1
|
Lu S, Ma F, Yang W, Peng L, Hua Y. Is single tract jejunal interposition better than double tract reconstruction after proximal gastrectomy? Updates Surg 2023; 75:53-63. [PMID: 36208365 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-022-01393-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2022] [Accepted: 09/28/2022] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
Double tract reconstruction (DTR) is the main digestive tract reconstruction method after proximal gastrectomy (PG). Single tract jejunal interposition (STJI) derived from the double tract reconstruction is also increasingly used in clinical practice. However, there is still a great controversy as to which of the two reconstruction methods can achieve better results. In this study, we systematically reviewed studies on DTR and STJI after PG and performed a meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for clinical studies comparing DTR and STJI after PG to December 2021 without language restriction. Review Manager (version5.4) software was used to perform meta-analysis on operative outcomes, postoperative complications and nutritional outcomes. The protocol for this meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022301455). Five randomized controlled trials involving 453 patients were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between DTR and STJI in terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, incidence of reflux esophagitis, anastomotic complications and total complications. The operation time of STJI group was longer than that of DTR group [WMD - 0.79; 95% CI (- 1.55, - 0.03)] [heterogeneity: χ2 = 4.94, df = 3 (P = 0.18); I2 = 39%, test for overall effect: Z = 2.04 (P = 0.04)]. The body weight of STJI group was significantly higher than that of DTR group at 6 months after surgery [WMD 3.90; 95% CI (0.56, 7.23)] [heterogeneity: τ2 = 7.67, χ2 = 19.76, df = 2 (P < 0.0001); I2 = 90%, test for overall effect: Z = 2.29 (P = 0.02)]. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of DTR and STJI after PG. There were no significant differences in operative outcomes and postoperative complications between DTR and STJI after PG. Although STJI prolonged the operation time compared to DTR, postoperative nutritional outcomes of patients in the STJI group was significantly better than that in the DTR group. Therefore, compared to DTR, STJI may be more suitable for the vast majority of patients undergoing PG due to its better postoperative nutritional status.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shuaibing Lu
- Department of General Surgery, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, No.127 Dongming Rd, Zhengzhou, 450008, Henan, China
| | - Fei Ma
- Department of General Surgery, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, No.127 Dongming Rd, Zhengzhou, 450008, Henan, China
| | - Wei Yang
- Department of General Surgery, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, No.127 Dongming Rd, Zhengzhou, 450008, Henan, China
| | - Liangqun Peng
- Department of General Surgery, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, No.127 Dongming Rd, Zhengzhou, 450008, Henan, China
| | - Yawei Hua
- Department of General Surgery, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, No.127 Dongming Rd, Zhengzhou, 450008, Henan, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hirata Y, Kim HI, Grotz TE, Matsuda S, Badgwell BD, Ikoma N. The role of proximal gastrectomy in gastric cancer. Chin Clin Oncol 2022; 11:39. [PMID: 36336898 DOI: 10.21037/cco-22-82] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2022] [Accepted: 10/21/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
Over the past 30 years, the prevalence of upper third gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer has increased. Total gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection is the standard surgical treatment for non-early (T2 or higher) upper third and GEJ cancers, but total gastrectomy often results in post-gastrectomy syndrome (5-50%), consisting of weight loss, dumping syndrome, and anemia. Proximal gastrectomy (PG) has the potential to avoid these postoperative problems by preserving stomach function. However, PG has historically been discouraged by surgeons owing to the high incidence of postoperative reflux esophagitis (20-65%), anastomotic stenosis, and decreased quality of life. In recent years, anti-reflux reconstruction techniques, such as the double flap technique and double-tract reconstruction, have been developed to be performed after PG, and evidence has emerged that these techniques not only reduce the incidence of postoperative reflux esophagitis but also decrease postoperative weight loss and prevent anemia. Prospective studies are underway to determine whether PG with anti-reflux techniques improves patient-reported quality of life. In the present work, we reviewed available evidence for the use of PG for GC and GEJ cancer, including oncologically appropriate patient selection for PG, potential functional benefits of PG over TG, and various types of reconstructions that can be performed after PG, as well as future research on the use of PG.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuki Hirata
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Hyoung-Il Kim
- Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Travis E Grotz
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Satoru Matsuda
- Department of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Brian D Badgwell
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Naruhiko Ikoma
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Li ZL, Zhao LY, Zhang WH, Liu K, Pang HY, Chen XL, Chen XZ, Yang K, Hu JK. Clinical significance of lower perigastric lymph nodes dissection in Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction: a retrospective propensity score matched study. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2021; 407:985-998. [PMID: 34792614 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-021-02380-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2021] [Accepted: 11/09/2021] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The optimal surgical procedure, whether total gastrectomy (TG) or proximal gastrectomy (PG), for Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction (AEG) has not been standardised, primarily because the optimal extent of lymph node (LN) dissection for AEG based on the metastatic rate of perigastric LNs remains under debate. The aim of this study was to investigate the metastatic incidence and prognostic significance of lower perigastric lymph nodes (LPLN), including No.4d, 5, 6 and 12a LN stations, in Siewert type II/III AEG. METHODS A total of 701 patients with Siewert type II/III AEG who received transabdominal open gastrectomy (425 patients with TG and 276 patients with PG) from 2010 to 2015 in West China Hospital were retrospectively included. Based on the clinicopathological information of TG patients, the risk factors of LPLN-positive patients were evaluated, and the metastatic incidence as well as the therapeutic value (TV) index of each LN station was assessed. Moreover, the 5-year overall survival (OS) rates between LPLN-positive and LPLN-negative groups were compared in TG patients, and the postoperative survival difference between TG and PG patients was also compared, using propensity score matching (PSM) method. RESULTS Tumour size (≥ 5 cm, OR = 1.481, p = 0.002) and pT stage (pT4, OR = 2.755, p = 0.024) were significant risk factors for patients with LPLN metastasis. For patients with tumour size more than 5 cm or pT4 stage, the metastatic rates of LPLN for Siewert type II, III and II/III AEG were 31.67%, 34.69% and 33.03%, whereas the TV indexes of LPLN for them were 5.76, 5.62 and 5.38, respectively. LPLN was a significant independent prognostic factor (HR = 1.422, p = 0.028), and positive LPLN was related to worse prognosis (p < 0.05). For patients with tumour size more than 5 cm or pT4 stage, TG patients were illustrated to have a better prognosis than PG patients, with 5-year OS rates of 58.9% vs 38.2% for Siewert type II AEG (χ2 = 4.159, p = 0.041), 68.9% vs 50.2% for Siewert type III AEG (χ2 = 5.630, p = 0.018) and 65.1% vs 40.3% for Siewert type II/III AEG (χ2 = 12.604, p < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS LPLN metastasis is a poor prognostic factor for patients with Siewert II/III AEG. LPLN dissection may improve the long-term survival of patients with tumour size more than 5 cm or pT4 stage, and TG might be more suitable for this kind of cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zong-Lin Li
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Sichuan Province, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Lin-Yong Zhao
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Sichuan Province, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Wei-Han Zhang
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Sichuan Province, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Kai Liu
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Sichuan Province, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Hua-Yang Pang
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Sichuan Province, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Xiao-Long Chen
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Sichuan Province, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Xin-Zu Chen
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Sichuan Province, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Kun Yang
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Sichuan Province, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Jian-Kun Hu
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Sichuan Province, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, China.
| |
Collapse
|