Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress Scoring System Appraises Laparoscopy-Assisted and Open Distal Gastrectomy in Treatment of Early Gastric Cancer

doi:10.4236/jct.2013.49A1001

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Journal of Cancer Therapy, 2013, 4, 1-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jct.2013.49A1001 Published Online October 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/jct)

Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress

Scoring System Appraises Laparoscopy-Assisted and Open

Distal Gastrectomy in Treatment of Early Gastric Cancer*

Hideki Bou1#, Hideyuki Suzuki1, Kentaro Maejima1, Hidetsugu Hanawa1, Masanori Watanabe1,

Eiji Uchida2

1Institute of Gastroenterology, Nippon Medical School Musashi-kosugi Hospital, Kawasaki, Japan; 2Department of Surgery, Nippon

Medical School, Tokyo, Japan.

Email: #[email protected]

Received July 24th, 2013; revised August 23rd, 2013; accepted August 30th, 2013

which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

ABSTRACT

Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) has been widely used to treat early gastric cancer (EGC). The Esti-

mation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress (E-PASS) scoring system predicts the risk of fatal postoperative com-

plications by quantifying the patient’s reserve and degree of surgical stress, but there have been a few reports of use of

the E-PASS scoring system to assess the risk of mortality following special types of surgical procedures such as LADG.

In this study we assessed the feasibility of LADG versus open distal gastrectomy (ODG) by the E-PASS scoring system.

The subjects of this study consisted of 69 stage IA gastric cancer patients who underwent LADG (LADG group) and 69

stage IA gastric cancer patients who underwent ODG (ODG group). The mean age of the patients in the LADG group

was 68.6 years, which was significantly higher than the mean age of 63.4 years in the ODG group. There were no statis-

tically significant differences between the groups in operation time or preoperative risk score, but there were statisti-

cally significant differences in blood loss, surgical stress score, comprehensive risk score, and duration of postoperative

hospital stay. We conclude that using the E-PASS scoring system, LADG appreciates a more beneficial procedure for

the treatment of EGC than ODG.

Keywords: E-PASS; LADG; ODG

1. Introduction

In recent years laparoscopic surgery has become the

main surgical treatment for early gastric cancer (EGC)

[1-5], and the reasons have been standardization of the

procedure, including lymph node dissection [6-8], re-

duced blood loss, and the rapid postoperative recovery

associated with the reduction in size of the wound [5-7,

9]. Surgical stress greatly exceeding a patient’s reserve

capacity often disrupts the homeostasis of the respiratory,

circulatory, metabolic, or immune systems, causing nu-

merous postoperative complications. These postoperative

complications may result from three major factors, name-

ly, the quality of surgical performance, the patient’s phy-

siological status, and the degree of surgical stress applied.

Where the quality of a surgical team has remained stable

for a certain period, the morbidity and mortality rates

after an operation could be estimated by quantification of

the patient`s physiological status and the surgical stress.

The Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress

(E-PASS) was reported by Haga et al. [10]. This system

comprises a preoperative risk score (PRS), a surgical

stress score (SSS), and a comprehensive risk score (CRS)

that is calculated from both the PRS and SSS. The Esti-

mation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress (E-

PASS) scoring system is used to evaluate surgical risk

after elective digestive system surgery [10], and it pre-

dicts postoperative fatal complications [11-14]. More-

over, the E-PASS scoring system is useful for predicting

and recognizing the risk of postoperative complications

and for obtaining a better therapeutic outcome [15]. There

are many reports about the value of general surgical risk

in various surgical operations, but there were few re-

ports concerning the comparison of LADG and ODG

using E-PASS. We wanted to evaluate the feasibility of

*Statement: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

#Corresponding author.

Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress Scoring System Appraises Laparoscopy-Assisted and Open

Distal Gastrectomy in Treatment of Early Gastric Cancer

LADG for EGC by applying this system. We introduced

laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of EGC in 2005.

