Skip to main content
Download PDF

Evaluation of different scoring systems in the prediction of complications, morbidity, and mortality after laparoscopic radical gastrectomy

World Journal of Surgical Oncology volume 21, Article number: 388 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

This retrospective study aimed to assess the suitability of POSSUM and its modified versions, E-PASS and its modified score, SRS, and SORT scores for predicting postoperative complications and mortality in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Materials and methods

Data analysis was performed on 349 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical gastrectomy at Tianjin Medical University General Hospital between January 2016 and December 2021. The discriminative ability of the scoring systems was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The primary endpoint focused on the prediction of postoperative complications, while the secondary endpoint assessed the prediction of postoperative mortality.

Results

Among the scoring systems evaluated, the modified E-PASS (mE-PASS) score exhibited the highest AUC (0.846) and demonstrated the highest sensitivity (81%) and specificity (79%) for predicting postoperative complications. All other scores, except for POSSUM, showed moderate discriminative ability in predicting complications. In terms of predicting postoperative mortality, the E-PASS score had the highest AUC (0.978), while the mE-PASS score displayed the highest sensitivity (76%) and specificity (90%). Notably, both E-PASS and mE-PASS scores exhibited excellent discriminative ability.

Conclusions

The P-POSSUM, O-POSSUM, E-PASS, mE-PASS, SRS, and SORT scoring systems are useful tools for predicting postoperative outcomes in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. Among them, the mE-PASS score demonstrated the best predictive power. However, the POSSUM system could only be applicable to predict postoperative mortality.

Introduction

Gastric cancer (GC) continues to be one of the most lethal cancers globally, ranking fifth in terms of incidence and fourth in terms of mortality [1]. Laparoscopic gastrectomy has emerged as a widely employed approach for GC treatment, offering a more promising outlook and well-defined hierarchical structure compared to traditional laparotomy [2]. However, the occurrence of postoperative complications remains a significant challenge that impacts patient prognosis.

The occurrence of postoperative complications in GC is influenced by multiple factors. In the context of conventional open surgery, various surgical scoring systems have been developed to predict the morbidity and mortality associated with these complications. Initially, the Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and Morbidity (POSSUM) score was introduced to assess the risk of postoperative complications and evaluate surgical quality. The POSSUM score comprised two components: the physiology score (PS) and the operative score (OS). The physiology score incorporates 12 indicators, while the operative severity score encompasses 6 indicators. Each indicator was categorized into four grades and derived using a binary logistic regression Eq. [3]. However, it was observed that POSSUM tends to overestimate postoperative mortality [4]. Whiteley et al. [5] addressed this issue by making adjustments to the POSSUM equation, resulting in the development of the P-POSSUM score, which exhibited enhanced accuracy in predicting postoperative mortality. Additionally, due to the relatively high rates of complications and mortality associated with esophageal and gastric surgeries, O-POSSUM was specifically developed to improve the predictive capabilities of POSSUM for these procedures [6]. Recognizing the significance of patients’ physiological status and their response to surgical trauma, Haga et al. [7] introduced the Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress (E-PASS) scoring system. This predictive tool assesses postoperative risk by evaluating the patient’s physiological reserve and surgical stress. The E-PASS scoring system comprised three components: the preoperative risk score (PRS), which primarily reflects the patient’s physiological status; the surgical stress score (SSS), which primarily evaluates the patient’s ability to cope with the stress of surgery; and the comprehensive risk score (CRS). A modified version of E-PASS, known as mE-PASS, incorporates various surgical procedures to calculate a median score for the proposed surgical method, thereby obtaining the surgical stress score specific to that surgery. Building upon E-PASS, mE-PASS was subsequently developed to simplify data entry while maintaining its applicability, and its national validation has been conducted [8].

In addition, Sutton et al. [9] developed a simplified surgical risk scoring system. The surgical risk score (SRS) comprised three preoperative variables: surgical urgency grading, as defined by the Confidential Enquiry into Perioperative Deaths (CEPOD) grade; surgical size grading, as defined by the British United Provident Association (BUPA); and ASA grading. The SRS score for each patient was determined preoperatively, taking into account the level of the intended surgery and the patient’s ASA classification.

Furthermore, Protopapa et al. [10] developed the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) to identify patients who are at a high risk of experiencing postoperative complications and mortality. This tool assists in the strategic allocation of critical care resources. Subsequently, the parameters of the complication scoring system were enhanced using the SORT scale as a foundation, leading to improved accuracy in predicting the occurrence of postoperative complications.

Previous studies have confirmed the applicability of these scores in open gastrectomy [11,12,13,14]. However, although laparoscopic gastrectomy has been widely used in the treatment of GC, little attention has been paid to the applicability of these scoring systems to laparoscopic gastrectomy. Furthermore, surgical risk scores are constantly being modified with the advent of minimally invasive surgical techniques. Considering the difference between laparoscopic radical gastrectomy and open surgery, it is necessary to explore whether these scores are applicable to laparoscopic surgery and which score performs better. In view of this, we evaluated the applicability of POSSUM and its modified score, E-PASS and its modified score, SRS score, and SORT score in predicting postoperative mortality and morbidity after laparoscopic surgery.

Material and methods

IRB approval

This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Tianjin Medical University General Hospital (ethical no. IRB2022-WZ-207).

Patients

This retrospective study was conducted at Tianjin Medical University General Hospital from January 2016 to December 2021. The study included patients who were histopathologically diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma and underwent R0 resection. The exclusion criteria encompassed patients who underwent conversion to laparotomy, had incomplete data associated with the scoring systems, received preoperative radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and had multiple primary cancers. Prior to surgery, all enrolled patients underwent routine admission examination and preoperative preparations, which consisted of physical examination, laboratory tests, chest and abdomen imaging, and cardiopulmonary function evaluation. Tumor characteristics, including location, size, and lymph node metastasis, were assessed by whole abdominal contrast-enhanced CT, electronic gastroscopy, and pathologic diagnosis. Postoperative complications were graded according to the Clavien‒Dindo grading system [15] (Table 1), and patients graded II or higher were included in the study. Both morbidity and mortality from postoperative complications were defined as events occurring within 30 days of surgery.

Table 1 Classification of surgical complications
Full size table

POSSUM, P-POSSUM, and O-POSSUM systems

The PS variables comprised cardiac signs, chest X-ray findings, respiratory signs, systolic blood pressure, pulse rate, Glasgow Coma Index, hemoglobin level, white blood cell count, blood urea nitrogen, serum potassium, serum sodium, and electrocardiogram performance. Meanwhile, the OS variables encompassed the size of the operation, timing of the operation, blood loss, degree of peritoneal contamination, the presence of malignancy, and cumulative number of operations. The PS and OS scores were then applied to the POSSUM early complication and morbidity and mortality equations to determine the percent risk.

E-PASS and mE-PASS system

The PRS comprised six variables, including age, the presence of significant cardiac or pulmonary disease, diabetes, performance status index [16], and ASA score. Meanwhile, the SSS consists of three variables: blood loss to body weight ratio, operative time, and type of surgical incision. The CRS is derived from both the PRS and the SSS. The PRS and SSS scores were initially calculated using the E-PASS scoring equation. Subsequently, the CRS score, representing the early postoperative morbidity and mortality rate, was calculated from the PRS and SSS scores.

SRS system

The SRS scores are determined based on the aforementioned grading system. Subsequently, the predicted mortality was calculated by substituting the SRS score into a binary logistic equation.

SORT system

The SORT score comprised six variables: ASA class, surgical urgency, surgical severity, surgical specialty category, the presence of cancer, and age. The risk score was calculated using patient information and subsequently incorporated into an equation to estimate the early postoperative morbidity and mortality rate [10, 17].

Statistical analysis

A descriptive analysis was conducted on the patients included in the study, with continuous variables presented as the mean and standard deviation. Categorical variables are expressed as numbers and percentages. Demographic differences among all patients were examined. Statistical analysis for continuous data employed either Student’s t-test or the Mann‒Whitney U-test, while Pearson’s χ2 test was utilized for categorical data. A significance level of P < 0.05 was considered indicative of a statistically significant difference. The prognostic performance of the seven scoring systems in predicting postoperative complications, morbidity, and mortality was assessed using the area under the ROC curve (AUC). The Hosmer‒Lemeshow test was employed to evaluate the agreement between predicted mortality according to the scoring systems and the actual mortality observed in patients. P ≥ 0.05 was considered an indication of good predictive calibration for surgical scores. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 25.0.

Results

Clinicopathological characteristics of the patients

A total of 349 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC) were enrolled in this study. The group that experienced postoperative complications exhibited several distinguishing characteristics, including older age, lower hemoglobin count, higher bleeding volume, longer operative time, higher performance status index, and higher ASA class (Table 2). Specifically, the complication group demonstrated the highest proportion of grade 1 performance status index (5.2%) and ASA grade 3 (7.7%). Conversely, the non-complication group had the highest proportions of grade 0 (54.1%) and grade 2 (58.5%) performance status indexes. Out of the total, 42 patients (12%) experienced postoperative complications, with lung infections occurring in 10 patients (2.9%) (Table 3). Additionally, four patients (1.1%) succumbed to postoperative mortality, which comprised one case of pulmonary embolism, two cases of intra-abdominal hemorrhage, and one case of infectious shock resulting from intra-abdominal infection.

