Comparative Analysis of Clavien–Dindo Grade and Risk Factors of Complications after Dual-Port Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy and Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Gastrectomy

Jin, Haihao; Geng, Jianshan

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/4747843

Journal of Oncology

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Prognosis, Diagnosis and Treatments for Digestive System Cancers

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2021 | Article ID 4747843 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/4747843

Comparative Analysis of Clavien–Dindo Grade and Risk Factors of Complications after Dual-Port Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy and Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Gastrectomy

Haihao Jin¹and Jianshan Geng¹

Academic Editor: Alamgeer Yuchi

Received28 May 2021

Accepted03 Jul 2021

Published09 Jul 2021

Abstract

Objective. To compare the Clavien–Dindo grade and risk factors of complications after dual-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (DPLDG) and hand-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy (HALG). Methods. The clinical data of 775 patients who underwent DPLDG or HALG in our hospital from May 2016 to May 2019 were retrospectively reviewed, and the patients were divided into the DPLDG group (n = 386) and HALG group (n = 389) according to the surgical method to explore the risk factors of postoperative complications by grading their postoperative complications according to the Clavien–Dindo classification system and single-factor and multivariate analysis of the association between variables in clinical data and complications. Results. Compared with the HALG group, the DPLDG group had significantly shorter surgical time, less intraoperative blood loss, and better postoperative exhaust time , with no significant difference in other clinical indicators between the two groups ; the postoperative complication incidence rate of DPLDG group was significantly lower than that of the HALG group; it was shown in the single-factor analysis that the age, tumor length, intraoperative blood loss, pathological stages, and surgical method were related to the postoperative complications, and the results of multivariate analysis indicated that DPLDG was the protective factor for reducing postoperative complications, while age no less than 60 years old and intraoperative blood loss no less than 180 ml were the independent risk factors leading to complications; after surgery, the PNI level values at T1, T2, and T3 of DPLDG group were significantly higher than those of the HALG group ; and at 1 month after surgery, both groups obtained significantly higher GLQI scores than before, and the GLQI score of the DPLDG group was significantly higher in the between-group comparison . Conclusion. The DPLDG has lower postoperative complication incidence rate than the HALG, but age no less than 60 years old and intraoperative blood loss not less than 180 ml are the independent risk factors for postoperative complications, so advanced prevention measures shall be taken to lower the incidence of complications.

1. Introduction

Gastric cancer is a kind of gastroenterological cancer originating from the gastric epithelial cell, which, according to related statistics [1, 2], ranks the fifth in the incidence and top three in the mortality among the new cancers worldwide. With the gradual development of clinical research, people have a deeper understanding of gastric cancer, and laparoscopy with the characteristics of less trauma and precise operative manipulation has been widely used in the treatment of gastric cancer, which can effectively remove lymph nodes and improve the survival outcome of patients [3]. In recent years, the totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) has become more widely applied in the clinic, and studies have confirmed that TLDG has comparable long-term outcomes compared with open surgery. As an important branch of TLDG, hand-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy (HALG) combines the advantages of TLDG with those of open surgery, thereby exerting the best therapeutic effect against gastric cancer [4–6]. In traditional TLDG, 5 ports plus auxiliary small incision reconstruction are usually needed, but with the continuous innovation and development of minimal invasive technique, laparoscopic gastrectomy with less ports is applied. Theoretically speaking, with fewer ports, the operation will be less difficult and the patients are less traumatized. However, as D2 lymphadenectomy is difficult in surgery and the operation with single port is more complicated than that with 5 ports, the single-port laparoscopic radical gastrectomy is limited in application [7, 8]. On the basis of the single-port laparoscopy, the two-port method is conducted by adding an auxiliary operation port in the patient’s right upper abdomen for laparoscopic drainage, which reduces trauma and lowers the difficulty of operation while not increasing the abdominal incision, which has been demonstrated in the clinical treatment of gastric cancer [9]. Previous literature is short of studies on Clavien–Dindo grade and risk factors of complications after DPLDG and HALG [10]. Based on this, the clinical data of 775 patients who underwent DPLDG or HALG in our hospital were retrospectively reviewed to analyze the effect of different surgical procedures on the Clavien–Dindo grade and risk factors of postoperative complications.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. General Information

The clinical data of 775 patients who underwent distal gastrectomy in our hospital from May 2016 to May 2019 were retrospectively reviewed, and the patients were divided into the DPLDG group (n = 386) and HALG group (n = 389) according to the surgical method, with no significant difference in the baseline information between the two groups , see Table 1.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

