Short-Term Surgical Outcomes of Laparoscopic Proximal Gastrectomy With Double-Tract Reconstruction Versus Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy for Adenocarcinoma of Esophagogastric Junction: A Matched-Cohort Study

Comparative study of clinical efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double-channel anastomosis and tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis

BACKGROUND

According to statistics, the incidence of proximal gastric cancer has gradually increased in recent years, posing a serious threat to human health. Tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis and double-channel anastomosis are two relatively mature anti-reflux procedures. A comparison of these two surgical procedures, tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis and double-channel anastomosis, has rarely been reported. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effects of these two reconstruction methods on the quality of life of patients with proximal gastric cancer after proximal gastrectomy.

AIM

To compare short-term clinical results of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double-channel anastomosis vs tubular gastric anastomosis.

METHODS

Patients who underwent proximal gastrectomy at our hospital between January 2020 and January 2023 were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. The patients were divided into an experimental group (double-channel anastomosis, 33 cases) and a control group (tubular gastric anastomosis, 30 cases). Baseline characteristics, surgical data, postoperative morbidities, and postoperative nutrition were recorded.

RESULTS

The differences in baseline data, surgical data, and postoperative complications (20.0% vs 21.2%) were not statistically significant between the two groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the levels of postoperative nutrition indicators between the two groups of patients during the preoperative period and at 3 months postoperatively. In addition, the levels of postoperative nutrition indicators in patients in the experimental group declined significantly less at 6 months and 12 months postoperatively compared with those of the control group (P < 0.05). At 12 months postoperatively, the difference in anastomotic reflux esophagitis between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05) with the experimental group showing less reflux esophagitis.

CONCLUSION

Both double-channel anastomosis and tubular gastric anastomosis after proximal gastrectomy are safe and feasible. Double-channel anastomosis has a better anti-reflux effect and is more beneficial in improving the postoperative nutritional status.

The Safety and Anti-Reflex Effect of Robotic Double-Tract Reconstruction After Proximal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

PURPOSE

Double-tract reconstruction (DTR) is one of the major procedures following proximal gastrectomy (PG) with anti-reflex function for the esophagus. Although many studies demonstrated the feasibility of laparoscopic DTR, there is a lack of research on robotic DTR. We aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of robotic DTR following PG.

METHODS

Esophagojejunostomy was performed with a robotic stapler under endoscopic observation using the TilePro function of the Davinci Xi surgical system. The gastrojejunostomy procedure slightly differed depending on the size of the remnant stomach. Along with short-term surgical outcomes, long-term outcomes were compared based on the size of the remnant stomach.

RESULT

Thirty patients underwent robotic DTR. The median value of operative bleeding was 10 mL, although the median operative and reconstruction times were 398 and 119 min, respectively. Anastomotic complications were absent, and reflux esophagitis was not observed endoscopically 1 year after operation. Body weight loss, symptoms, and blood test findings did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSION

Robotic DTR may be a safe and favorable procedure in terms of the postoperative course and incidence of reflux esophagitis.

Digestive tract reconstruction after laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy: Double tract reconstruction or double flap technique?

Aim

The reconstruction methods after proximal gastrectomy (PG) are varied but not standardized. This study was performed to evaluate the short-term clinical outcomes between double tract reconstruction (DTR) and double flap technique (DFT).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed and collected data of patients who underwent DTR and DFT after laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG), respectively, between January 2020 and March 2023. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline data of the two groups, then we compared their short-term clinical outcomes.

Results

A total of 72 patients (48 and 24 patients in the DTR and DFT groups, respectively) were included. The anastomosis time was significantly longer in the DFT group than that in the DTR group (70.1 vs. 52.7 min, p < 0.001). DFT was associated with shorter times of gas-passing, start of diet, and postoperative length of hospital stay (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of early and late postoperative complications (p = 0.710, p = 1.000, respectively). DFT was superior to DTR in maintaining body weight (p < 0.001), total protein (p = 0.011) and albumin levels (p = 0.018). As for QOL, DTR showed better results in the meal-related distress subscale (p < 0.001). However, DFT was superior to DTR in terms of reducing diarrhea, constipation, and dumping related symptoms (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Double flap technique emerged as a superior alternative to DTR in terms of facilitating early postoperative recovery, sustaining nutritional status, and improving QOL. DFT could potentially be the preferred reconstruction method following laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy.

Experience sharing on perioperative clinical management of gastric cancer patients based on the "China Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery Guidelines"

BACKGROUND

With the popularization of robotic surgical systems in the field of surgery, robotic gastric cancer surgery has also been fully applied and promoted in China. The Chinese Guidelines for Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery was published in the Chinese Journal of General Surgery in August 2021.

METHODS

We have made a detailed interpretation of the process of robotic gastric cancer surgery regarding the indications, contraindications, perioperative preparation, surgical steps, complication, and postoperative management based on the recommendations of China's Guidelines for Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery and supplemented by other surgical guidelines, consensus, and single-center experience.

