nach oben

Erschienen in:

Open Access 03.09.2019 | Original Article

Identification of the clinically most relevant postoperative complications after gastrectomy: a population-based cohort study

verfasst von: Emma C. Gertsen, Lucas Goense, Hylke J. F. Brenkman, Richard van Hillegersberg, Jelle P. Ruurda, the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) group

Erschienen in: Gastric Cancer | Ausgabe 2/2020

Abstract

Background

Postoperative complications frequently occur after gastrectomy for gastric cancer and are associated with poor clinical outcomes, such as mortality and reoperations. The aim of study was to identify the clinically most relevant complications after gastrectomy, using the population-attributable fraction (PAF).

Methods

Between 2011 and 2017, all patients who underwent potentially curative gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma were included from the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit. Postoperative outcomes (morbidity, mortality, recovery and hospitalization) were evaluated. The prevalence of postoperative complications (e.g., anastomotic leakage and pneumonia) and of the study outcomes were calculated. The adjusted relative risk and Confidence Interval (CI) for each complication-outcome pair were calculated. Subsequently, the PAF was calculated, which represents the percentage of a given outcome occurring in the population, caused by individual complications, taking both the relative risk and the frequency in which a complication occurs into account.

Results

In total, 2176 patients were analyzed. Anastomotic leakage and pulmonary complications had the greatest overall impact on postoperative mortality (PAF 29.2% [95% CI 19.3–39.1] and 21.6% [95% CI 10.5–32.7], respectively) and prolonged hospitalization (PAF 12.9% [95% CI 9.7–16.0] and 14.7% [95% CI 11.0–18.8], respectively). Anastomotic leakage had the greatest overall impact on re-interventions (PAF 25.1% [95% CI 20.5–29.7]) and reoperations (PAF 30.3% [95% CI 24.3–36.3]). Intra-abdominal abscesses had the largest impact on readmissions (PAF 7.0% [95% CI 3.2–10.9]). Other complications only had a small effect on these outcomes.

Conclusion

Surgical improvement programs should focus on preventing or managing anastomotic leakage and pulmonary complications, since these complications have the greatest overall impact on clinical outcomes after gastrectomy.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 325 kb)

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-019-00997-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Emma Gertsen will be the corresponding author during the review process.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

Gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of curative treatment for patients diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the stomach [1] and, if deemed fit enough, patients will also receive perioperative chemotherapy [2]. Gastrectomy is associated with a high risk of postoperative complications (up to 40%) [3], of which pulmonary complications, anastomotic leakage, and wound complications occur most frequently [4‐9]. These complications have a negative influence on postoperative outcomes, such as mortality, length of hospital stay, number of reoperations, and readmissions [10, 11]. The effects of various complications on deteriorated postoperative outcomes also result in a significant increase in healthcare costs [12, 13].

Identification of complications that have the most effect on outcomes after gastrectomy is important for efficient allocation of healthcare resources. Yet, few studies have explicitly measured the population burden of complications on outcomes after gastrectomy. In this context, the population-attributable fraction (PAF) is a useful measure, because it represents the anticipated percentage reduction of a given outcome in case a certain complication would be completely prevented [14]. The strength of the association of a complication with an outcome is represented by the relative risk (RR). However, the RR does not reckon with the frequency in which a complication occurs, whereas the PAF takes both frequency and the relative risk into account [15, 16]. The introduction of centralization of specialized care across several countries in Europe has led to an overall reduction in the number of complications [17‐21]. Using the PAF to describe the impact of postoperative complications will be of direct relevance for prioritizing research agendas and acquirement of appropriate funding, primary prevention efforts, and resource allocation to enhance reduction of postoperative complications after gastrectomy. Consequently, the aim of the current study was to assess the impact of relevant postoperative complications on predefined outcomes and to subsequently identify the clinically most relevant postoperative complications after gastrectomy for gastric cancer as measured by the PAF.

Methods

Study design

This population-based cohort study included data from a prospective nationwide registration of all patients that underwent a surgical resection for gastroesophageal cancer, the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit (DUCA). All hospitals that perform gastric surgery in The Netherlands are obliged to annually provide data on patient and tumor characteristics, items regarding processes of care, and clinical and pathological outcomes of surgery. Being part of the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA) that organizes national audits in a uniform format, DUCA provides complete and reliable registered data, as was reported by an independent team of data managers that performed an in-depth quality investigation [3]. The scientific committee of the DUCA approved the current study, and no ethical approval or informed consent was required under Dutch law.

Patient population and treatment

Between 2011 and 2017 all patients with gastric adenocarcinoma (cT1-4a-x, N0-3-x, M0-x) who underwent elective (sub)total gastrectomy with curative intent were selected from the DUCA. Curative treatment consisted of a (sub)total gastrectomy with, in case of an advanced disease stage, a modified D2 (D1+) lymphadenectomy (without pancreaticosplenectomy and corresponding lymph node station 10), according to the Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines [22]. According to these guidelines, lymph node stations 1, 3, 4d, 4sb, 5-9, 11p, and 12a are dissected in case of distal gastrectomy and lymph node stations 1–3, 4d, 4sa, 4sb, 5–9, 11p, 11d, and 12a are dissected during total gastrectomy. Furthermore, if patients with an advanced tumor (cT2+ or cN+) were considered fit enough, perioperative chemotherapy according or comparable to the MAGIC trial regimen was offered [2, 23]. If during surgery, no Roux-en-Y or Billroth reconstruction was created, or no lymphadenectomy was performed, patients were excluded. According to the Dutch national guidelines, patients were staged using gastroscopy and computed tomography (CT) of the thorax and abdomen [24] and since their recent implementation in July 2016, with ¹⁸F fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT and staging laparoscopy in case of an advanced tumor (cT3-4, cN+) [1]. Tumors were classified according to the 7th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system [25].