We therefore used the E-PASS scoring system to conduct

a comparative study of the cases in which EGC treatment

(open distal gastrectomy) was performed to treat stage IA

gastric cancer during the 6-year period from 1999 to

2004 and the cases in which laparoscopy-assisted distal

gastrectomy (LADG) was performed to treat stage IA

gastric cancer cases during the period from 2005, when

we introduced laparoscopic surgery, to 2010.

2. Patients and Methods

2.1. Patients

The subjects of this study were the patients who under-

went surgical treatment for stage IA EGC at the Gastro-

intestinal Disease Center of Nippon Medical School

Musasi Kosugi Hospital during the 12-year period from

1999 to 2010. Laparoscopic surgery was introduced in

January 2005 and became the surgical treatment of first

choice. The preoperative evaluations of depth of invasion

and for the presence of lymph node metastasis were bas-

ed on gastroscopy with gastric endoscopic ultrasonogra-

phy, an upper gastrointestinal series, and an abdominal

enhanced CT examination. All of the tumors were ade-

nocarcinomas that had invaded either the mucosa or

submucosa. Ultimately, 138 patients with stage IA gas-

tric cancer were enrolled. Patients who had mucosal le-

sions that were suitable for endoscopic mucosal resection

(lesion size < 20 mm when the elevated type and <10

mm when the depressed type) and patients who required

combined surgery to treat another disease were excluded

from the study. Patients who underwent ODG for stage

IA EGC between 1999 and the end of 2004 were re-

cruited as a control group. ODG was performed by the

traditional procedure. A total of 69 patients were enrolled

in the ODG group.

2.2. Surgical Procedures

LADG was performed by a 5-port technique with the

patient under general anesthesia and in the supine posi-

tion. A carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum was created,

and the camera was inserted through a 12-mm subum-

bilical port. After the laparoscopic procedure, we made a

single 5-cm incision in the upper epigastric area, and the

stomach, including the omentum and lymph nodes, was

removed through the incision. Anastomosis was per-

formed by a circular stapling technique, reconstructed by

the Billroth-I, and a standard distal gastrectomy with a

D1 + lymph node dissection was performed. Finally, the

abdomen was closed in layers.

ODG plus D1 + lymph node dissection was performed

through an upper midline incision and followed by Bil-

lroth-I reconstruction.

2.3. Methods

All clinical findings were collected retrospectively and

were investigated. Nine factors determined the E-PASS

scores, namely age, severity of heart disease, severity of

pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, PS, American

Society of Anesthesiologists physiological status classifi-

cation, blood loss/body weight (g/kg), operation time

(min), and extent of the skin incision. The equation of the

E-PASS scoring system are shown in Table 1. The

preoperative risk score (PRS) is used to evaluate pre-

operative risk, and it is calculated on the basis of age,

whether severe heart disease is present, whether severe

lung disease is present, diabetes, the American Society of

Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, and performance

status index defined by the Japanese Society for Cancer

Therapy (see Table 1 for the actual calculation method).

The surgical stress score (SSS) is used to evaluate sur-

gical risk, and it is calculated on the basis of the BMI,

operation time, and blood loss (Table 1). The evaluation

is not made based on these individual scores alone, but

by an overall evaluation of the risk of surgery itself per-

Table 1. Statistical analysis of preoperative and surgical va-

riables.

Factors LADG group ODG groupp

No. of subjects 69 69

Sex M:F 48:21 45:24 0.585

Age (yr) 68.6 ± 9.9 63.4 ± 13.7 0.040

Operation time (min)237.5 ± 68.0 228.8 ± 62.4 0.594

Blood loss (ml) 162.1 ± 369.9 476.6 ± 279.0 <0.0001

Hospital stay (days) 14.9 ± 8.8 23.6 ± 6.7 <0.0001

PRS 0.359 ± 0.189 0.327 ± 0.212 0.037

SSS −0.143 ± 0.155 0.275 ± 0.093 <0.0001

CRS −0.127 ± 0.238 0.247 ± 0.208 <0.0001

*Formulas for calculating the Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical

Stress (E-PASS) scores: preoperative risk score (PRS), surgical stress score

(SSS), and comprehensive risk score (CRS): 1) PRS = −0.0686 + 0.00345X1

+ 0.323X2 + 0.205X3 + 0.153X4 + 0.148X5 + 0.0666X6. X1, age (yr); X2,

presence (1) or absence (0) of severe heart disease; X3, presence (1) or ab-

sence (0) of severe pulmonary disease; X4, presence (1) or absence (0) of

diabetes mellitus; X5, performance status index (0 - 4); X6, American Soci-

ety of Anesthesiologists physiological status classification (1 - 5). Severe

heart disease was defined as heart failure that was New York Heart Associa-

tion Class III or IV, or severe arrhythmia requiring mechanical support.

Severe pulmonary disease was defined as any condition with a %VC below

60% and/or an FEV 1.0% below 50%. Performance status index was based

on the definition by the Japanese Society for Cancer Therapy. 2) SSS =

−0.342 + 0.0139X1 + 0.0392X2 + 0.352X3. X1, blood loss/body weight

(g/kg); X2, operation time (h); X3, extent of skin incision (0: minor inci-

sions for laparoscopic or thoracoscopic surgery (including scope-assisted

surgery); a) laparotomy or thoracotomy alone; b) both laparotomy and tho-

racotomy). 3) CRS = −0.328 + 0.936 (PRS) + 0.976 (SSS). VC, vital capac-

ity; FEV, forced expiratory volume.

Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress Scoring System Appraises Laparoscopy-Assisted and Open

Distal Gastrectomy in Treatment of Early Gastric Cancer

formed on the basis of the PRS, the SSS, and the com-

prehensive risk score (CRS), which is calculated by add-

ing the PRS and SSS together (Table 1). Postoperative

complications were included only when medical or inter-

ventional treatment had been carried out. Complications

included wound infection, anastomotic leakage, intraab-

dominal abscess, ileus, intra-abdominal bleeding, pneu-

monia, cardiac ischemic change, and organ dysfunction.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using the JMP 9.0

statistical software program (SAS, Cary, NC, USA). P

values less than 0.05 were considered statistically signi-

ficant.

3. Results

Stage IA EGC was treated by LADG in 72 patients in our

series, and by ODG in 69 patients. Three cases in the

LADG group were excluded as mentioned below. Two of

the three cases in the LADG group were excluded be-

cause they were ultimately diagnosed as stage IB, and the

third case was excluded because it was ultimately diag-

nosed as stage II. The procedure in 4 other cases in the

LADG group was converted to open laparotomy, because

of severe adhesions in three cases and because of bleed-

ing due to left liver lobe damage in the other case. Ulti-

mately, 69 cases were enrolled in the LADG group.

There were no complications in the LADG group. Mean

age was 68.6 years in the LADG group and 63.4 years in

the ODG group. The results of the statistical analysis

showed no significant differences between the groups in

sex or operation time (Table 1), but there were signifi-

cant differences between them in age (Table 1), PRS

(Table 1 and Figure 1), blood loss (Table 1), SSS (Ta-

ble 1 and Figure 2), CRS (Table 1 and Figure 3), and

length of postoperative hospital stay (Table 1).

4. Discussion

The E-PASS has been proposed as a means of predicting

postoperative complications [10,14,15]. Recently, it is

said that the E-PASS scoring system is useful for assess-

ing the risk of surgical procedure and surgical decision

making [16-18]. Laparoscopic surgery has been widely

adopted to treat EGC in recent years [1,2], and its advan-

tages have been pointed out by many papers [3-5]. The

greatest benefit it has provided to patients is the speed of

postoperative recovery, the main reason being the small

size of the surgical wound. The advantages of laparo-

scopic surgery have certainly been said to lie in the small

size of the surgical wound and the small volume of blood

loss, and there was significantly less blood loss in the

LADG group according to the results of the present study

Figure 1. There was a si gnificant diffe rence in PRS betwee n

the ODG group and LADG group. The quantile box plot is

shown in the form of a red line. *p = 0.037.

Figure 2. There was a significant difference in SSS between

the ODG group and LADG group. **p < 0.0001.

Figure 3. There was a significant difference in CRS between

the ODG group and LADG group. ***p < 0.0001.

as well. However, the drawback of laparoscopic surgery

in the form of the long operation time has become a

problem. We thought that this problem could be over-

come by striving to standardize the surgical procedure,

establish a regular surgical team, and introduce appropri-

ate surgical instruments, and, actually, no significant

Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress Scoring System Appraises Laparoscopy-Assisted and Open

Distal Gastrectomy in Treatment of Early Gastric Cancer

difference in operation time was observed in this study,

and as a result the SSS was significantly lower in the

LADG group. On the other hand, surgical risk cannot be

concluded to be decreased just because the PRS is lower,

because in elderly patients and patients who have high-

risk complications the operation sometimes ends in pal-

liative surgery rather than seeking curative surgery [16-

18]. In our present study mean age was higher in the

LADG group, and the PRS was higher. This means that

the preoperative risk was higher in the LADG group, but

since the aforementioned SSS was lower, the overall

evaluation in the form of the CRS was significantly

lower in the LADG group. This also seems to suggest

that laparoscopic surgery is more beneficial as a treat-

ment for EGC, even if there is some risk. A CRS of 1.0 is

said to be the threshold score for postoperative fatal com-

plications increasing [10]. In the present study the CRS

was significantly lower in the LADG group, but neither

score exceeded the threshold. Moreover, the postopera-

tive hospital stay was also significantly shorter in the

LADG group. Laparoscopic surgery has been described

as more beneficial in many papers [1-4], but few of them

have reported a comparative study in which the E-PASS

was used. In the present study we used the E-PASS to

perform an overall evaluation of the surgical treatment

for EGC, and based on the results we concluded that sur-

gical treatment in the LADG group was more beneficial.

This corroborates what has been widely claimed, and it is

a result that it was obtained according to an overall eval-

uation of the patients’ risk and the risk of surgery itself, a

different viewpoint from the past. Based on the above,

the E-PASS scoring system is useful for assessing the

risks of the operation procedure of EGC. We appreciate

that LADG is more feasible than ODG as a surgical

treatment for EGC.

REFERENCES

[1] S. Kitano, N. Shiraishi, I. Uyama, K. Sugihara, N. Ta-

nigawa and Japanese Laparoscopic Surgery Study Group,

“A Multicenter Study on Oncologic Outcome of Laparo-

scopic Gastrectomy for Early Cancer in Japan,” Annals of

Surgery, Vol. 245, No. 1, 2007, pp. 68-72.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000225364.03133.f8

[2] H. Yano, et al., “The Usefulness of Laparoscopy-Assisted

Distal Gastrectomy in Comparison with That of Open

Distal Gastrectomy for Early Gastric Cancer,” Gastric

Cancer, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2001, pp. 93-97.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/PL00011730

[3] C. G. Huscher, et al., “Laparoscopic versus Open Subto-

tal Gastrectomy for Distal Gastric Cancer: Five-Year Re-

sults of a Randomized Prospective Trial,” Annals of Sur-

gery, Vol. 241, No. 2, 2001, pp. 232-237.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000151892.35922.f2

[4] S. Kitano, et al., “A Randomized Controlled Trial Com-

paring Open vs Laparoscopy-Assisted Distal Gastrectomy

for the Treatment of Early Gastric Cancer: An Interim

Report,” Surgery, Vol. 131, Supplement 1, 2002, pp. S306-

S311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/msy.2002.120115

[5] K. J. Weber, Reyes CD, Gagner M, Divino CM, “Com-

parison of Laparoscopic and Open Gastrectomy for Ma-

lignant Disease,” Surgical Endoscopy, Vol. 17, No. 6,

2003, pp. 968-971.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-8738-5

[6] K. Yasuda, et al., “Rate of Detection of Lymph Node

Metastasis Is Correlated with the Depth of Submucosal

Invasion in Early Stage Gastric Carcinoma,” Cancer, Vol.

