Comparative study of clinical efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double-channel anastomosis and tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis

Table 1 Comparison of baseline clinicopathological data between the two groups of patients

Item		LPG-DCA (n = 33)	LPG-TGA (n = 30)	t/χ2/Z value	P value
Sex (n)	Male	23	21	0.001	0.980
	Female	10	9
Age (years)	mean ± SD	70.79 ± 9.66	69.13 ± 9.41	0.690	0.500
BMI (kg/m2)	mean ± SD	22.43 ± 2.40	22.98 ± 3.70	-0.700	0.480
TNM stage (n)	I	16	14	-0.306	0.760
	II	11	9
	III	6	7
Tumor size (cm)	mean ± SD	3.74 ± 0.51	3.60 ± 0.70	0.067	0.361
Tumour differentiation (n)	High	8	6	-0.570	0.569
	Medium	15	13
	Low	10	11
ASA grade (n)	I	9	10	-0.455	0.649
	II	18	15
	III	6	5

LPG: Laparoscopic gastrectomy; DCA: Double-channel anastomosis; TGA: Tubular gastric anastomosis; BMI: Body mass index.

Table 2 Comparison of intraoperative and postoperative conditions between the two groups of patients

Item	Operation time (min)	Intraoperative blood loss (mL)	Retrieved lymph nodes (n)	Time to first exhaust (d)	Time to intake of first soft diet (d)	Postoperative hospital stay (d)	Digestive tract reconstruction time (minute)	Surgical costs (thousands)
LPG-DCA (n = 33)	248.80 ± 56.48	140.85 ± 44.23	34.74 ± 4.89	3.72 ± 0.49	6.03 ± 2.00	15.32 ± 2.98	39.74 ± 5.87	59.09 ± 11.15
LPG-TGA (n = 30)	239.63 ± 49.57	129.53 ± 35.57	32.41 ± 5.13	3.55 ± 0.36	5.29 ± 1.68	14.07 ± 2.75	37.44 ± 5.04	58.32 ± 9.51
t value	0.682	1.112	1.839	1.598	1.583	1.719	1.657	0.292
P value	0.498	0.271	0.071	0.115	0.119	0.091	0.103	0.771

LPG: Laparoscopic gastrectomy; DCA: Double-channel anastomosis; TGA: Tubular gastric anastomosis.

Table 3 Comparison of postoperative complications between the two groups of patients, n (%)

Item	Postoperative complications						Total
	Anastomotic leak	Intra-abdominal bleeding	Pleural effusion	Anastomotic stenosis	Intestinal obstruction	Wound infection
LPG-DCA (n = 33)	3 (9.0)	0 (0.0)	2 (6.0)	1 (3.0)	1 (3.0)	0 (0.0)	7 (21.2)
LPG-TGA (n = 30)	2 (6.7)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.3)	0 (0.0)	2 (6.7)	1 (3.3)	6 (20.0)
χ2 value	0.014
P value	0.905

LPG: Laparoscopic gastrectomy; DCA: Double-channel anastomosis; TGA: Tubular gastric anastomosis.

Table 4 Comparison of nutritional status of the two groups of patients

Item		LPG-DCA (n = 33)	LPG-TGA (n = 30)	t value	P value
Hemoglobin (g/L)	Preoperatively	121.67 ± 8.68	122.90 ± 9.14	-0.549	0.585
	3 months after operation	108.09 ± 7.96	104.57 ± 7.41	1.814	0.075
	6 months after operation	115.06 ± 8.19	110.50 ± 8.29	2.195	0.032a
	12 months after operation	124.45 ± 10.21	119.40 ± 7.65	0.206	0.031b
Albumin (g/L)	Preoperatively	39.41 ± 4.85	38.89 ± 3.82	0.475	0.637
	3 months after operation	34.65 ± 3.33	33.29 ± 3.07	1.681	0.098
	6 months after operation	36.83 ± 4.54	34.69 ± 3.40	2.103	0.040a
	12 months after operation	38.77 ± 4.69	36.45 ± 4.30	2.045	0.045b
Total serum protein (g/L)	Preoperatively	70.91 ± 8.00	70.77 ± 6.89	0.075	0.940
	3 months after operation	62.09 ± 6.62	60.70 ± 6.44	0.843	0.402
	6 months after operation	66.55 ± 7.19	62.77 ± 6.91	2.121	0.038a
	12 months after operation	69.72 ± 6.48	66.40 ± 5.77	2.143	0.036b

^aP < 0.05.

^bP < 0.05.

LPG: Laparoscopic gastrectomy; DCA: Double-channel anastomosis; TGA: Tubular gastric anastomosis.

Table 5 Comparison of endoscopic reflux oesophagitis and Visick grade at 12 months postoperatively

Reflux oesophagitis	LPG-DCA (n = 33)	LPG-TGA (n = 30)	Z value	P value
A	2	5	2.404	0.016
B	1	3
C	0	2
D	0	0

LPG: Laparoscopic gastrectomy; DCA: Double-channel anastomosis; TGA: Tubular gastric anastomosis.