2.2.1. Inclusion Criteria

(1) Patients met the clinical diagnosis criteria of gastric cancer in the Surgery of Gastric Cancer [11] and were confirmed to have gastric cancer by histopathological examination in vivo; (2) patients were not given chemoradiotherapy before surgery; (3) patients met the surgical indications; and (4) the study was reviewed and approved by the Hospital Ethics Committee, and patients and their family members signed the informed consent. Exclusion Criteria. (1) Patients had other malignant tumors; (2) patients had history of abdominal surgery or accepted the palliative resection of tumor before; (3) patients had serious brain, heart, lung, or kidney diseases; and (4) patients had coagulation disorders or serious basic diseases.

2.3. Methods

Both surgeries were performed by the same medical team, and the specific steps of DPLDG were as follows. After performing general anesthesia with tracheal intubation, the self-developed single-port multichannel operation device (made by Taizhou Roosin Medical Co., Ltd.) was used to make a 3-4 cm incision below or around the umbilicus on the left side. After the device entered the patient’s abdominal cavity layer by layer, a matched incision protective sleeve was placed to hold the device and establish the pneumoperitoneum, with the pressure maintained at 12–15 mmHg. A 5 mm trocar was placed at the subcostal margin of right midclavicular line as the auxiliary operation hole to hang the liver. The ultrasound knife was used to free along the transverse colon to the splenic flexure to fully expose the pancreatic tail and the lower pole of the spleen, position the left gastroepiploic vessel, ligate the left gastroepiploic vessel at the root, and dissect the No. 4sb lymph node. The mesogastrium was separated from the transverse mesocolon, the right gastroomental vein was positioned at the inferior border of pancreas, the right gastroepiploic artery was positioned, and the root was ligated. The No. 6 lymph node was dissected by freeing along the subpyloric region to the suprapyloric region with the gastroduodenal artery as the clue. And the No. 5 lymph node was dissected by dividing the duodenal ampulla with the linear cutting closure and ligating the root. The No. 8a, No. 9, No. 11p, and No. 7 lymph nodes were dissected by freeing the splenic artery, common hepatic artery, and left gastric artery and vein, respectively, at the upper border of pancreas and retropancreatic space and ligating the left gastric vessel, the No. 12a lymph node was dissected by exposing the left portal vein wall, and the No. 3 and No. 1 lymph nodes were dissected after freeing along the lesser curvature of stomach; the gastric body was disconnected at 4-5 cm proximal to the tumor with the linear cutting closure, and the Roux-en-Y anastomosis or Billroth II anastomosis was performed in the cavity. Finally, a drainage tube was indwelled near the gastrointestinal anastomosis port through the auxiliary operation hole in the right upper abdomen.

The specific steps of performing HALG were as follows. General anesthesia was implemented in flat position; a disinfected drape was laid. The operator was standing on the right side of the patient to make an incision in the middle of the upper abdomen and then incised various layers of the abdominal wall sequentially to the abdomen and placed the lap disc base to explore the patient’s abdominal cavity in order. The transverse colon was lifted and partial gastrocolic ligament was freed along the upper board of the transverse colon to expose the right crura of diaphragm. A 12 mm trocar was placed as the main operation hole, and the operator put his left hand into the abdominal cavity to install the lap disc and establish a pneumoperitoneum. A 12 mm trocar was placed at about 2 cm of subcostal margin of left anterior axillary line as the observation hole. The lymph node dissection was performed according to the tumor location and the relevant criteria in the latest radical gastrectomy [12]. The pneumoperitoneum was closed, and the digestive tract reconstruction was completed under euthyphoria. The Billroth I or II anastomosis was performed on patients who underwent distal gastrectomy, and the Roux-en-Y anastomosis was performed on patients who underwent oesophagus jejunum after total gastrectomy.

2.4. Evaluation Indexes

The surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, postoperative exhaust time, time to return to full-fluid diet for the first time after surgery, hospital stay after surgery, the off-bed ambulation time after surgery, the number of lymph nodes being dissected, and the time of removing the abdominal drainage tube of patients in both groups were recorded. The pain severity of patients in both groups was assessed by the numerical pain rating (NRS) scale [13] at 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, and 2 d postoperatively. The patients’ self-evaluation to their incisions was assessed by the aesthetic scoring, which was composed of three parts, namely, the satisfaction of incision scar (1–7 points, with 1 point indicating unsatisfied and 7 points indicating fully satisfied), incision scar (1–7 points, with 1 point indicating disgusted and 7 points indicating enjoyed), and incision scar classification (1–10 points, with 1 point indicating the worst and 7 points indicating the best). The sum of the three parts was the final score of incision aesthetic, which was the basis for grading patients’ satisfaction of incision as low (3–9 points), medium (10–17 points), and high (18–24 points).

