4.5 Article

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes After Laparoscopic Versus Open Total Gastrectomy for Elderly Gastric Cancer Patients: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
卷 19, 期 11, 页码 1949-1957

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-015-2912-2

关键词

Gastric cancer; Elderly patients; Laparoscopic total gastrectomy; Propensity-matched study; Survival

资金

  1. National Key Clinical Specialty Discipline Construction Program of China [[2012]649]
  2. Key Projects of Science and Technology Plan of Fujian Province [2014Y0025]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To date, it has been unclear whether laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LTG) was a suitable treatment for elderly patients (aged 65 years and older) with gastric cancer. The aim of the present study was to clarify the value of LTG in the elderly using a propensity score matching method. We prospectively collected data from 675 elderly gastric cancer patients who underwent total gastrectomies at our institution between January 2002 and February 2012. Propensity score matching was applied at a ratio of 1:1 to compare the LTG and open total gastrectomy (OTG) groups. The operation results, hospital courses, and survival rates were compared between the matched groups. The LTG group had a significantly shorter mean operating time (194 vs. 267 min, P < 0.001) and significantly less intraoperative blood loss (92 vs. 204 ml, P < 0.001). The total number of collected lymph nodes was similar in the two groups. Postoperatively, the length of hospital stay was shorter in the LTG group than in the OTG group (median 14.4 vs. 16.6 days; P = 0.001); however, no significant intergroup differences were found in morbidity or mortality. Furthermore, the 3-year overall survival (OS) rate was similar between the two groups (P = 0.517). LTG for elderly gastric cancer is feasible and safe with acceptable oncologic outcomes. Therefore, patient age alone should not be considered a contraindication in the decision between LTG and OTG treatment options. A high-volume prospective study is needed to confirm this rationale.

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

4.5
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