Predictors and study outcomes

Postoperative morbidity was appraised and divided into four groups: intra-abdominal complications (including anastomotic leakage, abscesses, and bleeding), wound complications, non-surgical complications (including pulmonary, cardiac, thromboembolic, neurological, and urological complications), and other complications. Definitions of the abovementioned complications are given in Table 2. The study outcomes included mortality (defined as death during the initial hospital stay or within 30 days after surgery), prolonged hospitalization (defined as hospital stay that exceeds the 75th percentile value), re-interventions (consisting of radiological/endoscopic/surgical interventions), reoperation (defined as a postoperative surgical procedure under general anesthesia), and readmission (within 30 days after initial discharge). All complications were scored according to the standards of the DUCA, provided via online information [26].

Statistical analysis

Patient and treatment-related characteristics are described as mean ± standard deviations (SD) and categorical data are presented as frequencies (percentages). Missing information of patients for one or more variables was imputed with the iterative Markov chain Monte Carlo method (5 iterations) [27]. The frequency of initial missing’s per variable is presented in Table 1. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 24.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) and R language environment (version 3.3.1, http://www.R-project.org, ‘geeglm’, ‘sandwich’, ‘mice’, and ‘AF’ packages). Significance was set at p < 0.05.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of 2176 patients who underwent elective, intentionally curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer

	No. (%)	Initial missing values (%)
Patient characteristics
Age, years (mean ± SD)	68.6 ± 11.7	1 (< 1%)
BMI, kg/m² (mean ± SD)	25.2 ± 4.5	44 (2%)
Gender (% male)	1343 (62)	0 (0%)
ASA-classification		10 (1%)
I	303 (14)
II	1225 (56)
III	627 (29)
IV	21 (1)
Comorbidities		0 (0%)
Asthma/COPD	270 (12)
Coronary artery disease^a	253 (12)
History of myocardial infarction	175 (8)
History of arrhythmia	302 (14)
Hypertension	763 (35)
Peripheral vascular disease	101 (5)
Diabetes mellitus	368 (17)
History of CVA	103 (5)
History of thromboembolic events	157 (7)
Endocrine disorder	131 (6)
Previous abdominal or thoracic surgery	868 (40)	0 (0%)
Tumor characteristics
cT-stage		515 (23%)
T1	202 (9)
T2	675 (31)
T3	1169 (54)
T4	130 (6)
cN-stage		235 (11%)
N0	1287 (59)
N1	583 (27)
N2	192 (9)
N3	44 (2)
Nx	70 (3)
Treatment characteristics
Neoadjuvant treatment	1339 (62)	3 (< 1%)
Resection type		0 (0%)
Total gastrectomy	905 (42)
Subtotal gastrectomy	1271 (58)
Surgical approach (% open procedure)	1352 (62)	0 (0%)
Conversion	87 (4)	0 (0%)
Tumor location		53 (2%)
Fundus	165 (8)
Corpus	691 (32)
Antrum	959 (44)
Pylorus	189 (9)
Whole stomach	98 (5)
Other	74 (3)

Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding

ASA American Society of Anesthesiologists, BMI body mass index, COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, CVA cerebrovascular accident

^aPatients with a history of angina pectoris, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and/or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)

Population-attributable fraction (PAF)

As stated in the introduction, the PAF is a useful measure to present the impact of a complication, as it takes both frequency and the relative risk of a certain outcome into account [15, 16]. To determine the PAF, first, the prevalence of complications and study outcomes was calculated. The adjusted relative risk (aRR) and Confidence Interval (CI) for each complication-outcome pair were calculated using multivariable Poisson regression models with log link and robust error variance. The PAF was calculated with the AF package in R software which allows for confounder-adjusted estimation of PAFs for cohort studies [28]. The models were adjusted for patient and treatment-related characteristics (i.e., age, gender, Body Mass Index, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, comorbidities, previous abdominal or thoracic surgery, use of immunosuppressant drugs, open or minimally invasive surgery, total or partial gastrectomy, conversions, cTN stage, and neoadjuvant treatment) and for all complications with a significant association with the study outcome (to adjust for simultaneous occurrence of coexisting complications and thereby prevent overestimation of the individual contribution of a specific complication). The severity of a complication (as assessed by the Clavien–Dindo classification) was not integrated in the analysis, since this would have incorporated the outcomes of our study (which indirectly define the severity of the complication, e.g., re-intervention, mortality) into our determinants (i.e., complications).

In this study, the risk-adjusted PAF represents the anticipated percentage reduction of a given outcome (i.e., mortality, prolonged hospital stay, reoperation, and readmission) in case a certain complication would be completely prevented in our study population.

