Clinical efficacy and safety of double-channel anastomosis and tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis in gastrectomy

Table 1 Comparison of baseline data between patients with proximal gastric adenocarcinoma in the dual-channel anastomosis group and the tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis group, n (%)

Group	Cases	Age			Gender		Body mass index
		≤ 65 years old	> 65 years old		Male	Female	< 18 kg/m²	18-25 kg/m²	> 25 kg/m²
Dual-channel anastomosis group	50	33 (66.0)	17 (34.0)		35 (70.0	15 (30.0)	1 (2.0)	37 (74.0)	12 (24.0)
Tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis group	49	21 (42.9)	28 (57.1)		41 (83.7)	8 (16.3)	0	34 (69.4)	15 (30.6)
χ2		5.346			2.594		1.392
P value		0.021			0.107		0.577
Group	Cases	American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification			Hypertension		Coronary heart disease		Diabetes
		I	Ⅱ		Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
Dual-channel anastomosis group	50	37 (74.0)	13 (26.0)		18 (36.0)	32 (64.0)	1 (2.0)	49 (98.0)	6 (12.0)	44 (88.0)
Tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis group	49	36 (73.5)	13 (26.5)		16 (32.7)	33 (67.3)	0	49 (100)	6 (12, 2)	43 (87.8)
χ2		0.004			0.123		0.99		0.001
P value		0.952			0.726		0.32		0.97
Group	Cases	Tumor T-stage			Tumor N-stage		Tumor TNM-stage		Tumor diameter
		Tl	T2	T3	NO	N1	I	Ⅱ	< 4 cm	24 cm
Dual-channel anastomosis group	50	36 (72.0)	11 (22.0)	3 (6.0)	46 (92.0)	4 (8.0)	42 (84.0)	8 (16.0)	49 (98.0)	1 (2.0)
Tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis group	49	34 (69.4)	6 (12.2)	9 (18.4)	49 (100)	0	40 (81.6)	9 (18.4)	44 (89.9)	5 (10.2)
χ2		4.518			2.282		0.098		1.662
P value		0.104			0.131		0.755		0.197