Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 14, 2022; 28(42): 6056-6067
Published online Nov 14, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i42.6056
Published online Nov 14, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i42.6056
Table 1 Clinical characteristics of gastric cancer patients with postoperative chylous ascites
Characteristics | Cases |
Age, yr | 61.0 ± 11.3 |
Gender, n (%) | |
Male | 41 (77.4) |
Female | 12 (22.6) |
Tumor location, n (%) | |
Upper | 18 (40.0) |
Middle | 11 (20.6) |
Bottom | 24 (45.3) |
AJCC 8th stage, n (%) | |
I | 21 (39.6) |
II | 11 (20.8) |
III | 18 (34.0) |
IV | 3 (5.7) |
Type of surgery, n (%) | |
Radical | 51 (96.2) |
Non-radical | 2 (3.8) |
LN dissection, n (%) | |
D1 | 8 (15.1) |
D2 | 43 (81.1) |
D3 | 2 (3.8) |
Discharged without DT, n (%) | |
Yes | 40 (75.5) |
No | 13 (24.5) |
Postoperative time of oral feeding (d) | 3.8 ± 1.0 |
Postoperative time of CA appearance (d) | 7.5 ± 2.4 |
DT removal duration (d) | 14.3 ± 12.6 |
Postoperative hospitalization duration (d) | 21.9 ± 11.1 |
Table 2 Clinical characteristics differences between the normal and delayed drainage tube removal groups
Subgroup | No. of patients | |
Normal (n = 20) | Delayed DT removal (n = 33) | |
Clamp DT | ||
Yes | 7 | 0 |
No | 13 | 0 |
Preoperative HGB, g/L | ||
≤ 130 | 12 | 15 |
> 130 | 8 | 18 |
Preoperative ALB, g/L | ||
≤ 41 | 9 | 17 |
> 41 | 11 | 16 |
Maximum drainage, mL | ||
≤ 540 | 13 | 13 |
> 540 | 7 | 20 |
Postoperative intake1, d | ||
≤ 3 | 10 | 17 |
> 3 | 10 | 16 |
CA onset time, d | ||
≤ 7 | 15 | 16 |
> 7 | 5 | 17 |
Antibiotic usage, d | ||
≤ 5 | 12 | 16 |
> 5 | 8 | 17 |
Postoperative infection | ||
Yes | 8 | 12 |
No | 12 | 21 |
AJCC stage | ||
Early | 8 | 13 |
Advanced | 12 | 20 |
LN dissection | ||
D1 | 6 | 2 |
D2+ | 14 | 31 |
Age, yr | ||
≤ 60 | 8 | 15 |
> 60 | 12 | 18 |
Gender | ||
Male | 15 | 26 |
Female | 5 | 7 |
Table 3 Postoperative infection-related complications significantly affect gastric cancer patients with postoperative chylous ascites to remove abdominal drainage tubes in time
Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
HR (95%CI) | P value | HR (95%CI) | P value | |
DT clamping | 0.39 (0.11-1.72) | 0.281 | - | - |
Postoperative HGB | 1.49 (0.72-3.08) | 0.283 | - | - |
Postoperative ALB | 1.82 (0.88-3.76) | 0.303 | 1.09 (0.98-1.21) | 0.127 |
Maximum drainage | 0.98 (0.47-2.05) | 0.367 | - | - |
Postoperative intake time | 2.22 (1.10-4.48) | 0.031 | 1.86 (0.94-4.21) | 0.234 |
CA onset time | 0.81 (0.40-1.62) | 0.486 | - | - |
Duration of antibiotic usage | 0.45 (0.22-0.91) | 0.009 | 0.86 (0.76-0.96) | 0.009 |
Postoperative infection | 2.20 (1.21-4.61) | 0.003 | 2.40 (1.63-4.14) | 0.007 |
AJCC Stage | 0.95 (0.75-1.21) | 0.676 | - | - |
LN dissection | 0.87 (0.53-1.42) | 0.595 | - | - |
Age | 1.34 (0.66-2.70) | 0.471 | - | - |
Gender | 2.02 (0.85-4.78) | 0.141 | 3.13 (0.85-11.1) | 0.187 |
- Citation: Kong PF, Xu YH, Lai ZH, Ma MZ, Duan YT, Sun B, Xu DZ. Novel management indications for conservative treatment of chylous ascites after gastric cancer surgery. World J Gastroenterol 2022; 28(42): 6056-6067
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v28/i42/6056.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v28.i42.6056