Skip to main content

Table 3 Early surgical outcomes and pathologic data of the two groups after matching

From: Safety evaluation of curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients who underwent liver transplantation: a comparative study with conventional gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients

Variable

Matching set (1:4) (n = 159)

P value

Curative gastrectomy after LT (n = 32)

Conventional gastrectomy (n = 127)

Operative timea

5.27 ± 0.32

4.89 ± 0.25

 < 0.0001

Time to first flatus (days)

3.94 ± 1.13

3.86 ± 0.96

0.738

Time to soft dieta

1.70 ± 0.37

1.58 ± 0.31

0.070

Intraoperative transfusion (n)

3 (9.38)

0 (0.00)

NA

Postoperative transfusion (n)

8 (25.00)

10 (7.87)

0.015

Hospital daya

2.34 ± 0.39

2.18 ± 0.31

0.019

Readmission (n)

1 (3.13)

3 (2.36)

0.790

Tumor size (cm)

3.71 ± 2.30

4.16 ± 2.47

0.310

T stage

0.144

 1

17 (53.13)

77 (60.63)

 2

7 (21.88)

26 (20.47)

 3

4 (12.50)

15 (11.81)

 4

4 (12.50)

9 (7.09)

N stage

0.210

 0

26 (81.25)

93 (73.23)

 1

3 (9.38)

12 (9.45)

 2

2 (6.25)

12 (9.45)

 3

1 (3.13)

10 (7.87)

Metastatic LN (n)

1.87 ± 5.30

0.91 ± 3.13

NA

Harvested LN (n)

18.91 ± 11.89

32.49 ± 14.81

 < 0.0001

PRM (cm)

4.48 ± 2.96

5.01 ± 2.87

0.396

DRMa

1.45 ± 0.91

1.44 ± 0.94

0.916

  1. Values are expressed as the mean ± SD or number (%)
  2. LT liver transplant, LN lymph node, PRM proximal resection margin, DRM distal resection margin, SD standard deviation
  3. aanalysis after log-transformation