Scholarlink

Background <p>Previously, no international consensus on reporting complications after gastric cancer surgery existed, making comparisons between studies difficult. In 2015 the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) published a standardized list for classification of postoperative complications after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, which also was applied for gastric cancer. In 2019 the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group (GCCG) reported outcomes after gastrectomy for gastric cancer with a list of different complication types. This study aimed to compare the two classifications in reporting postoperative outcomes after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.</p> Methods <p>This population-based study, based on the Finnish National Esophago-Gastric Cancer Cohort, included all patients age 18 years or older undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer in Finland during 2010–2016. For classifying and describing different postoperative outcomes, both the ECCG and GCCG lists of complications were used separately.</p> Results <p>The study analyzed 1115 patients. The occurrence of complications 90 days postoperatively was 23.0% according to the GCCG classification (504 individual complications) and 43.0% according to the ECCG classification (1084 individual complications). Most of the notable differences between the classifications in reporting complications were in cardiac dysrhythmia, infections, and myocardial infarction, with the GCCG classification reporting a lower incidence. Additionally, 131 complications occurring in 13 individual types of complications defined only in the ECCG and not in the GCCG were recorded.</p> Conclusions <p>This study suggests that the ECCG classification is more comprehensive and sensitive in evaluating complications of gastrectomy than the GCCG classification. Use of the ECCG classification may be preferable in the context of gastrectomy.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparing Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group (GCCG) and Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) Classifications in Reporting Postoperative Complications After Gastrectomy: A Population-Based Nationwide Study in Finland

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月23日

查看全文
  • Emilia Putila,
  • Olli Helminen,
  • Mika Helmiö,
  • Heikki Huhta,
  • Aapo Jalkanen,
  • Anna Junttila,
  • Raija Kallio,
  • Vesa Koivukangas,
  • Arto Kokkola,
  • Elina Lietzen,
  • Johanna Louhimo,
  • Sanna Meriläinen,
  • Vesa-Matti Pohjanen,
  • Tuomo Rantanen,
  • Ari Ristimäki,
  • Jari V. Räsänen,
  • Juha Saarnio,
  • Eero Sihvo,
  • Vesa Toikkanen,
  • Tuula Tyrväinen,
  • Antti Valtola,
  • Joonas H. Kauppila

摘要

Background

Previously, no international consensus on reporting complications after gastric cancer surgery existed, making comparisons between studies difficult. In 2015 the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) published a standardized list for classification of postoperative complications after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, which also was applied for gastric cancer. In 2019 the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group (GCCG) reported outcomes after gastrectomy for gastric cancer with a list of different complication types. This study aimed to compare the two classifications in reporting postoperative outcomes after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Methods

This population-based study, based on the Finnish National Esophago-Gastric Cancer Cohort, included all patients age 18 years or older undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer in Finland during 2010–2016. For classifying and describing different postoperative outcomes, both the ECCG and GCCG lists of complications were used separately.

Results

The study analyzed 1115 patients. The occurrence of complications 90 days postoperatively was 23.0% according to the GCCG classification (504 individual complications) and 43.0% according to the ECCG classification (1084 individual complications). Most of the notable differences between the classifications in reporting complications were in cardiac dysrhythmia, infections, and myocardial infarction, with the GCCG classification reporting a lower incidence. Additionally, 131 complications occurring in 13 individual types of complications defined only in the ECCG and not in the GCCG were recorded.

Conclusions

This study suggests that the ECCG classification is more comprehensive and sensitive in evaluating complications of gastrectomy than the GCCG classification. Use of the ECCG classification may be preferable in the context of gastrectomy.