Comparison of the intracorporeal triangular and delta-shaped anastomotic techniques in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an analysis with propensity score matching

Background The delta-shaped anastomotic technique (Delta-SA) has been accepted as a standard reconstruction method in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with Billroth I reconstruction (TLDG B-I). However, some anastomosis-related surgical complications have been reported. We evaluated the safet...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Surgical endoscopy 2020-06, Vol.34 (6), p.2445-2453
Hauptverfasser: Yanagimoto, Yoshitomo, Omori, Takeshi, Fujiwara, Yoshiyuki, Demura, Koichi, Jeong-Ho, Moon, Shinno, Naoki, Yamamoto, Kazuyoshi, Sugimura, Keijiro, Miyata, Hiroshi, Ushigome, Hajime, Takahashi, Yusuke, Nishimura, Junichi, Yasui, Masayoshi, Asukai, Kei, Yamada, Daisaku, Wada, Hiroshi, Takahashi, Hidenori, Ohue, Masayuki, Yano, Masahiko, Sakon, Masato
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background The delta-shaped anastomotic technique (Delta-SA) has been accepted as a standard reconstruction method in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with Billroth I reconstruction (TLDG B-I). However, some anastomosis-related surgical complications have been reported. We evaluated the safety and feasibility of modified Delta-SA, called intracorporeal triangular anastomotic technique (INTACT), in this study. Methods From January 2010 to May 2018, we identified patients who underwent TLDG B-I with INTACT ( n  = 289) and Delta-SA ( n  = 221). Using one-to-one propensity score matching, surgical outcomes and gastrointestinal function were compared between the two groups. Results After one-to-one propensity score matching, 177 pairs of INTACT and Delta-SA patients were selected. Patient background was closely balanced between the two groups. Operative time (186 [159, 213] min vs. 237 [213, 264] min; P 
ISSN:0930-2794
1432-2218
DOI:10.1007/s00464-019-07025-0