Table 2 Clinicopathological characteristics of the patients
Full size table
Table 3 Distribution of postoperative complications
Full size table

Predictive efficacy of seven surgical scores for postoperative complications, morbidity, and mortality

In this study, the discriminatory performance of seven scoring systems was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The mE-PASS scoring system demonstrated the highest AUC (0.846; 95% CI, 0.797–0.896; P < 0.001) and exhibited superior sensitivity and specificity (81% and 79%, respectively) in predicting postoperative complication morbidity (Fig. 1). Surprisingly, the POSSUM scoring system had the lowest AUC value of 0.648 (95% CI, 0.562–0.734; P = 0.002), indicating lower effectiveness in predicting complications. For postoperative mortality, the highest AUC of 0.978 (95% CI, 0.940–1.000; P = 0.001) was observed with the E-PASS score. The mE-PASS score also showed excellent discrimination with an AUC of 0.972 (95% CI, 0.924–1.000; P = 0.001), accompanied by the highest sensitivity (76%) and specificity (90%). Other scoring systems showed moderate discriminatory ability (Fig. 2). The Hosmer‒Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test indicated good agreement between the predicted and actual values for each scoring system. Detailed results of all postoperative scoring systems for predicting morbidity and mortality are shown in Tables 4 and 5. Among them, the P-POSSUM, O-POSSUM, E-PASS, mE-PASS, SRS, and SORT scoring systems were considered useful tools for predicting postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. Notably, the mE-PASS scoring system showed the highest predictive power, while the POSSUM scoring system was only applicable for mortality prediction.

Fig. 1
figure 1

ROC curves of seven scores predicting early complication incidence

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

ROC curves of seven scores predicting early postoperative mortality

Full size image
Table 4 Efficacy of each scoring system in predicting early complications after laparoscopic radical gastrectomy
Full size table
Table 5 Efficacy of each scoring system in predicting early mortality after laparoscopic radical gastrectomy
Full size table

Discussion

The minimally invasive approach of laparoscopic gastrectomy offers advantages over open gastrectomy in terms of postoperative complications. Studies have shown that laparoscopic gastrectomy is associated with a lower incidence of complications [18,19,20]. The scoring systems involved in this study had been used to accurately predict postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing open surgery. Luna et al. [21] found that POSSUM and O-POSSUM overestimated postoperative mortality in open surgery, while P-POSSUM underestimated postoperative mortality. In our study, the P-POSSUM and O-POSSUM scores performed moderately for the prediction of postoperative complication morbidity in laparoscopic surgery, while the POSSUM score performed poorly. The POSSUM scoring system was initially developed and validated using data from open surgery, which may restrict its application in laparoscopic surgery due to technical and empirical factors. Additionally, there are potential variations in physiological responses and stress levels between patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy and open gastrectomy. Laparoscopic surgery involves the use of pneumoperitoneum to enhance visualization, which may influence the patient’s physiological state. Our results suggest that POSSUM is not suitable for predicting postoperative complications after laparoscopic surgery. Furthermore, the predictive performance of all three scores was moderate in terms of postoperative mortality prediction, indicating their potential for evaluating the mortality rate in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. It is worth noting that the radical resections for gastric cancer in this study were conducted on an elective basis, ensuring optimal preoperative preparation and examination and allowing for the improvement of electrolyte imbalance or hypoalbuminemia in surgical patients. The similar AUC values among the scores can be attributed to these factors.

Kondo et al. [22] studied the predictive value of the E-PASS for surgical risk in very elderly patients with colorectal cancer and believed that the E-PASS was a reliable predictive score for postoperative complications. Similarly, there are few studies on the applicability of the E-PASS and mE-PASS in laparoscopic gastrectomy. In this study, E-PASS and mE-PASS showed excellent predictive effects in predicting complication incidence and mortality. Both of them could be used to evaluate the mortality and complication incidence of laparoscopic GC surgery. The results were consistent with previous reports. Different from POSSUM and its modified score, the physiological part of E-PASS and mE-PASS did not include any imaging and laboratory tests but paid more attention to the cardiopulmonary function and physical reserve of patients before surgery, which may be more suitable for features of laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. The POSSUM, SRS, and SORT scoring systems were initially developed by British scholars, whereas the E-PASS score was developed by Japanese researchers. In this study, the participants comprised a group of Chinese individuals, suggesting that the E-PASS scores, specifically designed for Asians, may be more suitable for this population. This finding provides an explanation for the superior performance of the E-PASS and mE-PASS scores, especially the mE-PASS score, which simplified the surgical variables while still showing good discriminative ability. However, it is crucial to acknowledge the influence of racial differences. Therefore, future research endeavors should encompass diverse populations to comprehensively evaluate the applicability of these scoring systems to a broader range of ethnicities.

In a prospective observational cohort study involving 202 patients undergoing various major general surgical procedures, the POSSUM, P-POSSUM, and Surgical Risk Scale (SRS) scores demonstrated comparable performance in assessing postoperative mortality and complication incidence [23]. Additionally, a retrospective study encompassing general surgery and urology revealed that the SRS, POSSUM, and P-POSSUM scores were equally effective in predicting surgical patient mortality [24]. However, there is a paucity of reports on the utilization of SRS specifically in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy; thus, the predictive capabilities of SRS in this context remain uncertain. Our study demonstrated that the SRS score displayed moderate efficacy in predicting postoperative complication incidence and mortality following laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. While SRS has the advantage of utilizing variables that can be collected preoperatively, it did not perform as prominently as the E-PASS and mE-PASS scores in predicting complication morbidity and mortality. This suggests that the variables encompassed by the SRS may be more suitable for comparative analysis across different surgical procedures, rather than for assessing patients undergoing laparoscopic radical gastrectomy.

The SORT score possesses the advantage of utilizing exclusively preoperative variables, enabling the prediction of mortality prior to surgery. The SORT score has been externally validated in patient populations undergoing liver resection and colorectal cancer surgery, establishing its credibility [25, 26]. While the Prediction of Surgical Morbidity Score (POSSUM) was superior in terms of discrimination and calibration in predicting postoperative complications, our study found that SORT exhibited moderate discrimination in predicting postoperative mortality and outperformed POSSUM in estimating postoperative complication morbidity. The SORT score incorporates three additional variables in comparison to the Surgical Risk Scale (SRS), namely, age, benign and malignant status, and surgical specialty, and its performance in this study surpasses that of the latter.

In the study, there are several limitations that should be acknowledged. Firstly, it is important to note that this study was a single-center retrospective study. Secondly, considering the potential impact of racial differences on the findings, it is crucial to exercise caution in generalizing the results. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that the number of deaths in the study was limited to only four cases. To assess the extent to which the surgical system scores described earlier can be applied to a broader population, future studies should aim to include a larger and more diverse study population.

Conclusion

The P-POSSUM, O-POSSUM, E-PASS, mE-PASS, SRS, and SORT scoring systems are available tools for predicting postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. The mE-PASS scoring system showed the best predictive power and could be a powerful predictive tool for predicting postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. However, the POSSUM scoring system could only be applicable to the prediction of postoperative mortality.

Availability of data and materials

All data, materials, and operation videos used during the study are available from the corresponding author by request.

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CACancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bobo Z, Xin W, Jiang L, Quan W, Liang B, Xiangbing D, et al. Robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of prospective observational studies. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(4):1033–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M. POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg. 1991;78(3):355–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gough MH, Kettlewell MG, Marks CG, Holmes SJ, Holderness J. Audit: an annual assessment of the work and performance of a surgical firm in a regional teaching hospital. BMJ. 1980;281(6245):913–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Whiteley MS, Prytherch DR, Higgins B, Weaver PC, Prout WG. An evaluation of the POSSUM surgical scoring system. Br J Surg. 1996;83(6):812–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Tekkis PP, McCulloch P, Poloniecki JD, Prytherch DR, Kessaris N, Steger AC. Risk-adjusted prediction of operative mortality in oesophagogastric surgery with O-POSSUM. Br J Surg. 2004;91(3):288–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Haga Y, Ikei S, Ogawa M. Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress (E-PASS) as a new prediction scoring system for postoperative morbidity and mortality following elective gastrointestinal surgery. Surg Today. 1999;29(3):219–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Haga Y, Ikejiri K, Wada Y, Takahashi T, Ikenaga M, Akiyama N, et al. A multicenter prospective study of surgical audit systems. Ann Surg. 2011;253(1):194–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sutton R, Bann S, Brooks M, Sarin S. The Surgical Risk Scale as an improved tool for risk-adjusted analysis in comparative surgical audit. Br J Surg. 2002;89(6):763–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Protopapa KL, Simpson JC, Smith NC, Moonesinghe SR. Development and validation of the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT). Br J Surg. 2014;101(13):1774–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kitano Y, Iwatsuki M, Kurashige J, Kuroda D, Kosumi K, Baba Y, et al. Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress (E-PASS) versus modified E-PASS for prediction of postoperative complications in elderly patients who undergo gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2017;22(1):80–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yao Z, Yang H, Cui M, Xing J, Zhang C, Zhang N, et al. Evaluation of POSSUM scoring system in radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2015;18(8):791–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nakanishi K, Kanda M, Ito S, Mochizuki Y, Teramoto H, Ishigure K, et al. E-PASS scoring system serves as a predictor of short- and long-term outcomes in gastric cancer surgery. Surg Today. 2022;52(6):914–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tu RH, Lin JX, Li P, Xie JW, Wang JB, Lu J, et al. The prognostic value of a Surgical Outcome Risk Tool in patients after radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer and its guiding significance for postoperative chemotherapy. Surg Oncol. 2019;28:128–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. H F. Criteria for the direct effect of chemotherapy against solid cancer by Japanese Society for Cancer Therapy (in Japanese). Nippon Gann Tiryou Gakkai Zasshi (J Jpn Soc Cancer Ther). 1986;21:931–42.

