• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Postoperative mortality and morbidity after D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: A retrospective cohort study

    2022-02-18 08:20:20GiuseppeBrisindaMariaMichelaChiarelloAnnaCroccoNeillJamesAdamsPietroFransveaSerafinoVanella
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 2022年3期

    Giuseppe Brisinda, Maria Michela Chiarello, Anna Crocco, Neill James Adams, Pietro Fransvea, Serafino Vanella

    Abstract BACKGROUND Surgery for gastric cancer is a complex procedure and lymphadenectomy is often mandatory. Postoperative mortality and morbidity after curative gastric cancer surgery is not insignificant.AIM To evaluate the factors determining mortality and morbidity in a population of patients undergoing R0 resection and D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer.METHODS A retrospective analysis of clinical data and pathological characteristics (age, sex, primary site of the tumor, Lauren histotype, number of positive lymph nodes resected, number of negative lymph nodes resected, and depth of invasion as defined by the standard nomenclature) was conducted in patients with gastric cancer. For each patient we calculated the Kattan’s score. We arbitrarily divided the study population of patients into two groups based on the nomogram score (< 100 points or ≥ 100 points). Prespecified subgroups in these analyses were defined according to age (≤ 65 years or > 65 years), and number of lymph nodes retrieved (≤ 35 lymph nodes or > 35 lymph nodes). Uni- and multivariate analysis of clinical and pathological findings were performed to identify the factors affecting postoperative mortality and morbidity.RESULTS One-hundred and eighty-six patients underwent a curative R0 resection with D2 lymphadenectomy. Perioperative mortality rate was 3.8% (7 patients); a higher mortality rate was observed in patients aged > 65 years (P = 0.002) and in N+ patients (P = 0.04). Following univariate analysis, mortality was related to a Kattan’s score ≥ 100 points (P = 0.04) and the presence of advanced gastric cancer (P = 0.03). Morbidity rate was 21.0% (40 patients). Surgical complications were observed in 17 patients (9.1%). A higher incidence of morbidity was observed in patients where more than 35 lymph nodes were harvested (P = 0.0005).CONCLUSION Mortality and morbidity rate are higher in N+ and advanced gastric cancer patients. The removal of more than 35 lymph nodes does not lead to an increase in mortality.

    Key Words: Gastric cancer; Total gastrectomy; Subtotal gastrectomy; Lymphadenectomy; Kattan’s nomogram; Mortality; Postoperative complications; Postoperative pancreatic fistula; Hemoperitoneum; Anastomotic leakage

    INTRODUCTION

    Although the incidence of gastric cancer is steadily declining, the disease remains the second leading cause of cancer death[1,2]. Currently, surgery is the only potentially curative treatment for gastric cancer[3,4]. The depth of primary tumor invasion, lymph node involvement, and distant metastasis are the major predictors of prognosis for patients with gastric cancer[5].

    Node metastases occur during the early stages of the disease, and lymphadenectomy is recommended as the main intervention of a radical surgical treatment[4,6,7]. According to the TNM staging system proposed by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)[8], the N stage is classified into 5 Levels based on the number of metastatic lymph nodes. However, the extent of lymphadenectomy, which aims to achieve the highest optimal outcome, has been a controversial topic for a long time with no worldwide consensus as of yet[9]. A minimum of 16 lymph nodes has been recommended as an adequate number in radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer to ensure reliable N staging. Studies have shown that the number of dissected metastatic lymph nodes influences prognosis[10].

    Gastric cancer surgery is a complex procedure; in this context, lymphadenectomy is mandatory[11-14]. Mortality and morbidity after curative gastric cancer surgery are not negligible[15-17]. There are many clinical and pathological factors that induce an increase in mortality and morbidity[18]. The extent of the lymphadenectomy is one of these factors. The development of postoperative complications, and the associated mortality, is also influenced by the stage of the disease, the number of lymph node metastases, the removal of contiguous organs and the age of the patient.

    In this paper, we evaluated patients with histologically confirmed gastric adenocarcinoma, who underwent curative gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy according to the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (JGCA) guidelines[19,20]. The primary endpoint of the study is to evaluate the factors determining mortality and morbidity in a population of patients undergoing R0 resection and D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer. For each patient we calculated the Kattan’s score. In agreement with the original report by Kattanet al[21] the following prognostic variables were assembled for use in validating the nomogram: age, sex, primary site [distal one-third, middle one-third, proximal one-third, and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ)], Lauren histotype (diffuse, intestinal, mixed), number of positive lymph nodes resected, number of negative lymph nodes resected and depth of invasion as defined by the standard nomenclature. We arbitrarily divided the study population of patients into two groups based on the nomogram score (< 100 points or ≥ 100 points). Prespecified subgroups in these analyses were defined according to age (≤ 65 years or > 65 years) and number of lymph nodes retrieved (≤ 35 lymph nodes or > 35 lymph nodes). The cut off was used in this study since age > 65 years is considered a significant risk factor for postoperative complications in gastric surgery, and was also in accordance with a definition of age limits for elderly patients. Clinical factors and pathological findings were evaluated to identify the factors that induce increased postoperative mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing R0 surgery. Treatment factors were also analyzed for their impact on mortality and morbidity.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    This is a retrospective study. An analysis of clinical data and pathological characteristics was conducted on patients with gastric cancer observed and treated at the General Surgery Operative Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A Gemelli” IRCCS, from January 2010 to December 2015, and at the General Surgery Operative Unit, San Giovanni di Dio Hospital, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale Crotone, from January 2016 to June 2020.

    All patients provided written consent before the surgical procedures. Preliminary approval to use patient data was obtained from the Institutional Review Board. This study was conducted according to the STROBE guidelines[22].

    Inclusion criteria

    Patients with histologically documented gastric cancer were included in the study. All patients underwent a complete clinical evaluation, including laboratory tests, with complete blood cell count and serum chemistry. In all patients, a preoperative staging of the neoplasm was performed. This included upper digestive endoscopy with biopsy, chest X-ray, liver ultrasound and abdomino-pelvic CT-scan. Tumors were staged according to the latest version of the pathologic classification (pTNM) of the International UICC. The histological classification followed the Lauren criteria[23].

    Exclusion criteria

    Gastric stump and linitis plastica type tumors were excluded from the analysis. Patients with squamous cell cancer or stromal tumors and patients in preoperative neoadjuvant treatment protocols were also excluded from the analysis. Patients with positive surgical resection margins, patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis and/or patients with metastatic disease, and patients with > 1 missing data were not included in the study.

    Surgical rules

    Gastrectomy is defined by the removal of the greater and lesser omentum and perigastric lymph nodes (N1 level, station numbers 1-6). Lymphadenectomy is classified as D2 according to the guidelines of the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association[24]. D2 lymphadenectomy involves the en-bloc removal of lymph node stations 7, 8a and 8p, 9, and 11p and 11d. The left gastric artery was suture ligated at its origin. Lymphadenectomy of the splenic hilum (station 10) was always performed. Hepatoduodenal ligament nodes (station numbers 12a, 12b, 12p) were also dissected. Cholecystectomy was performed in all patients. The resection was extended to the distal esophagus when required by tumor spread and location, which was the case in nearly all of the tumors located at the GEJ. Each lymph node station was removed and classified either during the operation or from the surgical specimen; single lymph nodes were retrieved in the fresh specimen and then submitted to histopathological examination.

    For reconstruction, the Roux-en-Y technique was performed in all cases. After total gastrectomy, esophagojejunostomy, using an EEA stapler (diameter 25 mm) was used routinely. In case of a subtotal gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy was performed using an EEA stapler (diameter 25 mm) or a linear stapler (60 mm), at surgeon’s discretion. A trans-anastomotic tube was placed in all patients.

    Pathological data

    The surgical specimens and lymph nodes were assessed by pathologists and were classified according to the 8thEdition of the UICC/AJCC TNM staging system[8]. The T category was used to assess the depth of invasion. For nodal staging, involvement of lymph nodes was defined as follows: N0, no regional lymph nodes metastasis; N1, metastasis in 1 to 2 regional nodes; N2, metastasis in 3 to 6 regional lymph nodes; N3a, metastasis in 7 to 15 regional lymph nodes; N3b, metastasis in > 16 regional lymph nodes. Based on definitive pathological findings, the potentially curative procedures were classified as radical (R0 - microscopic tumor free) or as R1 (microscopic residual disease) according to the absence or presence of residual tumor. Palliative resection was classified based on R2 (macroscopic disease left behind)[24]. Frozen sections were not routinely used in the evaluation of margins, but only in the suspicion of a possible tumor infiltration.

    Postoperative course

    Antibiotic prophylaxis was used in all patients. Low molecular weight heparin treatment was used in all patients for 30 d. All patients were mobilized on the first postoperative day. The bladder catheter was removed on the first postoperative day except in clinical emergencies. The ERAS protocol was not used in any patient. The anastomosis was routinely checked prior to the patient resuming oral intake with a radiological examination using water-soluble contrast on postoperative day 4-7. The trans-anastomotic tube was removed after performing the radiological control if no sign of anastomotic leak was observed. The patients were monitored for 30 d postoperatively for complications and mortality. Complications were considered when occurring within 30 d from surgery, and with a Clavien-Dindo severity grade 2 or more[25]. Anastomotic leakage was defined as a full thickness gastrointestinal defect involving esophagus, anastomosis, staple line, gastric or jejunal stump irrespective of presentation or method of identification; an abscess close to the anastomoses is also considered as anastomotic leakage.

    The patients follow up was standardized as follows: clinical examination, full blood tests and dosage of tumor markers, chest X-ray and abdominal ultrasound every 3 mo for the first 2 years and every 6 mo for the following 3 years. Digestive endoscopy and total-body CT scan were performed annually, unless otherwise required. The evaluation of the nutritional status was managed by specialized nutritionists. No patients were lost to follow-up procedure. All patients with positive lymph nodes were treated with systemic adjuvant chemotherapy.

    Statistical analysis

    The clinicopathological characteristics included the patient age, sex, resection type, associated splenectomy, tumor site, histological type, T category, N stage, number of lymph nodes examined, number of metastatic lymph nodes, stage of disease, depth of the primitive tumor and Kattan score. Data are expressed as a mean ± SD. Data were analyzed with standard statistical methods using GraphPad Prism Software (GraphPad, CA, United States). Comparison of means ± SD was performed with the two tailedt-test. A univariate analysis with all the demographic data and pathologic factors using the Fisher’s exact test for categorical data and the ANOVA test for continuous data was performed. Subsequently, a multivariate logistic regression was performed. Regardless of the used test, aPvalue < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

    RESULTS

    During the study period, a total of 304 patients with gastric cancer were treated at the General Surgery Operative Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A Gemelli” IRCCS of Rome, and at the General Surgery Operative Unit, San Giovanni di Dio Hospital, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale of Crotone. Among them, 186 patients (61.2%) underwent a macroscopic potentially curative D2 lymphadenectomy (R0 resection) and were retrospectively analyzed for this observational study. The other 118 patients were excluded from the evaluation for the presence of distant metastases (50 cases, 16.4%), peritoneal carcinosis (44 cases, 14.4%) diagnosed preoperatively either by laparoscopy (31 cases) or by exploratory laparotomy, or due to R2 surgery (24 cases, 7.9%).

    Demographics and intraoperative data

    The main demographic data and clinical characteristics of all patients are reported in Table 1. One hundred and eight patients were male (58.1%) and 78 females (41.9%). The mean age was 64.9 ± 12.4 years (range: 24-90 years). One hundred and six patients were older than 65 years (57.0%) and 80 less than or equal to 65 years (43.0%). The mean tumor size was 4.4 ± 2.3 cm (range 0.5-14 cm). With regards to tumor localization a higher percentage of tumors were in the middle or lower third (31.2% and 43.5%, respectively) of the stomach. As far as UICC/AJCC stage groupings, 95 patients (51.0%) were in early stage of the disease (stage IA, IB, IIA) and 91 patients (49.0%) had advanced disease (stage IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IIIC). Only 40 patients (T1a 36 cases - 19.3%, T1b 4 cases - 2.1%) had early gastric cancer (Table 1). Kattan score was 117.8 ± 45.7 points (range 11-215).

    Total gastrectomy was performed in 88 patients (47.3%) and subtotal gastrectomy in 98 (52.7%). Mean age of patients undergoing total gastrectomy was 63 ± 12.1 years and 66.6 ± 12.5 years in those undergoing subtotal gastrectomy (P= 0.04). In the total gastrectomy patient’s subgroup, the mean Kattan score was 111.3 ± 44.1 points, statistically lower (P= 0.03) than that observed after subtotal gastrectomy (125.1 ± 46.7 points). The mean tumor size was 4.6 ± 2.6 cm (range 1-14) and 4.1 ± 2.0 cm (range 0.5-11) in patients undergoing total gastrectomy and subtotal gastrectomy, respectively (P= 0.1).

    To obtain an R0 resection, adjacent organs were removed in 5 patients (2.7%): in two cases an atypical liver resection was performed, and in 3 a transverse colon resection was performed. A mean number of 38.3 ± 10.9 lymph nodes (range 17-98) were dissected. The average number of positive lymph nodes was 4.2 ± 6.3 (range 0-39). 74 patients were N0. The mean number of lymph nodes removed was 40 ± 10.4 (range 25-93) and 36.7 ± 11.1 (range 17-98) in total gastrectomy and subtotal gastrectomy, respectively (P= 0.03). The number of positive lymph nodes was 4.9 ± 6.9 (range 0-39) in patients undergoing total gastrectomy and 3.5 ± 5.7 (range 0-31) in patients undergoing subtotal gastrectomy (P= 0.1). Lymphadenectomy of the splenic hilum involved splenectomy in 105 cases (56.4%) and was performed with the spleenpreserving technique in the remaining 81 cases (43.6%). 103 patients (55.3%) had > 35 lymph nodes retrieved. Mean duration of surgical procedures was 260 ± 76.1 minutes. Mean length of postoperative hospital stay was 12.7 ± 8.2 d.

    Mortality

    Perioperative mortality rate was 3.8% (7 patients). Causes of death were pancreatic fistula (2 cases), hemoperitoneum (2 cases, one of which was associated with a pancreatic fistula), dehiscence of the esophago-jejunal anastomosis (1 case), dehiscence of the duodenal stump (2 cases) and aspiration pneumonia resulting in ARDS (1 case). A higher mortality was observed in the group of patients aged > 65 years (7 cases out of 80, 8.7%) compared to those aged < 65 years (no cases in 106 patients,P= 0.002) and in N + patients (7 cases out of 112, 6.2%) compared to N- patients (no cases out of 74 patients,P= 0.04, Table 2).

    In the univariate analysis a significant mortality rate was observed in the group of patients aged > 65 years (P= 0.008), in patients with Kattan score ≥ 100 points (P= 0.04), and in patients with advanced gastric cancer (P= 0.03). Sex (P= 0.4), type of surgery performed (P= 0.8), primary tumor location (P= 0.8), tumor depth (P= 0.1), and Lauren histological type (P= 0.4) had no statistically significant influence onperioperative mortality (Table 3). In the multivariate analysis (Table 3) only age > 65 years had a statistically significant influence (T ratio 2.960,P= 0.004) on perioperative mortality.

    Table 1 Clinico-pathologic patient characteristics

    Values are mean ± SD. All the patients were included in all evaluations.

    Postoperative overall complications

    Postoperative complications were documented in 40 patients (21.5%). Table 4 Lists the type of complications and their frequency. As shown, pulmonary complications, urinary tract infections, pancreatic fistulas, anastomotic leaks and duodenal fistula were the most frequently observed complications.

    A higher incidence of complications was observed in patients undergoing subtotal gastrectomy (29 cases out of 98 patients, 29.5%) compared to those undergoing total gastrectomy (11 cases out of 88 patients, 12.5% -P= 0.006), in patients with Kattan score ≥ 100 points (32 cases out of 121 patients, 26.4%) compared to those with Kattan score < 100 points (8 out of 65 patients, 12.3% -P= 0.02) and in those N + (30 out of 112 patients, 26.7%) compared to those N- (10 of 74 patients, 13.5% -P= 0.04, Table 2).

    Univariate analysis (Table 5) confirmed that sex, age, number of lymph nodes harvested, primary tumor site and histological type are not related to morbidity. This is related to the type of surgery (P= 0.005), the Kattan score (P= 0.02), the tumor depth (P= 0.01), T stage (P= 0.006) and the stage of the disease (P= 0.01). In the multivariate analysis (Table 5) only the extent of surgery showed a statistically significant correlation (T ratio 2.526,P= 0.01).

    Postoperative surgical complications

    Surgical complications were observed in 17 patients (9.1%). Among these, the most frequent were duodenal fistula (5 cases), pancreatic fistula (4 cases, one of which associated with hemoperitoneum) and dehiscence of the esophago-jejunal anastomosis. Four patients (2 cases of hemoperitoneum, 2 cases of duodenal fistula) underwent further surgical treatment. The two patients with bowel obstruction underwent adhesion lysis surgery 2 mo and 6 mo after gastric surgery, respectively. All other patients with surgical complications were treated conservatively. A higher incidence of surgical complications was observed in the patient group with more than 35 lymph nodes harvested (16 cases out of 103 patients, 15.5%) compared to patients in which fewer lymph nodes were removed (1 case in 83 patients, 1.2% -P= 0.0005). Sex (P= 0.7), age > 65 years (P= 0.2), type of surgery performed (P= 0.6), Kattan score (P= 0.1), lymph node positivity (P= 0.1) and early stage of disease (P= 0.5) did not affect the rate of perioperative surgical complications (Table 2).

    This was confirmed by the univariate analysis, which documented that the removal of more than 35 lymph nodes (P= 0.002), the depth of the tumor (P= 0.04) and the stage of disease (P= 0.01) are statistically correlated with the development of surgical complications in the postoperative period (Table 6).

    On multivariate analysis (Table 6) only one lymphadenectomy with removal of more than 35 lymph nodes correlates significantly with the rate of surgical complications (T ratio 3.222,P= 0.001).

    Table 2 Mortality, overall morbidity and surgical morbidity in all patients

    Table 3 Univariate and multivariate analysis of variables associated with postoperative mortality

    Table 4 Major postoperative complications with a severity grade 2 or more according Clavien-Dindo classification

    Table 5 Clinicopathological factors associated with overall morbidity by univariate and multivariate analysis

    Table 6 Factors associated with surgical complications in univariate and multivariate analysis

    DISCUSSION

    Surgical treatment is still the mainstay of curative gastric cancer treatment[4,26-29]. For patients who undergo surgery, prognosis is determined by a series of factors, among which depth of invasion, nodal status, and metastasis are the most important. These factors are part of the UICC/AJCC stage formula, which is the most reliable prognostic system. In addition, certain multivariate analyses could identify extent of lymphadenectomy, lymph node ratio (ratio between positive and removed nodes), residual tumors, and grading, as independent prognostic factors. The expected prognosis has great impact on the kind of treatment a patient will receive. Thestandard for nodal staging of gastric cancer has international variation, and recently significant changes have been made to the AJCC/UICC staging system to simplify lymph node staging in the countries using TNM staging. In the most recent AJCC edition N1 represents 1-6 positive lymph nodes; N2 represents 7-15 positive lymphnodes; and N3 represents > 15 positive lymph nodes. The cut-off points were determined from retrospective databases[30] and in subsequent evaluations showed a superior predictive ability compared to other staging systems[31,32].