The complication severity within 30 days after surgery was evaluated by the Clavien–Dindo classification system [14], and if the patient had more than one complication, the most severe one was recorded. IIIa complications or complications with higher grade were specified as severe.

The serum albumin (Alb, g/L) and peripheral blood lymphocyte count (Lymph, mm³) of patients in both groups were tested before surgery and at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery, and the prognosis nutrition index (PNI) was calculated by the formula (PNI) = (Alb) × 10 + (Lymph) × 0.005. The quality of life of patients in both groups before surgery and at 1 month after surgery was evaluated by the gastrointestinal quality of life index (GQLI) [15]. The maximum score was 145 points, with higher scores indicating better quality of life.

2.5. Statistical Methods

The experimental data were statistically analyzed and processed by the SPSS21.0, the picture drawing of data was completed by GraphPad Prism 7 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, USA), the enumeration data were examined by test and expressed by [n (%)], the measurement data were examined by t-test and expressed by , the single-factor analysis and multivariate analysis of risk factors of postoperative complications were examined by test and logistic regression model respectively, and differences were considered statistically significant at .

3. Results

3.1. Comparison of Patients’ Clinical Effect Indexes between the Two Groups

Compared with the HALG group, the DPLDG group had significantly shorter surgical time, less intraoperative blood loss, and higher postoperative exhaust time , with no significant difference in other clinical indexes ; see Table 2.

3.2. Comparison of Patients’ Clavien–Dindo Grades of Postoperative Complications between the Two Groups

The overall incidence rate of postoperative complications of the DPLDG group was significantly lower than that of the HALG group ; see Table 3.

3.3. Single-Factor and Multivariate Analysis of Risk Factors of Postoperative Complications in Patients of Both Groups

It was showed in the single-factor analysis that the age, tumor length, intraoperative blood loss, pathological stages, and surgical method were related to the postoperative complications, and the results of multivariate analysis indicated that DPLDG was the protective factor for reducing postoperative complications, while age no less than 60 years old and intraoperative blood loss no less than 180 ml were the independent risk factors leading to complications; see Table 4.

3.4. Comparison of Patients’ PNI Level Values before Surgery and at Different Moments after Surgery between the Two Groups

The PNI level values at T1, T2, and T3 after surgery of patients in the DPLDG group were significantly higher than those in the HALG group ; see Figure 1.

Figure 1

Comparison of patients’ PNI level values before surgery and at different moments after surgery between the two groups . Note. The horizontal axis indicated T0, T1, T2, and T3, and the vertical axis indicated the PNI level values. The PNI level values at T0, T1, T2, and T3 of patients in the DPLDG group were 36.26 ± 3.37, 51.26 ± 5.97, 76.63 ± 6.74, and 84.17 ± 6.69, respectively. The PNI level values at T0, T1, T2, and T3 of patients in the HALG group were 36.29 ± 3.41, 45.33 ± 5.63, 52.36 ± 6.81, and 57.26 ± 6.37, respectively. indicates that the PNI level values at T1 of patients in the two groups were significantly different (t = 14.227, ); indicates that the PNI level values at T2 of patients in the two groups were significantly different (t = 49.861, ); and indicates that the PNI level values at T3 of patients in the two groups were significantly different (t = 57.349, ).

3.5. Comparison of Patients’ GLQI Scores before Surgery and at 1 Month after Surgery between the Two Groups

At 1 month after surgery, both groups obtained significantly higher GLQI scores than before, and the GLQI score of the DPLDG group was significantly higher in the between-group comparison ; see Figure 2.

Figure 2

Comparison of patients’ GLQI scores before surgery and at 1 month after surgery between the two groups . Note. The horizontal axis indicated before surgery and 1 month after surgery, and the vertical axis indicated the GLQI score (points). The GLQI scores before surgery and at 1 month after surgery of patients in the DPLDG group were (92.35 ± 6.74) and (117.36 ± 5.43), respectively, and those of patients in the HALG group were (92.38 ± 6.79) and (112.36 ± 5.49), respectively. indicates that the GLQI scores before surgery and at 1 month after surgery of patients in the DPLDG group were significantly different (t = 56.771, ); indicates that the GLQI scores before surgery and at 1 month after surgery of patients in the HALG group were significantly different (t = 45.130, ); and indicates that the GLQI scores at 1 month after surgery of patients in the two groups were significantly different (t = 12.746, ).