Results

Study population

In The Netherlands, 2304 patients underwent an elective (sub)total gastrectomy with curative intent for primary gastric adenocarcinoma during the study period. Some 128 of these patients were excluded, as no lymphadenectomy was performed or no Roux-Y or Billroth reconstruction was made. Of the remaining 2176 patients, 1343 (62%) were male and the mean age was 68.6 (± 11.7) years. The majority of patients had an ASA score of 2 (56%), and hypertension (35%) and diabetes mellitus (17%) were the most common comorbidities. Most patients had a cT3 tumor (54%), cN0-stage (59%), and were treated with neoadjuvant therapy (62%). Patient and treatment-related characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Postoperative outcomes

All postoperative complications and clinical outcomes are shown in Table 2. Pulmonary complications (15%), anastomotic leakage (7%), and cardiac complications (6%) were the most common complications. Postoperative mortality occurred in 118 patients (5%), prolonged hospitalization in 484 patients (22%), reoperations in 247 patients (11%), and 259 patients (12%) was readmitted. Ileus occurred in 4% of patients, but was only scored in DUCA since 2016 and, therefore, not shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Postoperative complications and clinical outcomes after elective gastrectomy of 2176 patients

	No. (%)	Initial missing values^l
Postoperative complications
Pulmonary complication^a	321 (15)	0
Anastomotic leakage^b	154 (7)	0
Cardiac complication^c	122 (6)	0
Acute delirium	103 (5)	0
Abscess	85 (4)	0
Wound infection	93 (4)	0
Urological complication^d	80 (4)	0
Thromboembolic complication^e	32 (2)	0
Chyle leakage	38 (2)	0
Postoperative bleeding	35 (2)	0
Bowel injury	26 (1)	0
Pancreatitis	10 (< 1)	0
Clinical outcomes
Postoperative mortality^f	118 (5)	0
Duration of hospital stay (days)^g	9 (7–13)	17
Prolonged hospitalization^h	484 (22)	17
Re-interventionⁱ	344 (16)	0
Reoperation^j	247 (11)	0
Hospital readmission^k	259 (12)	0

Values in parentheses are percentages unless indicated otherwise. Data shown in Table represent the dataset after imputation

^aPneumonia, pleural effusion, respiratory failure, pneumothorax and/or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)

^bAny clinically or radiologically proven anastomotic leakage

^cSupra- and ventricular arrhythmia, myocardial infarction and/or heart failure

^dAcute renal insufficiency, acute kidney failure requiring dialysis, urine tract infection and/or urine retention

^ePulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis and/or cerebro vascular accident

^fDeath during initial hospital admission or within 30 days after surgery

^gData are depicted as median (IQR)

^hLength of hospital stay ≥75th percentile (for each surgical approach)

ⁱRe-intervention (radiological/endoscopic/surgical)

^jPostoperative surgical procedure under general anesthesia

^kReadmission to hospital within 30 days after initial discharge

^lNumber of missing values for each variable before imputation

The risk-adjusted associations between the postoperative complications and subsequent clinical outcomes are described in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Anastomotic leakage and bowel injury were associated with the greatest relative risk of both postoperative mortality and reoperations (aRR 6.32 [95% CI 4.18–9.49] and aRR 8.56 [95% CI 6.46–11.3] for anastomotic leakage, respectively, and aRR 5.27 [95% CI 2.27–10.67] and aRR 8.03 [95% CI 5.03–12.30] for bowel injury, respectively). Anastomotic leakage was associated with the greatest relative risk for prolonged hospitalization (aRR 3.94 [95% CI 3.12–4.93]), followed by intra-abdominal abscess (aRR 3.57 [95% CI 2.67–4.69]). In fact, all postoperative complications were significantly associated with prolonged hospitalization. All postoperative complications, except urological complications, were associated with re-interventions, with anastomotic leakage (aRR 7.25 [95% CI 5.70–9.21]) and intra-abdominal abscesses (aRR 6.22 [95% CI 4.73–8.12]) having the highest association. Intra-abdominal abscesses and bowel injury were associated with the greatest risk of hospital readmission (aRR 3.24 [95% CI 2.16–4.70] and 2.93 [95% CI 1.38–5.45], respectively).

Table 3

Risk-adjusted associations and population-attributable fraction between postoperative mortality and complications after elective resection for gastric cancer

Postoperative complication	No. died/survived (% died)	Risk-adjusted association^a		Risk-adjusted PAF^b
Postoperative complication	No. died/survived (% died)	Adjusted relative risk (95%CI)	p value	PAF% (95% CI)	p value
Pulmonary complication	49/272 (15)	3.02 (2.06–4.41)	< 0.001	21.6 (10.5–32.7)	< 0.001
Anastomotic leakage	45/109 (29)	6.32 (4.18–9.49)	< 0.001	29.2 (19.3–39.1)	< 0.001
Cardiac complication	25/97 (21)	3.10 (1.91–4.87)	< 0.001	8.9 (1.1–1.7)	0.025
Acute delirium	14/89 (14)	1.71 (0.92–2.95)	0.054	–	–
Abscess	11/74 (13)	2.30 (1.15–4.16)	0.003	0.3 (− 5.2–5.9)	0.902
Wound infection	10/83 (11)	1.64 (0.79–3.02)	0.119	–	–
Urological complication	8/72 (10)	1.41 (0.62–2.76)	0.362	–	–
Thromboembolic complication	5/27 (16)	2.82 (0.97–6.49)	0.034	0.2 (− 3.7–4.1)	0.921
Chyle leakage	2/36 (5)	0.93 (0.15–2.97)	0.911	–	–
Post–operative bleeding	7/28 (20)	3.53 (1.47–7.20)	< 0.001	2.7 (− 1.1–6.6)	0.162
Bowel injury	8/18 (31)	5.27 (2.27–10.67)	< 0.001	4.2 (0.2–8.2)	0.036