85, No. 10, 1999, pp. 2119-2123.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990515)85:

10<2119::AID-CNCR4>3.0.CO;2-M

[7] S. Miura, et al., “Laparoscopy-Assisted Distal Gastrec-

tomy with Systemic Lymph Node Dissection: A Critical

Reappraisal from the Viewpoint of Lymph Node Re-

trieval,” Journal of the American College of Surgeons,

Vol. 198, No. 6, 2004, pp. 933-938.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2004.01.021

[8] M. Fujiwara, et al., “Laparoscopy-Assisted Distal Gas-

trectomy with Systemic Lymph Node Dissection for

Early Gastric Carcinoma: A Review of 43 Cases,” Jour-

nal of the American College of Surgeons Vol. 196, No. 1,

2003, pp. 75-81.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01539-9

[9] K. Fujii, et al., “T Lymphocyte Subsets and Th1/Th2 Bal-

ance after Laparoscopy-Assisted Distal Gastrectomy,”

Surg Endosc, Vol. 17, No. 9, 2003, pp. 1440-1444.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-9149-3

[10] Y. Haga, et al., “Estimation of Physiologic Ability and

Surgical Stress (E-PASS) for a Surgical Audit in Elective

Digestive Surgery,” Surgery, Vol. 135, No. 6, 2004, pp.

586-594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2003.11.012

[11] D. Hashimoto, et al., “Can the Physiologic Ability and

Surgical Stress (E-PASS) Scoring System Predict Opera-

tive Morbidity after Distal Pancreatectomy?” Surgery

Today, Vol. 40, No. 7, 2004, pp. 632-637.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00595-009-4112-8

[12] Y. Haga, K. Ikejiri, H. Takeuchi, M. Ikenaga and Y.

Wada, “Value of General Surgical Risk Models for Pre-

dicting Postoperative Liver Failure and Mortality Fol-

lowing Liver Surgery,” Journal of Surgical Oncology,

Vol. 106, No. 7, 2012, pp. 898-904.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jso.23160

[13] A. Kotera, Y. Haga, J. Kei, M. Okamoto and K. Seo,

“Evaluation of Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Sur-

gical Stress to Predict In-Hospital Mortality in Cardiac

Surgery,” Journal of Anesthesia, Vol. 25, No. 4, 2011, pp.

481-491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00540-011-1162-z

[14] V. M. Banz, P. Studer, D. Inderbitzin and D. Candinas,

“Validation of the Estimation of Physiologic Ability and

Surgical Stress (E-PASS) Score in Liver Surgery,” World

Journal of Surgery, Vol. 33, No. 6, 2009, pp. 1259-1265.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-9989-2

[15] Y. Oka, et al., “Usefulness of an Estimation of Physiol-

ogic Ability and Surgical Stress (E-PASS) Scoring Sys-

Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress Scoring System Appraises Laparoscopy-Assisted and Open

Distal Gastrectomy in Treatment of Early Gastric Cancer

tem to Predict the Incidence of Postoperative Complica-

tions in Gastrointestinal Surgery,” World Journal of Sur-

gery, Vol. 29, No. 8, 2005, pp. 1029-1033.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-7719-y

[16] T. Tang, et al., “Estimation of Physiologic Ability and

Surgical Stress (E-PASS) as a Predictor of Immediate

Outcome after Elective Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Sur-

gery,” The American Journal of Surgery, Vol. 194, No. 2,

2007, pp. 176-182.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.10.032

[17] J. Hirose, H. Mizuta, J. Ide and K. Nomura, “Evaluation

of Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress

(E-PASS) to Predict the Postoperative Risk for Hip Frac-

ture in Elder Patients,” Archives of Orthopaedic and

Trauma Surgery, Vol. 128, No. 12, 2008, pp. 1447-1452.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-007-0551-0

[18] K. Koushi, et al., “Using the E-PASS Scoring System to

Estimate the Risk of Emergency Abdominal Surgery in

Patients with Acute Gastrointestinal Disease,” Surg To-

day, Vol. 41, No. 11, 2011, pp. 1481-1485.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00595-010-4538-z