    The extent of lymphadenectomy is the only factor that can be influenced by the surgeon[33-38]. The total number of lymph nodes resected, or the total number of positive to negative ratio of lymph nodes have all been found to be predictors of survival in gastric cancer patients[37]. For potentially resectable gastric cancer, a linear trend toward superior survival was found for higher lymph node removal up to 35-40 lymph nodes, based on the analysis of the SEER database from 1973 to 1999[38]. Adjuvant therapy is used in advanced gastric cancer to improve the survival and may be useful in high-risk patients treated with limited lymph node dissection. Moreover, lymph node dissection remains crucial to make every effort to improve the prognosis in those patients unsuitable for any adjuvant treatment[39,40]. In a study Biffiet al[13] showed that extended lymph node resection offers survival benefit even in the subgroup of patients with early-stage disease. Evaluation of distant disease-free survival risk by number of harvested lymph nodes showed that the risk of recurrence is inversely proportional to the number of dissected lymph nodes. The results did not change when pT1 and pT2-3 cancers were analyzed separately, suggesting the need to remove at least 15 nodes even in patients with early-stage disease[13].

    The idea of an extended lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer was first advanced by Mikulicz in 1889, who stated that the distal pancreas should be removed if necessary[40-42]. Recent studies show that D2 lymphadenectomy improves the accuracy of locoregional staging and might reduce disease recurrence in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma[27]. Furthermore, when expert surgeons perform D2 lymphadenectomy and avoid routine distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy, perioperative morbidity and mortality can be kept to a minimum[43,44].

    Although neither the 5-year[28] nor 11-year results[40] of the Dutch trial showed a significant improvement in overall survival for patients randomized to D2 lymphadenectomy compared with D1, we believe that surgery remains the only nonstandardized therapy in the context of clinical trials and that D2 resection has clinical relevance in most treatment algorithms. Several surgeons agree that standardized D2 lymphadenectomy is an appropriate and potentially beneficial treatment approach[45,46]; like any therapy, surgery must be done safely and correctly by skilled clinicians and should be tailored to the patient and biology of the disease[4,47,48].

    Marubiniet al[10] examined 615 resections, and found no difference in mortality (1.8%) or complication rates (12.8%) with respect to the number of harvested nodes, but better overall survival when more lymph nodes were assessed. With more than 11 years of median follow-up, there was a trend for improved survival for patients with N2 disease who had received a D2 dissection[40]. Another analysis excluding patients with distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy found a survival benefit for the D2 resection patients[49]. Clinical series from Asia have found a low rate of nodal recurrences following aggressive lymph nodes dissection. Furthermore, Japanese investigators have recently completed trials of D2vsD2 plus para-aortic nodal dissection, showing better results in small cancer with negative nodes who underwent aggressive D2 dissection[4]. Moreover, if D2 lymphadenectomy was performed, it was likely to have a marked benefit compared to D1 dissection[14,50].

    Despite the therapeutic value of lymphadenectomy, mortality and complications are still high in gastric cancer surgery[16,51]. Several studies point out that stomach cancersurgery is a complex procedure that leads to a high risk of morbidity and mortality[15]. Liet al[52] observed 30 d and 90 d mortality of 2.0% and 3.4%, respectively, in patients undergoing total gastrectomy for cancer. These data are consistent with what

    is reported by other authors. Selbyet al[53] reported data of 2.5% and 2.9% at 30 d and 90 d, respectively, while Pacelliet al[54] reported a mortality of 3.5% in 312 patients undergoing potentially curative gastrectomy for cancer. We observed a perioperative mortality rate of 3.8%. A higher mortality was observed in the group of patients aged > 65 years (8.7%) and in N + patients (6.2%).

    The risk of postoperative complications is also high. Liet al[52] reports a complication rate of 43.9%, with a 14% incidence of severe (class III and class IV according to the Clavien-Dindo classification) complications. A severe complication after total gastrectomy is the anastomotic leak of the esophagojejunal anastomosis. In our experience, dehiscence occurred in 4 patients (2.1%), and was fatal in one case. Selbyet al[53] and Pacelliet al[54] report an incidence of anastomotic dehiscence of 14.7% and 8.6% respectively. In our experience, all anastomotic leakages were identified in the early postoperative period, from day 4 to day 7, by performing routine upper GI contrast studies. The anastomotic leak leads to an increase in the duration of hospitalization, with increases ranging from 13 to 48 d of hospitalization[55]. Another severe complication is duodenal stump dehiscence. This complication occurred in 5 of our patients (2.7%), representing the cause of death in two of them. This complication also increased mortality in the literature[56]. We observed 2 cases of hemoperitoneum (1.0%) and 4 cases of pancreatic fistula (2.1%). These complications were fatal in the two cases of hemoperitoneum and in two of the 4 cases of pancreatic fistula. They were only observed in the patient group where more than 35 lymph nodes had been removed. In our series, mortality occurred only in the group of patients with a higher Kattan score. It seems likely that advanced stage tumors may alter the responsiveness of the patient, increasing the incidence of complications and mortality.