Death during initial hospital admission or within 30 days after surgery

PAF population-attributable fraction

^aMultivariable Poisson regression

^bLogistic regression-based estimates of confounder-adjusted attributable fractions

Table 4

Risk-adjusted associations and population-attributable fraction between prolonged hospitalization and complications after elective resection for gastric cancer

Postoperative complication	No. with/without prolonged stay (% prolonged)	Risk-adjusted association^a		Risk-adjusted PAF^b
Postoperative complication	No. with/without prolonged stay (% prolonged)	Adjusted relative risk (95% CI)	p value	PAF% (95% CI)	p value
Pulmonary complication	162/159 (50)	2.78 (2.29–3.38)	< 0.001	14.7 (11.0–18.8)	< 0.001
Anastomotic leakage	112/42 (73)	3.94 (3.12–4.93)	< 0.001	12.9 (9.7–16.0)	< 0.001
Cardiac complication	62/60 (51)	2.22 (1.67–2.91)	< 0.001	2.8 (0.4–5.2)	0.021
Acute delirium	52/51 (51)	2.26 (1.66–3.01)	< 0.001	2.6 (0.6–4.4)	0.008
Abscess	59/26 (69)	3.57 (2.67–4.69)	< 0.001	5.3 (3.2–7.5)	< 0.001
Wound infection	58/35 (62)	2.96 (2.20–3.89)	< 0.001	4.6 (2.8–6.9)	< 0.001
Urological complication	31/49 (39)	1.59 (1.08–2.26)	0.003	1.3 (− 0.3–2.9)	0.121
Thromboembolic complication	17/15 (53)	2.63 (1.54–4.17)	< 0.001	0.8 (− 0.2–1.8)	0.145
Chyle leakage	17/21 (45)	2.16 (1.27–3.42)	< 0.001	1.6 (0.4–2.8)	0.006
Postoperative bleeding	19/16 (54)	2.29 (1.39–3.53)	< 0.001	1.4 (0.2–2.6)	0.015
Bowel injury	18/8 (69)	2.98 (1.78–4.68)	< 0.001	1.2 (0.0–2.3)	0.052

Length of hospital stay ≥75th percentile (for each surgical approach)

PAF population-attributable fraction

^aMultivariable poisson regression

^bLogistic regression-based estimates of confounder-adjusted attributable fractions

Table 5

Risk-adjusted associations and population-attributable fraction between re-interventions and complications after elective resection for gastric cancer

Postoperative complication	No. with/without re-intervention (% re-intervention)	Risk-adjusted association^a		Risk-adjusted PAF^b
Postoperative complication	No. with/without re-intervention (% re-intervention)	Adjusted relative risk (95% CI)	p value	PAF% (95% CI)	p value
Pulmonary complication	119/202 (37)	2.72 (2.15–3.42)	< 0.001	11.3 (7.2–15.5)	< 0.001
Anastomotic leakage	129/25 (84)	7.25 (5.70–9.21)	< 0.001	25.1 (20.5–29.7)	< 0.001
Cardiac complication	46/76 (38)	2.36 (1.69–3.23)	< 0.001	1.6 (– 0.8–4.0)	0.206
Acute delirium	37/66 (36)	2.29 (1.58–3.21)	< 0.001	1.7 (– 0.6–3.9)	0.153
Abscess	72/13 (85)	6.22 (4.73–8.12)	< 0.001	11.5 (8.2–14.8)	< 0.001
Wound infection	57/36 (61)	4.28 (3.15–5.73)	< 0.001	6.9 (4.4–9.9)	< 0.001
Urological complication	20/60 (25)	1.50 (0.92–2.32)	0.050	–	–
Thromboembolic complication	13/19 (41)	2.61 (1.41–4.40)	< 0.001	0.2 (– 0.6–0.9)	0.674
Chyle leakage	13/25 (34)	2.28 (1.23–3.83)	< 0.001	1.5 (0.2–2.9)	0.029
Post–operative bleeding	26/9 (74)	4.60 (2.99–6.79)	< 0.001	4.1 (2.0–6.3)	< 0.001
Bowel injury	25/1 (96)	6.02 (3.85–9.01)	< 0.001	3.6 (1.8–5.5)	< 0.001

Re-intervention (radiological/endoscopic/surgical)

PAF population-attributable fraction

^aMultivariable poisson regression

^bLogistic regression-based estimates of confounder-adjusted attributable fractions

Table 6

Risk-adjusted associations and population-attributable fraction between reoperation and complications after elective resection for gastric cancer