4. Discussion

Gastric cancer is a malignant tumor disease of the digestive tract. With the higher demand for the surgical efficacy of gastric cancer currently, an ideal surgical treatment regimen that aims to reduce the impact on the patient’s body function and prolong survival time is needed [16, 17]. As surgery continuously becomes more standardized and less invasive, TLDG is applied, with the ultimate goal of providing painless and scarless clinical treatment. However, natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery has clinical application limits because of many factors, so the introduction of single-port laparoscopy is considered to be an excessive stage of traditional laparoscopic surgery to natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. Some scholars [18, 19] believe that the single-port laparoscopy is limited in the operation scope, lacks antitraction, and has narrow surgical field, which will lead to an enlarged umbilical incision, etc., so an additional operation hole is added by attempt for countertraction and reducing the difficulty of operation. The efficacy of the two-port laparoscopy method has been proved in previous literature [20, 21], because compared with traditional laparoscopy, patients who underwent the two-port laparoscopy could get off bed and had their indwelling tube removed sooner. As the laparoscopic surgical technique has become more mature, although with some defects such as long surgical time and learning curve, and fatiguing the operator during surgery, most physicians recognize that this surgical approach is as safe and thorough as the open radical gastrectomy. Foreign literature [22] has reported that the HALG was successfully performed to 2 cases for the first time by the abdominal wall suspension technology and the operator putting his left hand into the patient’s abdominal cavity through the incision in the right lower abdomen, which was promoted and applied in the clinic as it fully combined the advantages of laparoscopy and open surgery.

The Clavien–Dindo classification system is currently the most definitive criterion internationally for evaluating the postoperative complications including gastric cancer [23]. This study provided the basis for preventing complications after radical gastrectomy by comparing the impact of two surgical methods on the severity of postoperative complications and analyzing the risk factors of postoperative complications. The results showed that age not less than 60 years old was an independent risk factor for postoperative complications, which might be related to the poor body tolerance of the elderly patients, a view that was supported by other scholars [24]; on the other hand, intraoperative blood loss not less than 180 ml was another risk factor, which was proved in the study by FESCO et al. [25]. The study also found that compared with DPLDG, the surgical time of HALG was obviously longer, but the length of surgical time was confirmed to be not significantly associated with the postoperative complications. However, the definition of postoperative adverse events after different surgeries by the Clavien–Dindo classification system might not be consistent and cause bias in the grading of complications in reality. This study was conducted with fewer cases and lack of research on patients’ long-term efficacy, so large sample and multicenter prospective studies are still needed in the future to further validate the application value of the Clavien–Dindo classification system in the assessment of postoperative complications of gastric cancer, so as to make a risk assessment and early intervention treatment for the occurrence of postoperative complications in patients and maximize the surgical treatment effect.

In conclusion, patients tend to have grade II complications or complications with lower grade after surgery, and age not less than 60 years old and intraoperative blood loss not less than 180 ml are the independent risk factors that cause postoperative complications. Therefore, we should focus on the high-risk group for complications, take corresponding prevention and treatment measures, and reduce the incidence of postoperative complications.

Data Availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the present study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

No conflicts of interest are associated with the publication of this work.