    In our study, the overall incidence of surgery-related complications was 9.1%. As easy to predict, morbidity rate is higher in advanced tumors than in the earlier stage. The overall morbidity rate is higher in patients with Kattan score ≥ 100 (P= 0.02) and in N + patients (P= 0.04). Contrary to what has been observed in the literature, we documented a higher morbidity rate in patients undergoing subtotal gastrectomy (29 casesvs11 cases after total gastrectomy -P= 0.006). We believe that this is related to a higher mean age in patients who underwent subtotal gastrectomy (66.6 ± 12.5 years, range: 24-90) than in those who underwent total gastrectomy (63 ± 12.1 years, range: 30-84,P= 0.04), and a higher mean Kattan score (125.1 ± 46.7 points, range 11-206) than in patients who underwent total gastrectomy (111.3 ± 44.1, range 24-215,P= 0.03). We observed a higher prevalence, without statistical significance (P= 0.2), of patients with Kattan ≥ 100 points in the group undergoing subtotal gastrectomy (64 patients, 65.3%) compared to those undergoing total gastrectomy (49 cases, 55.6%). Regarding other parameters considered, such as the size of the tumor (4.1 ± 2.0 cm in subtotal gastrectomyvs4.6 ± 2.6 cm in total gastrectomy,P= 0.1), the average number of positive lymph nodes (3.5 ± 5.7 in subtotal gastrectomyvs4.6 ± 2.6 in total gastrectomy,P= 0.1) we did not find statistically significant differences. The number of lymph nodes removed was higher in patients undergoing total gastrectomy (40 ± 10.4) than in those undergoing subtotal (36.7 ± 11.1,P= 0.03).

    A higher incidence of surgical complications was observed in patients in whom more than 35 lymph nodes were removed. This data was confirmed in the univariate and multivariate analyses, where lymphadenectomy with the removal of more than 35 lymph nodes is the only factor that shows correlation with surgical complications. We have documented two cases of hemoperitoneum and 4 pancreatic fistulas, all in patients with spleen-preserving lymphadenectomy. Performing splenectomy for station 10 lymphadenectomy did not in our experience induce an increase in mortality and morbidity. These complications were found to be severe, as reported in the literature[26,57,58]. Many studies show that risk factors for the development of pancreatic fistula are the weight of the patient, the anatomy and texture of the pancreas, intraoperative trauma of the pancreas and the use of high-energy devices when performing lymphadenectomy[26,57].

    Although we are aware that the Kattan nomogram was created to evaluate the longterm prognosis and survival of patients with gastric cancer undergoing R0 resection, we observed that the Kattan score, at the cut-off value used, is useful as a prognostic index even in the early postoperative phase. In our experience only patients with Kattan score ≥ 100 points died; a good correlation was also documented as far as the complication rate. Since Kattan takes into account, in addition to age, many characteristics of the tumor and the lymph node status, we have documented, as reported in the literature, that the incidence of mortality and major complications are observed with greater frequency in elderly patients, with more advanced and N + stage cancers. An intrinsic difficulty in using the Kattan score is the fact that the score itself is based on a lot of histopathological information which are not always readily available.

    All our patients underwent cholecystectomy. The procedure did not cause biliary complications. This aspect is controversial in the literature. In patients with a radical resection, when a D2 lymphadenectomy is performed and the duodenum is excluded in the intestinal reconstruction, cholecystectomy, considered by some to be a nonessential measure, is necessary to avoid gallstone formation and its complications. In this setting, we believe that prophylactic cholecystectomy is necessary for patients with a good cancer prognosis, as suggested by Pitt and Nakeeb[59]. Studies on the subject conclude that prophylactic cholecystectomy does not have a significant impact on the natural course of the disease[60]. However, it leads to a reduction in the number of biliary complications (which may affect up to 15% of the operated patients) and does not induce an increase in mortality and morbidity rates. In one study, a mortality rate of 1.8% was reported in the case of cholecystectomy performed during an intervention after a gastrectomy. Prophylactic cholecystectomy seems to be unnecessary only in cases where the continuity of the digestive tract involves the use of the duodenum[61]. It was found that the method used to restore intestinal continuity, with preservation of the duodenal transit or excluding the duodenum, is an independent risk factor for both the development of cholelithiasis (P= 0.018) and cholecystitis and cholangitis (P= 0.006). It has also been confirmed that in patients who develop cholelithiasis, the incidence of cholecystitis and cholangitis is particularly high when the duodenal transit is excluded (31.3%) compared to those with maintained duodenal transit (7.4%).