Postoperative complication	No. with/without reoperation (% reoperation)	Risk-adjusted association^a		Risk-adjusted PAF^b
Postoperative complication	No. with/without reoperation (% reoperation)	Adjusted relative risk (95% CI)	p value	PAF% (95% CI)	p value
Pulmonary complication	85/236 (27)	2.62 (1.98–3.43)	< 0.001	10.3 (4.8–15.9)	< 0.001
Anastomotic leakage	102/52 (66)	8.56 (6.46–11.3)	< 0.001	30.3 (24.3–36.3)	< 0.001
Cardiac complication	33/89 (27)	2.37 (1.59–3.42)	< 0.001	2.2 (– 0.1–5.7)	0.224
Acute delirium	24/79 (23)	2.04 (1.29–3.08)	< 0.001	0.4 (– 2.6–3.5)	0.787
Abscess	41/44 (48)	4.75 (3.32–6.66)	0.003	5.9 (2.5–9.4)	< 0.001
Wound infection	49/44 (53)	5.13 (3.64–7.11)	< 0.001	10.6 (6.5–14.8)	< 0.001
Urological complication	15/65 (19)	1.60 (0.90–2.63)	0.067	–	–
Thromboembolic complication	12/20 (38)	3.68 (1.93–6.38)	< 0.001	1.5 (0.5–3.0)	0.042
Chyle leakage	6/32 (16)	1.48 (0.58–3.06)	0.318	–	–
Postoperative bleeding	24/11 (69)	5.52 (3.49–8.33)	< 0.001	5.7 (2.9–8.5)	< 0.001
Bowel injury	24/2 (92)	8.03 (5.03–12.30)	< 0.001	5.8 (3.1–8.6)	< 0.001

Postoperative surgical procedure under general anesthesia

PAF population-attributable fraction

^aMultivariable poisson regression

^bLogistic regression-based estimates of confounder-adjusted attributable fractions

Table 7

Risk-adjusted associations and population-attributable fraction between hospital readmissions and complications after elective resection for gastric cancer

Postoperative complication	No. with/without readmission (% readmission)	Risk-adjusted association^a		Risk-adjusted PAF^b
Postoperative complication	No. with/without readmission (% readmission)	Adjusted relative risk (95% CI)	p value	PAF% (95% CI)	p value
Pulmonary complication	53/268 (17)	1.39 (1.01–1.88)	0.026	3.0 (– 2.9–8.9)	0.315
Anastomotic leakage	32/122 (21)	1.68 (1.12–2.43)	0.005	2.3 (– 2.2–6.7)	0.319
Cardiac complication	19/103 (16)	1.20 (0.72–1.89)	0.405	–	–
Acute delirium	20/83 (19)	1.52 (0.92–2.37)	0.044	1.1 (– 2.1–4.3)	0.508
Abscess	31/54 (37)	3.24 (2.16–4.70)	< 0.001	7.0 (3.2–10.9)	< 0.001
Wound infection	27/66 (29)	2.70 (1.75–3.99)	< 0.001	5.1 (1.5–8.8)	0.006
Urological complication	10/70 (13)	0.97 (0.48–1.74)	0.912	–	–
Thromboembolic complication	6/26 (19)	1.45 (0.57–3.01)	0.300	–	–
Chyle leakage	5/33 (13)	1.14 (0.40–2.49)	0.762	–	–
Postoperative bleeding	9/26 (26)	2.15 (1.02–3.97)	0.010	1.4 (– 0.6–3.5)	0.172
Bowel injury	9/17 (35)	2.93 (1.38–5.45)	< 0.001	1.4 (– 0.6–3.4)	0.164

Readmission to hospital within 30 days after initial discharge

PAF population-attributable fraction

^aMultivariable Poisson regression

^bLogistic regression-based estimates of confounder-adjusted attributable fractions

The risk-adjusted population-attributable fractions (PAF) of each complication-outcome pair are presented in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The PAF embodies the percentage reduction of a given outcome that is expected if that complication would be completely prevented (see also Supplementary File: Fig. 1a–e). Anastomotic leakage and pulmonary complications had the greatest overall impact on both postoperative mortality and prolonged hospitalization (PAF 29.2% [95% CI 19.3–39.1] and 12.9% [95% CI 9.7–16.0] for anastomotic leakage, respectively, and PAF 21.6% [95% CI 10.5–32.7] and 14.7% [95% CI 11.0–18.8] for pulmonary complications, respectively). Elimination of anastomotic leakage and intra-abdominal abscesses would have resulted in a reduction of re-interventions of 25.1% [95% CI 20.5–29.7] and 11.5% [95% CI 8.2–14.8], respectively. Again, anastomotic leakage, together with wound infections, had the greatest overall impact on reoperations (PAF 30.3% [95% CI 24.3–36.3] and 10.6% [95% CI 6.5–14.8, respectively). Intra-abdominal abscesses and wound infections were the complications with the greatest overall impact on hospital readmission (PAF 7.0% [95% CI 3.2–10.9] and 5.1% [95% CI 1.5–8.8], respectively). A large part of the causes of the study outcomes (grouped under ‘other’ factors in Supplementary File: Fig. 1a–e) cannot be specified, due to variation in the data that cannot be explained by patient and/or treatment characteristics and complications. Interestingly, these ‘other’ factors, also contributed to all clinical postoperative outcomes in large numbers, accounting for 32.9% of postoperative mortality, 50.8% of prolonged hospitalization, 32.5% of re-interventions, 27.3% of reoperations, and 78.7% of hospital readmissions.

Discussion

In this population-based study, the clinically most relevant complications after gastrectomy for gastric cancer were evaluated in a Western population using the PAF. Anastomotic leakage and pulmonary complications were demonstrated to have the greatest overall impact on postoperative mortality, prolonged hospitalization, re-interventions, and reoperations. Intra-abdominal abscesses and wound infections also had a high impact on re-interventions, reoperations, and hospital readmissions.

