Incidence, Causes and Risk Factors for 30-Day Unplanned Reoperation After Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Experience of a High-Volume Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate the incidence, causes and risk factors for unplanned reoperation because of early complications within 30 days of radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. METHODS: The study cohort comprised 1,948 patients who underwent radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer between November 2010 and April 2017. The incidence, causes and outcomes of unplanned reoperation were examined and the risk factors were identified using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: In total, 24 patients (1.2%) underwent unplanned reoperations because of early complications after radical gastrectomy. The main causes more frequently requiring reoperation were adhesive intestinal obstruction (eight cases, 33.3%), intra-abdominal bleeding (five cases, 20.8%), wound dehiscence (five cases, 20.8%), anastomotic leakage and intra-abdominal infection (five cases, 20.8%), and iatrogenic common bile duct injury (one case). Multivariate analysis identified that only combined multi-organ resection (odds ratio (OR) = 4.060, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.645 - 10.023, P = 0.002) was an independent risk factor. Two patients (8.3%) who underwent reoperation died from disseminated intravascular coagulation or sepsis, respectively, which was significantly higher than the remaining 1,924 patients who did not require reoperation (six cases, 0.3%, P < 0.001). Moreover, patients who underwent reoperation experienced higher morbidity rates (37.5% vs. 6.8%, P < 0.001), requiring intensive care (20.8% vs. 2.4%, P < 0.001) and longer postoperative hospital stays (33.6 days vs. 11.0 days, P < 0.001) compared with patients required no reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Combined multi-organ resection was an independent risk factor for unplanned reoperation following radical gastrectomy. Avoiding multi-organ resection as possible will decrease the likelihood of patients requiring reoperation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".