    CONCLUSION

    It is fair to reiterate that gastric cancer surgery is a complex surgical procedure. Mortality and postoperative complications are linked both to the extent of gastric demolition and to lymphadenectomy. In our experience, the removal of more than 35 lymph nodes conditioned an increase in surgical complications, although it did not lead to an increase in mortality. Mortality was higher in elderly patients, N + patients and patients with advanced gastric cancer. These parameters (age, T status and N status) are included in the Kattan score, which can be useful, if the histopathological parameters can be obtained quickly, as a prognostic tool even in the early phase.

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    Research background

    Gastric cancer surgery is a complex procedure. Lymphadenectomy is essential for the surgical treatment of gastric cancer. Mortality and postoperative morbidity after gastric cancer surgery are not negligible.

    Research motivation

    We investigated in a population of 186 patients with stomach cancer undergoing surgery with D2 lymphadenectomy which factors were related to postoperative mortality and morbidity.

    Research objectives

    To evaluate the factors determining mortality and morbidity in a population of patients undergoing R0 resection and D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer.

    Research methods

    For each patient we calculated the Kattan’s score. The following prognostic variables were assembled for use in validating the nomogram: age, sex, primary site (distal onethird,middle one-third, proximal one-third, and gastroesophageal junction), Lauren histotype (diffuse, intestinal, mixed), number of positive lymph nodes resected,number of negative lymph nodes resected, and depth of invasion as defined by the standard nomenclature.

    Research results

    Perioperative mortality rate was 3.8% (7 patients); a higher mortality rate was observed in patients aged > 65 years (P = 0.002) and in N+ patients (P = 0.04).Following univariate analysis, mortality was related to a Kattan’s score ≥ 100 points (P= 0.04) and the presence of advanced gastric cancer (P= 0.03). Morbidity rate was 21.0% (40 patients). Surgical complications were observed in 17 patients (9.1%). A higher incidence of morbidity was observed in patients where more than 35 lymph nodes were harvested (P= 0.0005).

    Research conclusions

    Mortality and morbidity rate are higher in N+ and advanced gastric cancer patients. The removal of more than 35 lymph nodes does not lead to an increase in mortality.

    Research perspectives

    An extended lymph nodes dissection in patients undergoing surgical treatment for gastric cancer is a safe procedure.