References

G. Giuliani, A. Coratti, A. Patriti et al., “Pancreatic complications after conventional laparoscopic radical gastrectomy versus robotic radical gastrectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques, Part A, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 1207–1215, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. L. Cao, J. Lu, C. M. Huang et al., “Which method is more suitable for advanced gastric cancer with enlarged lymph nodes, laparoscopic radical gastrectomy or open gastrectomy?” Gastric Cancer: Official Journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 853–863, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Nicolaus, S. Zschauer, D. Bräuer et al., “Extensive endometriosis surgery: rASRM and Enzian score independently relate to post-operative complication grade,” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 301, no. 3, pp. 699–706, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Téoule, F. Bartel, E. Birgin, F. Rückert, and T. J. Wilhelm, “The Clavien-Dindo classification in pancreatic surgery: a clinical and economic validation,” Journal of Investigative Surgery, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 314–320, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Vasileiou, M. Ray-Zack, M. Zielinski, S. Qian, D. D. Yeh, and M. Crandall, “Validation of the American association for the surgery of trauma emergency general surgery score for acute appendicitis-an EAST multicenter study,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 134–139, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Bucher, N. Maldaner, L. Regli, J. Sarnthein, and C. Serra, “Standardized assessment of outcome and complications in chronic subdural hematoma: results from a large case series,” Acta Neurochirurgica, vol. 161, no. 7, pp. 1297–1304, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Chiappetta, C. Stier, and R. A. Weiner, “The Edmonton obesity staging system predicts perioperative complications and procedure choice in obesity and metabolic surgery-a German nationwide register-based cohort study (StuDoQ|MBE),” Obesity Surgery, vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 3791–3799, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Hirayama, J. Fujisaki, S. Yoshimizu et al., “Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection for gastric tube cancer after surgical resection of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma,” Esophagus, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 194–200, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Biondi, D. D’Ugo, F. Cananzi et al., “Prognostic indicators in stage IV surgically treated gastric cancer patients: a retrospective multi-institutional study,” Digestive Surgery, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 331–339, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Uchida, Y. Kondo, S. Suzuki, and K. Hosohata, “Evaluation of acute kidney injury associated with anticancer drugs used in gastric cancer in the Japanese adverse drug event report database,” Annals of Pharmacotherapy, vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 1200–1206, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Lin, Y. Zhang, Y. Hu et al., “Epigenetic downregulation of MUC17 by H. pylori infection facilitates NF--mediated expression of CEACAM1-3S in human gastric cancer,” Gastric Cancer, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 941–954, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Zhang, D. Q. Dai, and Y. Zou, “Downregulation of microRNA-27b-3p via aberrant DNA methylation contributes to malignant behavior of gastric cancer cells by targeting GSPT1,” Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & Pharmacotherapie, vol. 119, no. 119, Article ID 109417, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Shen, P. Liu, Z. Xu et al., “CircRNA_001569 promotes cell proliferation through absorbing miR-145 in gastric cancer,” The Journal of Biochemistry, vol. 165, no. 1, pp. 27–36, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Komatsu, Y. Shioaki, H. Furuke et al., “Is curative gastrectomy justified for gastric cancer with cytology positive as the only stage IV factor?” Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery, vol. 404, no. 5, pp. 599–604, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Yoshida, T. Beppu, K. Kinoshita et al., “Five-year recurrence-free survival after surgery followed by oral chemotherapy for gastric cancer with portal vein tumor thrombosis,” Anticancer Research, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 2233–2238, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Takeuchi, H. Takeuchi, H. Kawakubo et al., “Risk factors for lymph node metastasis in non-sentinel node basins in early gastric cancer: sentinel node concept,” Gastric Cancer, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 223–230, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Yamada, N. Boku, J. Mizusawa et al., “Docetaxel plus cisplatin and S-1 versus cisplatin and S-1 in patients with advanced gastric cancer (JCOG1013): an open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial,” The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 501–510, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Chen, G. Chen, C. Wang, and C. Mao, “RAB13 as a novel prognosis marker promotes proliferation and chemotherapeutic resistance in gastric cancer,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 519, no. 1, pp. 113–120, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Kaurah, A. Talhouk, A. Macmillan et al., “Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer: cancer risk and the personal cost of preventive surgery,” Familial Cancer, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 429–438, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Kumamoto, Y. Kurahashi, S. Haruta et al., “Laparoscopic modified lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer surgery using systematic mesogastric excision: a novel technique based on a concept,” Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery, vol. 404, no. 3, pp. 369–374, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Priego, M. Cuadrado, A. Ballestero, J. Galindo, and E. Lobo, “Comparison of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for treatment of gastric cancer: analysis of a textbook outcome,” Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 458–464, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B.-B. Xu, J. Lu, Z.-F. Zheng et al., “Comparison of short-term and long-term efficacy of laparoscopic and open gastrectomy in high-risk patients with gastric cancer: a propensity score-matching analysis,” Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 58–70, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Huang, H. Du, M. Aihemaiti et al., “Laparoscopic-assisted versus open D2 gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer in highly selective patients,” American Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 459–465, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Omori, Y. Fujiwara, K. Yamamoto et al., “The safety and feasibility of single-port laparoscopic gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer,” Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 1329–1339, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. B. Fecso, J. A. Bhatti, P. K. Stotland, F. A. Quereshy, and T. P. Grantcharov, “Technical performance as a predictor of clinical outcomes in laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 270, no. 1, pp. 115–120, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2021 Haihao Jin and Jianshan Geng. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies