Comparison of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction and laparoscopic total gastrectomy in terms of nutritional status or quality of life in early gastric cancer patients

[Updated German S3 guidelines on esophageal cancer and supplements from a surgical perspective]

The updated German S3 guidelines recommend transthoracic subtotal esophagectomy with 2‑field lymphadenectomy for surgical treatment of esophageal cancer in patients with squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric (AEG type I) junction of the middle and lower third. For AEG type III transhiatal extended total gastrectomy with distal esophageal resection is favored. Patients with AEG type II can be treated by both procedures under the prerequisite that an R0 resection can be achieved. A limited resection of the distal esophagus and the proximal stomach can only be considered in cT1 N0 M0 possibly cT2 AEG junction without an oncological risk constellation, i.e. grade G1/G2, intestinal type and no poorly cohesive carcinoma, because the rate of lymph node metastasis at the distal stomach is less than 2%. Minimally invasive procedures provide advantages compared to open esophagectomy due to the lower rate of postoperative total and especially pulmonary complications. This is true for hybrid esophagectomy (laparoscopy and thoracotomy) versus open access in cases of intrathoracic anastomoses and for total minimally invasive esophagectomy including robotic techniques versus open access in cervical esophagogastrostomy.

Proximal versus total gastrectomy for proximal early gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, the incidence of proximal early gastric cancer (EGC) has been rising rapidly. Prevalent surgical methods are proximal gastrectomy (PG) and total gastrectomy (TG); however, which method is superior remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of original articles to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of PG with TG for proximal EGC.

METHODS

Databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched up to October 2018. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was utilized to conduct quality assessments, and publication bias was evaluated using Egger test. STATA version 14.0 was used to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 2036 patients with proximal EGC in 18 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that PG was potentially superior to TG regarding operation time, intraoperative blood loss volume, and long-term nutritional status. Overall survival between the PG and TG groups was not significantly different. PG was associated with a high incidence of 2 kinds of postoperative complications: anastomotic stenosis and reflux esophagitis. However, the incidence of these complications associated with esophagojejunostomy with double-tract reconstruction (DTR) was comparable with that of TG.

CONCLUSIONS

PG has several advantages over TG for the treatment of proximal EGC, including surgical outcomes and long-term nutritional status. However, anastomotic stenosis and reflux esophagitis frequently occurred in patients undergoing PG. Esophagojejunostomy with DTR could offer a solution to reducing the incidence of these complications.