    免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 亚洲内射少妇av| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 欧美另类一区| 午夜免费鲁丝| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| av黄色大香蕉| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 久久久精品94久久精品| 简卡轻食公司| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 人妻人人澡人人爽人人| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频| 亚洲无线观看免费| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 成人影院久久| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 两个人免费观看高清视频 | 亚洲综合色惰| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 国产黄片美女视频| 99热网站在线观看| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 久久久久久久国产电影| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频 | 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看 | 一级av片app| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 国产成人精品福利久久| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 九九在线视频观看精品| 黄色日韩在线| 熟女电影av网| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图 | 嫩草影院入口| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 久久久久久伊人网av| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图 | √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 亚洲精品一二三| 免费观看在线日韩| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 亚洲综合精品二区| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 老司机影院成人| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 国产精品无大码| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 欧美人与善性xxx| 嫩草影院入口| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 亚洲综合色惰| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 22中文网久久字幕| 久久国产精品大桥未久av | 国产永久视频网站| av有码第一页| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 高清av免费在线| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 欧美另类一区| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级 | 成人国产av品久久久| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 夜夜爽夜夜爽视频| 国产高清三级在线| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 久久狼人影院| 国产精品无大码| 久久99精品国语久久久| 久久免费观看电影| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| av专区在线播放| 国产成人一区二区在线| 国产成人一区二区在线| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 99热这里只有是精品50| 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 91精品国产九色| 99热全是精品| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 国产综合精华液| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 97在线视频观看| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 一区二区av电影网| 日本午夜av视频| 久久99蜜桃精品久久| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 男女边摸边吃奶| 日韩中字成人| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 夫妻午夜视频| 国产视频首页在线观看| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频 | 夫妻午夜视频| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看| 少妇丰满av| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看 | 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 午夜91福利影院| 免费看av在线观看网站| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 91精品国产九色| 大香蕉久久网| 亚州av有码| 99热全是精品| 国产在线视频一区二区| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 春色校园在线视频观看| h视频一区二区三区| 久久99精品国语久久久| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 久久99精品国语久久久| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 国产 一区精品| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站 | 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 日本91视频免费播放| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 搡老乐熟女国产| 欧美3d第一页| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 天堂8中文在线网| 能在线免费看毛片的网站| 高清欧美精品videossex| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| av黄色大香蕉| 伦精品一区二区三区| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 美女主播在线视频| 国产男女内射视频| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 国产精品无大码| 精品久久久久久久久av| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 秋霞伦理黄片| 18+在线观看网站| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 伊人亚洲综合成人网| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 成人二区视频| 久热这里只有精品99| 欧美区成人在线视频| 男人舔奶头视频| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 欧美日韩av久久| av在线老鸭窝| 久久国产精品大桥未久av | 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 七月丁香在线播放| 久久6这里有精品| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 日日啪夜夜撸| 26uuu在线亚洲综合色| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级 | a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 久久久久国产精品人妻一区二区| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| videossex国产| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频 | 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 三级国产精品片| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 国产av国产精品国产| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 一个人免费看片子| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 亚洲成人手机| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线 | 赤兔流量卡办理| 永久免费av网站大全| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 亚洲成人手机| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 国产成人精品婷婷| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 国产黄片美女视频| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 最黄视频免费看| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 三级经典国产精品| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 日本免费在线观看一区| 婷婷色综合www| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 成人国产av品久久久| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 精品一区在线观看国产| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| a级毛片在线看网站| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 日韩视频在线欧美| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 亚洲国产色片| 九九在线视频观看精品| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 亚洲国产精品999| 九色成人免费人妻av| 内地一区二区视频在线| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| .国产精品久久| 免费av中文字幕在线| 内地一区二区视频在线| 男人舔奶头视频| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 一级爰片在线观看| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区 | 日本黄色片子视频| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 97超碰精品成人国产| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 中文字幕久久专区| 少妇人妻 视频| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频 | 伊人久久国产一区二区| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 国产成人freesex在线| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 成人毛片60女人毛片免费| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 在线播放无遮挡| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 一区在线观看完整版| 曰老女人黄片| 插逼视频在线观看| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 一级爰片在线观看| 一级a做视频免费观看| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 欧美日韩在线观看h| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 插逼视频在线观看| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 国产淫语在线视频| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 国产一级毛片在线| 观看av在线不卡| 亚洲精品第二区| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 午夜久久久在线观看| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频 | 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 夜夜爽夜夜爽视频| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 免费观看无遮挡的男女| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 国产成人一区二区在线| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 一级毛片我不卡| 尾随美女入室| 一区二区av电影网| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 97超碰精品成人国产| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 久久久久国产精品人妻一区二区| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 久久热精品热| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 国产极品天堂在线| 精品国产国语对白av| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 日韩av免费高清视频| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 秋霞伦理黄片| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 免费av不卡在线播放| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 成年人免费黄色播放视频 | 在线观看三级黄色| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 亚洲不卡免费看| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 国产精品三级大全| 免费看av在线观看网站| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 观看美女的网站| 老女人水多毛片| 久久国产乱子免费精品| av天堂久久9| 自线自在国产av| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 另类精品久久| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 国产成人精品无人区| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 97在线人人人人妻| 制服丝袜香蕉在线| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 亚洲av综合色区一区| av.在线天堂| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 一级毛片我不卡| 亚洲无线观看免费| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 国内精品宾馆在线| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 少妇的逼好多水| 内地一区二区视频在线| 永久免费av网站大全| 一本久久精品| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 99热网站在线观看| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 欧美日韩av久久| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线 | 中文欧美无线码| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 少妇丰满av| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 九色成人免费人妻av| 久热这里只有精品99| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频 | 9色porny在线观看| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 在线播放无遮挡| 美女福利国产在线| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 99久久精品热视频| av专区在线播放| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 在线看a的网站| 日本黄色片子视频| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 亚洲国产精品999| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 久久免费观看电影| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 国产男女内射视频| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 亚洲天堂av无毛| tube8黄色片| 国产视频首页在线观看| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 国产 精品1| 少妇丰满av| 精品视频人人做人人爽| av在线播放精品| 国产成人精品福利久久| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 秋霞伦理黄片| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 亚洲无线观看免费| 春色校园在线视频观看| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 国产视频内射| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 日本与韩国留学比较| 久久 成人 亚洲| 久久97久久精品| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 成人二区视频| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 国产成人aa在线观看| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 久久久久久久精品精品| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 99久久精品热视频| 国产精品一区www在线观看| av天堂中文字幕网| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 中文资源天堂在线| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| av线在线观看网站| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 丝袜脚勾引网站| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看| 国产av国产精品国产| 成年人免费黄色播放视频 | 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久 | 欧美xxⅹ黑人| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 黄色日韩在线| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 久久99精品国语久久久| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 26uuu在线亚洲综合色| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 欧美人与善性xxx| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 久久久久久久国产电影| 日本黄大片高清| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频 | 男人舔奶头视频| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 亚洲国产色片| 久久国产精品大桥未久av | 欧美精品一区二区大全| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 老熟女久久久| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区 | 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 亚洲成色77777| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 在线精品无人区一区二区三| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 蜜桃在线观看..| 久久久国产一区二区| 中文字幕久久专区| 一级片'在线观看视频| 国产色婷婷99| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 一区在线观看完整版| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 制服丝袜香蕉在线| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| .国产精品久久| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 久久久久人妻精品一区果冻| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 美女主播在线视频| 在线播放无遮挡| 99久久综合免费|