The PAF is a measure with which the contribution of specific postoperative complications on a subsequent clinical outcome can be quantified [14‐16]. It provides a perspective of prevention of disease actions considering the risk of disease in exposed individuals and the prevalence of exposure in the population. Thus, high risk of disease in exposed individuals can have low population impact if the risk factors associated with it are rare, whereas low risk may impact public health when exposures are frequent. In colorectal and esophageal cancer surgery, it already has been shown useful and helps to guide surgical quality improvement initiatives [14, 16]. For instance, an American study that assessed the PAF of complications after colorectal cancer surgery pointed out that the continued focus of federal quality initiatives on specific outcomes (e.g., urinary tract infections) had to be changed, illustrated by an estimated PAF of less than 10%, which indicates that its effect on the population is relatively minor [14].

The significance of complications such as anastomotic leakage and pulmonary complications after gastrectomy has previously been acknowledged in the literature [4, 7‐9]. However, using the PAF, the current study allows us to confirm the impact of these complications for the first time. Pulmonary complications, being the most common complication in our study (15%), indeed demonstrated to be an important driver of postoperative mortality and prolonged hospitalization. General advises to prevent pulmonary complications include abstinence of smoking before surgery, pre-operative pulmonary rehabilitation and adequate pain management (using epidural analgesia and a transversus abdominis plane block). In addition, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs could help to prevent pulmonary complications after major surgery [10, 29]. Future studies should focus on factors to prevent these complications, as this will reduce deteriorated outcomes with the PAFs mentioned in the current study.

Although the centralization of gastric cancer surgery has led to a reduction in the anastomotic leakage rate in The Netherlands [18‐20], the manifestation of anastomotic leakage remains a frequently occurring and significant problem. At the same time, this study demonstrated that anastomotic leakage is a major driver of postoperative mortality, re-interventions, and reoperations. Our study indicates that preventing or managing anastomotic leakage should receive priority when developing or adapting surgical quality improvement programs. Initiatives to reduce the anastomotic leakage rate may include further centralization and adequate proctoring programs with hands-on courses for new surgeons [30]. A proctoring program, that allows beginning surgeons to operate together with an experienced surgeon during a reasonable amount of cases, can be a starting point for going through the learning curve of gastric cancer surgery. Data on the number of procedures required for completion are scarce and vary, with studies reporting between 10 and 100 procedures to complete the learning curve, depending on the outcome under investigation [31, 32]. In addition, pre-operative evaluation of a patients’ condition, for instance, the vascular status [33], may contribute to select and treat patient who are prone for developing anastomotic leakage. Moreover, if an adequate oncologic resection is possible, subtotal gastrectomy should be preferred over total gastrectomy, as the former results in a lower risk of postoperative complications and better quality of life [34, 35]. Finally, special intraoperative attention should be paid to the perfusion of and tension on the anastomosis and its staple-line technique (hand sewn versus stapler and linear versus circular) and reinforcement to avoid leakage and support the healing process [36, 37].

Both wound infections and abscesses had a high impact on re-interventions and reoperations, which highlights the importance of preventing these complications as well. The occurrence of wound infections is counteracted by pre-operative prophylactic administration of antibiotics. Furthermore, minimally invasive surgery could play a role in decreasing wound infections and pain [38], thereby also resulting in shorter hospitalization. In addition, the centralization of gastric cancer surgery and completion of the learning curve also play an important role, since intra-abdominal abscesses are often an expression of anastomotic leakage or caused by other perioperative complications.

This study demonstrated that a large part of postoperative outcomes can be attributed to postoperative complications. However, approximately one-third of the outcomes could not be attributed to patient and treatment-related characteristics or postoperative complications. For example, 78.7% of hospital readmissions could not be attributed to the well-defined complications or patients’ demographics. This finding indicates that further research is warranted to identify these other drivers that attribute to outcomes after gastric cancer surgery. This knowledge could then be used to modify these factors and thereby reduce the clinical deteriorated outcomes.

Although this is the first study to evaluate the clinically most relevant postoperative complication after gastrectomy, a few limitations should be discussed. First, unknown confounders and time-varying perioperative care may have affected the associations between postoperative complications and the clinical outcomes. Second, DUCA only registers data up to discharge and 30 days postoperative lacks data on long-term survival and makes no distinction in the different locations, where anastomotic leakage can occur, although it would have been interesting to evaluate different anastomotic sites. Moreover, unfortunately, no cost aspect could be included in this study, since data on costs are not registered in DUCA. However, the previous studies have shown that postoperative complications are the main drivers of costs of cancer surgery [39]. As such, the extrapolation of this knowledge to the current study indicates that pulmonary complications and anastomotic leakage are probably the main drivers of costs after gastrectomy. Finally, factors to prevent complications could not be evaluated in this study, as the DUCA lacks significant data to perform these multivariable analyses.

In conclusion, using the PAF for the first time in gastric cancer surgery, this population-based study identified anastomotic leakage and pulmonary complications as major attributors to clinical outcomes after gastrectomy. Surgical quality improvement programs that can successfully reduce these complications will have the greatest potential to reduce deteriorated outcomes.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all participating centers in The Netherlands for collecting the data and the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit (DUCA) for supplying the data for this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

E.C. Gertsen, L. Goense, H.J.F. Brenkman, R. van Hillegersberg, and J.P. Ruurda declare that they have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Human rights statement

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions.

This study was performed with nationwide, anonymous data; thus, informed consent or substitute for it was waived by the ethical review board of the DUCA.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Jetzt testen ¹

e.Med Innere Medizin

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Innere Medizin erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes Innere Medizin, den Premium-Inhalten der internistischen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten internistischen Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Jetzt testen ²

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 325 kb)

Vereniging Integrale Kankercentra. Diagnostiek, behandeling en follow-up van het maagcarcinoom 2016;2016:1–7. https://www.oncoline.nl/maagcarcinoom.

Cunningham D, Allum WH, Stenning SP, Thompson JN, van de Velde CJH, Nicolson M, et al. Perioperative Chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 2007:11–20. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1201161.CrossRef

Busweiler LAD, Wijnhoven BPL, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Henneman D, van Grieken NCT, Wouters MWJM, et al. Early outcomes from the Dutch upper gastrointestinal cancer audit. Br J Surg. 2016;103:1855–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10303.CrossRefPubMed

Brenkman HJF, Gisbertz SS, Slaman AE, Goense L, Ruurda JP, Van Berge Henegouwen MI, et al. Postoperative Outcomes of minimally invasive gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy during the early introduction of minimally invasive gastrectomy in the Netherlands. Ann Surg. 2017;266:831–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002391.CrossRefPubMed

Haverkamp L, Weijs TJ, Van Der Sluis PC, Van Der Tweel I, Ruurda JP, Van Hillegersberg R. Laparoscopic total gastrectomy versus open total gastrectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech. 2013;27:1509–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2661-1.CrossRef

Chen K, Zhai S-T, Pan J-H, Yu W-H, Pan Y, Chen Q-L, et al. Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopic distal gastrectomy at a high-volume center. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2018;27(3):164–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2017.1350718.CrossRefPubMed

Hu Y, Huang C, Sun Y, Su X, Cao H, Hu J, et al. Morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic versus open D2 distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1350–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.7215.CrossRefPubMed

Kodera Y, Yoshida K, Kumamaru H, Kakeji Y, Hiki N, Etoh T, et al. Introducing laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer in general practice: a retrospective cohort study based on a nationwide registry database in Japan. Gastric Cancer. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-018-0795-0.CrossRefPubMed

Kelly KJ, Selby L, Chou JF, Dukleska K, Capanu M, Coit DG, et al. Laparoscopic Versus open gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in the west: a case–control study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;22:3590–6. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4381-y.Laparoscopic.CrossRef

10.

Mortensen K, Nilsson M, Slim K, Schäfer M, Mariette C, Braga M, et al. Consensus guidelines for enhanced recovery after gastrectomy: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) society recommendations. Br J Surg. 2014;101:1209–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9582.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Varadhan KK, Neal KR, Dejong CHC, Fearon KCH, Ljungqvist O, Lobo DN. The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for patients undergoing major elective open colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Nutr. 2010;29:434–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2010.01.004.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Short MN, Aloia TA, Ho V. The influence of complications on the costs of complex cancer surgery. Cancer. 2014;120:1035–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28527.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Dimick JB, Pronovost PJ, Cowan JA, Lipsett PA. Complications and costs after high-risk surgery: where should we focus quality improvement initiatives? J Am Coll Surg. 2003;196:671–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1072-7515(03)00122-4.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Scarborough JE, Schumacher J, Kent KC, Heise CP, Greenberg CC. Associations of specific postoperative complications with outcomes after elective colon resection: a procedure-targeted approach toward surgical quality improvement. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4681.CrossRef

15.

Poole C. A history of the population attributable fraction and related measures. Ann Epidemiol. 2015;25:147–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2014.11.015.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Goense L, Meziani J, Ruurda JP, van Hillegersberg R. Impact of postoperative complications on outcomes after oesophagectomy for cancer. Br J Surg. 2019;106(1):111–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11000.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Wouters MWJM, Jansen-Landheer MLEA, Van De Velde CJH. The quality of cancer care initiative in the Netherlands. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36:S3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2010.06.004.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Tegels JJW, De Maat MFG, Hulsewé KWE, Hoofwijk AGM, Stoot JH. Improving the outcomes in gastric cancer surgery. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:13692–704. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i38.13692.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Jensen LS, Nielsen H, Mortensen PB, Pilegaard HK, Johnsen SP. Enforcing centralization for gastric cancer in Denmark. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36:S50–S5454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2010.06.025.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Nelen SD, Heuthorst L, Verhoeven RHA, Polat F, Kruyt PM, Reijnders K, et al. Impact of Centralizing gastric cancer surgery on treatment, morbidity, and mortality. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21:2000–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-017-3531-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Pasquer A, Renaud F, Hec F, Gandon A, Vanderbeken M, Drubay V, et al. Is centralization needed for esophageal and gastric cancer patients with low operative risk? a nationwide study. Ann Surg. 2016;264:823–30. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001768.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Sano T, Kodera Y. Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 3rd English edition. Gastric Cancer 2011;14:101–12. doi:10.1007/s10120–011–0041–5.

23.

Cunningham D, Starling N, Rao S, Iveson T, Nicolson M, Coxon F, et al. Capecitabine and oxaliplatin for advanced esophagogastric cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:36–46. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa073149.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Vereniging Integrale Kankercentra. Richtlijn Diagnostiek, behandeling en follow-up van het maagcarcinoom 2009. 2009. https://www.oncoline.nl/uploaded/docs/Maagcarcinoom/Richtlijn%20maagcarcinoom.pdf.

25.

