Sun CB, Han XQ, Wang H, Zhang YX, Wang MC, Liu YN. Effect of two surgical approaches on the lung function and prognosis of patients with combined esophagogastric cancer. World J Gastrointest Surg 2023; 15(9): 1986-1994 [PMID: 37901732 DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v15.i9.1986]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Yong-Ning Liu, MSc, Attending Doctor, Department of General Surgery, Weifang People's Hospital, No. 151 Kuiwen District, Weifang 261041, Shandong Province, China. rmyyliuyn@wfmc.edu.cn
Research Domain of This Article
Surgery
Article-Type of This Article
Retrospective Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Gastrointest Surg. Sep 27, 2023; 15(9): 1986-1994 Published online Sep 27, 2023. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v15.i9.1986
Table 1 Comparison of operation time between two groups of patients
Group
n
Operation time (min)
Bleeding volume (mL)
Positive rate of cutting edge (%)
Postoperative drainage time (d)
Postoperative landing time (h)
Length of stay (d)
A group
70
168.1 ± 15.7
136.8 ± 36.1
1 (1.43)
3.71 ± 0.84
27.81 ± 7.51
12.30 ± 2.13
B group
68
188.0 ± 19.3
188.2 ± 43.7
3 (4.41)
4.40 ± 1.22
29.40 ± 7.82
13.54 ± 2.35
t/χ2
-6.653
-7.542
1.091
-3.879
-1.218
-3.250
P value
0.000
0.000
0.296
0.000
0.225
0.001
Table 2 Comparison of lymph node dissection effect between two groups of patients (mean ± SD, number)
Group
n
Number of lymph nodes cleaned
Number of positive lymph nodes
Inferior mediastinal lymph nodes
Subphrenic lymph node
Number of abdominal lymph nodes
A group
70
33.87 ± 3.82
3.65 ± 1.20
3.81 ± 1.20
2.56 ± 0.72
27.50 ± 2.95
B group
68
34.33 ± 2.90
3.92 ± 1.53
4.03 ± 1.15
2.74 ± 0.75
27.56 ± 3.02
t value
-0.795
-1.155
-1.099
-1.438
-0.118
P value
0.428
0.250
0.274
0.153
0.906
Table 3 Comparison of pulmonary function parameters between two groups of patients (mean ± SD)
Group
n
Preoperative
1 mo after operation
t value
P value
Preoperative
1 mo after operation
t value
P value
FEV1 (%)
MVV (%)
A group
70
95.66 ± 8.64
90.21 ± 8.50
3.734
0.000
98.16 ± 9.26
93.48 ± 9.11
2.992
0.003
B group
68
97.03 ± 8.11
86.30 ± 7.76
7.937
0.000
96.32 ± 8.58
88.75 ± 8.36
5.248
0.000
t value
-0.960
2.820
1.210
3.175
P value
0.339
0.006
0.228
0.002
FVC (%)
VC (%)
A group
70
97.34 ± 8.14
92.36 ± 6.06
4.067
0.000
93.06 ± 4.85
90.01 ± 4.43
3.854
0.000
B group
68
99.03 ± 7.93
89.51 ± 7.24
7.359
0.000
94.41 ± 5.00
88.26 ± 5.25
7.048
0.000
t value
-1.235
2.510
-1.610
2.119
P value
0.219
0.013
0.11
0.036
Table 4 Comparison of quality of life scores between the two groups (mean ± SD, scores)
Group
n
Preoperative
3 mo after operation
t value
P value
A group
70
31.83 ± 6.60
43.09 ± 5.57
-10.816
0.000
B group
68
30.50 ± 5.78
40.14 ± 5.42
-10.100
0.000
t value
1.258
3.152
P value
0.211
0.002
Table 5 Comparison of complication rates between the two groups
Group
n
Pulmonary infection
Abdominal infection
Anastomotic fistula
Pyothorax
Incision infection
Pleural effusion
Complication rate (%)
A group
70
1
2
1
0
1
2
7 (10.00)
B group
68
7
0
3
2
1
3
16 (23.53)
χ2
4.546
P value
0.033
Table 6 Survival comparison
Group
n
Subsist
Die
A group
70
25 (35.71)
45 (64.29)
B group
68
20 (29.41)
48 (70.59)
χ2
0.623
P value
0.430
Citation: Sun CB, Han XQ, Wang H, Zhang YX, Wang MC, Liu YN. Effect of two surgical approaches on the lung function and prognosis of patients with combined esophagogastric cancer. World J Gastrointest Surg 2023; 15(9): 1986-1994