm(2). The complication rate was 42.1 % in OG group and 14.5 % in LG group, respectively (P = 0.010). LG group showed less estimated blood loss (P = 0.030) and fast recovery of bowel movement (P < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in operation time, the number of retrieved lymph nodes, and the length of hospital stay between two groups. In subgroup analysis, there was significant correlation between estimated blood loss and VFA (R (2) = 0.113, P = 0.014), but there was no correlation between operation time and VFA (R-2 = 0.002, P = 0.734). In stage I, the 5-year survival was not different between two groups (P = 0.220). LG showed better operative outcomes compared with OG, in terms of less estimated blood loss, fast recovery of bowel movement, and low complication rate, in patients with BMI of a parts per thousand yen30 kg/m(2) or more.

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

4.6
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