  17. Cain D, Ackland G. Knowing the risk? NCEPOD 2011: a wake-up call for perioperative practice. Bri J Hosp Med (London, England : 2005). 2012;73(5):262–4.

  18. Lou S, Yin X, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Xue Y. Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg (London, England). 2022;102: 106678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Beyer K, Baukloh AK, Kamphues C, Seeliger H, Heidecke CD, Kreis ME, et al. Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. World J Surg Oncol. 2019;17(1):68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Otsuka R, Hayashi H, Uesato M, Hayano K, Murakami K, Kano M, et al. Comparison of estimated treatment effects between randomized controlled trials, case-matched, and cohort studies on laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2022;407(4):1381–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Luna A, Rebasa P, Navarro S, Montmany S, Coroleu D, Cabrol J, et al. An evaluation of morbidity and mortality in oncologic gastric surgery with the application of POSSUM, P-POSSUM, and O-POSSUM. World J Surg. 2009;33(9):1889–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kondo H, Hirano Y, Ishii T, Hara K, Obara N, Wang L, et al. E-PASS scoring system may be useful for prediction of postoperative complications in super elderly colorectal cancer surgery patients. J Anus Rectum Colon. 2020;4(3):137–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Ngulube A, Muguti GI, Muguti EG. Validation of POSSUM, P-POSSUM and the surgical risk scale in major general surgical operations in Harare: a prospective observational study. Ann Med Surg. 2012;2019(41):33–9.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Brooks MJ, Sutton R, Sarin S. Comparison of surgical risk score, POSSUM and p-POSSUM in higher-risk surgical patients. Br J Surg. 2005;92(10):1288–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Magouliotis DE, Walker D, Baloyiannis I, Fergadi MP, Mamaloudis I, Chasiotis G, et al. Validation of the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) for predicting postoperative mortality in colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgery and subgroup analysis. World J Surg. 2021;45(6):1940–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wong GTC, Ang WC, Wong TCL, Choi SW. Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) validation in hepatectomy. Anaesthesia. 2017;72(10):1287–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin Key Medical Discipline (Specialty) Construction Project and Health Science and Technology Project of Tianjin Health Commission, and Tianjin Medical University for support.

Presentation

None

Provenance and peer review

Not commissioned, externally peer reviewed.

Funding

This study was funded by Tianjin Key Medical Discipline (Specialty) Construction Project (TJYXZDXK-005A), Health Science and Technology Project of Tianjin Health Commission (ZC20190), and Tianjin Medical University Clinical Research Fund.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Haoyu He, Yubiao Liu and Xin Liu contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, 154 Anshan Road, Tianjin, 300052, People’s Republic of China

    Haoyu He, Yubiao Liu, Xin Liu, Zhaoxiong Zhang, Daohan Wang & Weihua Fu

  2. Department of Anorectal Surgery, Liaocheng People’s Hospital, Liaocheng, Shandong, China

    Yubiao Liu

Authors
  1. Haoyu He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yubiao Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xin Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhaoxiong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daohan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Weihua Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

H H and W F contributed to the conception and design of the study. Y L, Z Z, and D W organized the database. H H and Y L performed the statistical analysis. H H wrote the first draft of the manuscript. X L and W F wrote sections of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision and read and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Weihua Fu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Tianjin Medical University General Hospital (ethical no. IRB2022-WZ-207). All procedures performed in the study were by the ethical standards of the Institutional and National Research Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

He, H., Liu, Y., Liu, X. et al. Evaluation of different scoring systems in the prediction of complications, morbidity, and mortality after laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. World J Surg Onc 21, 388 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-023-03282-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-023-03282-5

Keywords

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

ISSN: 1477-7819

Contact us