Washington K. 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual: stomach. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:3077–9. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1362-z.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit. DUCA Jaarrapportage 2016. 2017. http://dica.nl/jaarrapportage-2016/duca.

27.

Sterne JAC, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ. 2009;338:b2393–b23932393. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2393.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Dahlqwist E, Zetterqvist J, Pawitan Y, Sjölander A. Model-based estimation of the attributable fraction for cross-sectional, case–control and cohort studies using the R package AF. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016;31:575–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-016-0137-7.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Schwenk W, Demartines N, Roulin D, Francis N, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations. World J Surg. 2013;37:259–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1772-0.CrossRefPubMed

30.

ESSO Course On Minimally Invasive ESOPHAGECTOMY and Gastrectomy In partnership with University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht (NL), 15 th to 16 th March 2018 2018. https://www.essoweb.org/courses/esso-course-minimally-invasive-esophagectomy-and-gastrectomy/.

31.

Brenkman HJF, Ruurda JP, Verhoeven RHA, van Hillegersberg R. Safety and feasibility of minimally invasive gastrectomy during the early introduction in the Netherlands: short-term oncological outcomes comparable to open gastrectomy. Gastric Cancer. 2017;20:853–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-017-0695-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Jung DH, Son S-Y, Park YS, Shin DJ, Ahn HS, Ahn S-H, et al. The learning curve associated with laparoscopic total gastrectomy. Gastric Cancer. 2016;19:264–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-014-0447-y.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Goense L, Van Rossum PSN, Weijs TJ, Van Det MJ, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, Luyer MD, et al. Aortic calcification increases the risk of anastomotic leakage after ivor-lewis esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102:247–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.01.093.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Gertsen EC, Brenkman HJF, Seesing MFJ, Goense L, Ruurda JP, van Hillegersberg R. Introduction of minimally invasive surgery for distal and total gastrectomy: a population-based study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.08.015.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Brenkman HJF, Tegels JJW, Ruurda JP, Luyer MDP, Kouwenhoven EA, Draaisma WA, et al. Factors influencing health-related quality of life after gastrectomy for cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2018;21:524–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-017-0771-0.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Pavlidis E, Vousvouki M, Pavlidis T. Prevention of anastomotic leakage in gastrointestinal tract: a brief literature review. Br J Med Med Res. 2015;5:633–7. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJMMR/2015/13404.CrossRef

37.

Phillips BR. Reducing gastrointestinal anastomotic leak rates: Review of challenges and solutions. Open Access Surg. 2016;9:5–14. https://doi.org/10.2147/OAS.S54936.CrossRef

38.

Van Der Sluis PC, Van Der Horst S, May AM, Schippers C, Brosens LAA, Joore HCA, et al. Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer. Ann Surg. 2018;269:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003031.CrossRef

39.

Goense L, van Dijk WA, Govaert JA, van Rossum PSN, Ruurda JP, van Hillegersberg R. Hospital costs of complications after esophagectomy for cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:696–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2016.11.013.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Identification of the clinically most relevant postoperative complications after gastrectomy: a population-based cohort study
verfasst von: Emma C. Gertsen
Lucas Goense
Hylke J. F. Brenkman
Richard van Hillegersberg
Jelle P. Ruurda
the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) group
Publikationsdatum: 03.09.2019
Verlag: Springer Singapore
Erschienen in: Gastric Cancer / Ausgabe 2/2020
Print ISSN: 1436-3291
Elektronische ISSN: 1436-3305
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-019-00997-x

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

23.04.2024 | Ablationstherapie | Nachrichten

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 | Appendizitis | Nachrichten

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 | Operationsvorbereitung | Nachrichten

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

19.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich

weitere anzeigen

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Identification of the clinically most relevant postoperative complications after gastrectomy: a population-based cohort study

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Electronic supplementary material

Publisher's Note

Introduction

Methods

Study design

Patient population and treatment

Predictors and study outcomes

Statistical analysis

Population-attributable fraction (PAF)

Results

Study population

Postoperative outcomes

Discussion

Acknowledgements

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Human rights statement

Publisher's Note

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

e.Med Innere Medizin

Electronic supplementary material

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich

Update Chirurgie

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Electronic supplementary material

Publisher's Note

Introduction

Methods

Study design

Patient population and treatment

Predictors and study outcomes

Statistical analysis

Population-attributable fraction (PAF)

Results

Study population

Postoperative outcomes

Discussion

Acknowledgements

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Human rights statement

Informed consent

Publisher's Note

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

e.Med Innere Medizin

Electronic supplementary material

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2020

Significance of CT attenuation and F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose uptake of visceral adipose tissue for predicting survival in gastric cancer patients after curative surgical resection

LncRNA CTC-497E21.4 promotes the progression of gastric cancer via modulating miR-22/NET1 axis through RhoA signaling pathway

Conversion therapy for peritoneal lavage cytology-positive type 4 and large type 3 gastric cancer patients selected as candidates for R0 resection by diagnostic staging laparoscopy

The modification of ferroptosis and abnormal lipometabolism through overexpression and knockdown of potential prognostic biomarker perilipin2 in gastric carcinoma

Long-term outcomes of preoperative docetaxel with cisplatin plus S-1 therapy for gastric cancer with extensive nodal metastasis (JCOG1002)

DLX6-AS1/miR-204-5p/OCT1 positive feedback loop promotes tumor progression and epithelial–mesenchymal transition in gastric cancer

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich

Update Chirurgie

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“