4.6 Article

Worldwide practice in gastric cancer surgery

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 22, 期 15, 页码 4041-4048

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i15.4041

关键词

Gastric cancer; Gastrectomy; Laparoscopy; Neoplasm; Minimally invasive surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To evaluate the current status of gastric cancer surgery worldwide. METHODS: An international cross-sectional survey on gastric cancer surgery was performed amongst international upper gastro-intestinal surgeons. All surgical members of the International Gastric Cancer Association were invited by e-mail to participate. An English web-based survey had to be filled in with regard to their surgical preferences. Questions asked included hospital volume, the use of neoadjuvant treatment, preferred surgical approach, extent of the lymphadenectomy and preferred anastomotic technique. The invitations were sent in September 2013 and the survey was closed in January 2014. RESULTS: The corresponding specific response rate was 227/615 (37%). The majority of respondents: originated from Asia (54%), performed > 21 gastrectomies per year (79%) and used neoadjuvant chemotherapy (73%). An open surgical procedure was performed by the majority of surgeons for distal gastrectomy for advanced cancer (91%) and total gastrectomy for both early and advanced cancer (52% and 94%). A minimally invasive procedure was preferred for distal gastrectomy for early cancer (65%). In Asia surgeons preferred a minimally invasive procedure for total gastrectomy for early cancer also (63%). A D1+ lymphadenectomy was preferred in early gastric cancer (52% for distal, 54% for total gastrectomy) and a D2 lymphadenectomy was preferred in advanced gastric cancer (93% for distal, 92% for total gastrectomy) CONCLUSION: Surgical preferences for gastric cancer surgery vary between surgeons worldwide. Although the majority of surgeons use neoadjuvant chemotherapy, minimally invasive techniques are still not widely adapted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据