4.7 Review

Predictive Factors for Anastomotic Leakage after Laparoscopic and Open Total Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11175022

关键词

anastomotic leakage; esophagojejunal anastomosis; total gastrectomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this systematic review is to identify risk factors for esophago-jejunal anastomotic leakage (EJAL) in patients undergoing total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Through a comprehensive analysis of the literature, several patient-related, perioperative, and technical risk factors have been identified.
The aim of this systematic review is to identify patient-related, perioperative and technical risk factors for esophago-jejunal anastomotic leakage (EJAL) in patients undergoing total gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC). A comprehensive literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus databases was performed. Studies providing factors predictive of EJAL by uni- and multivariate analysis or an estimate of association between EJAL and related risk factors were included. All studies were assessed for methodological quality, and a narrative synthesis of the results was performed. A total of 16 studies were included in the systematic review, with a total of 42,489 patients who underwent gastrectomy with esophago-jejunal anastomosis. Age, BMI, impaired respiratory function, prognostic nutritional index (PNI), alcohol consumption, chronic renal failure, diabetes and mixed-type histology were identified as patient-related risk factors for EJAL at multivariate analysis. Likewise, among operative factors, laparoscopic approach, anastomosis type, additional organ resection, blood loss, intraoperative time and surgeon experience were found to be predictive factors for the development of EJAL. In clinical setting, we are able to identify several risk factors for EJAL. This can improve the recognition of higher-risk patients and their outcomes.

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

4.7
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