RESULTS

Twenty experiences of perioperative clinical management of robotic gastric cancer surgery were described in detail.

CONCLUSION

We hope to bring some clinical reference values to the front-line clinicians in treating robotic gastric cancer surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The guidelines were registered on the International Practice Guideline Registration Platform ( http://www.guidelines-registry.cn ) (registration number: IPGRP-2020CN199).

Can proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction replace total gastrectomy? a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies

BACKGROUND

According to the 5th edition of the Japanese Guidelines for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer, proximal gastrectomy is recommended for patients with early upper gastric cancer who can retain the distal half of the residual stomach after R0 resection. However, a large number of recent clinical studies suggest that surgical indications for proximal gastrectomy in the guidelines may be too narrow. Therefore, this meta-analysis included patients with early and advanced gastric cancer and compared short- and long-term postoperative outcomes between the two groups. At the same time, we only had high-quality clinical studies such as propensity score-matched studies and randomized controlled trials, which made our research more authentic and credible.

METHODS

Data were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library up to June 2023, and included treatment outcomes after proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction and total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction. The primary results were Early-phase complications(Anastomotic leakage, Anastomotic bleeding, Abdominal abscess, Abdominal infection, Pulmonary infection, Incision infection, Intestinal obstruction, Dumping syndrome, Pancreatic fistula), Late-phase complications(Intestinal obstruction, Anastomosis stricture, Dumping syndrome, Reoperation, Internal hernia, Incidence of endoscopic gastroesophageal reflux), Serious complications (≥ Grade III C-D score), Quality of life[Gastroesophageal reflux symptom evaluation (Visick score)(≥ III), Los Angeles classification(C or D)], Nutritional status(Hemoglobin, Receipt of vitamin B12 supplementation), Oncologic Outcomes(The 5-year overall survival rates). Secondary outcomes were surgical outcomes (Operative time, Estimated blood loss, Postoperative hospital stay, Number of harvested lymph nodes, Gas-passing, Postoperative mortality).The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Newcastle‒Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

After screening, 11 studies were finally included, including 1154 patients. Results from the combined literature showed that total gastrectomy had a significant advantage over proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction in mean operating time (MD = 4.92, 95% CI: 0.22∼9.61 P = 0.04). However, meta-analysis results showed that Hemoglobin (MD = 7.12, 95% CI:2.40∼11.84, P = 0.003) and Receipt of vitamin B12 supplementation (OR = 0.12, 95% CI:0.05∼0.26, P < 0.00001) in the proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction group were better than those in the total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction group. There is no significant difference between the proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction and the total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction group in Early-phase complications(OR = 1.14,95% CI:0.79∼1.64, P = 0.50), Late-phase complications(OR = 1.37,95% CI:0.78∼2.39, P = 0.27), Gastroesophageal reflux symptom evaluation (Visick score)(≥ III)(OR = 0.94,95% CI:0.14∼1.07 P = 0.07), Los Angeles classification(C or D)(OR = 0.33,95% CI:0.01∼8.21, P = 0.50), the 5-year overall survival rates (HR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.83 ~ 1.23, P = 0.89).

CONCLUSION

Proximal gastrectomy with double-tract anastomosis is a safe and feasible treatment for upper gastric carcinoma. However, the operating time was slightly longer in the proximal gastrectomy with double-tract group compared to the total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y group. The two groups were comparable to the total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y group in terms of serious complications (≥ Grade III C-D score), early-phase complications, late-phase complications, and quality of life. Although the scope of proximal gastrectomy is smaller than that of total gastrectomy, it does not affect the 5-year survival rate, indicating good tumor outcomes for patients. Compared to total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y group, proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction had higher hemoglobin levels, lower probability of vitamin B12 supplementation, and better long-term efficacy. In conclusion, proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction is considered one of the more rational surgical approaches for upper gastric cancer.

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing proximal gastrectomy with double-tract-reconstruction and total gastrectomy in gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer patients: Still no sufficient evidence for clinical decision-making

BACKGROUND

To compare proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction and total gastrectomy in patients with gastroesophageal junction (AEG II-III) and gastric cancer.

METHODS

We conducted systematic searches in Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until December 20, 2021 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021291500). Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool, as applicable. Evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

One randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 13 non-RCTs with 1,317 patients (715 patients with total gastrectomy and 602 patients with proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction) were included. Patients treated by total gastrectomy had a significantly higher proportion of advanced cancer stages International Union Against Cancer IB-III (odds ratio: 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.51-0.91, P = .01). This heterogeneity biases the observed improved overall survival of patients after proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (odds ratio: 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.44-1.01, P = .05). Both procedures were comparably efficient regarding perioperative parameters. Postoperative/preoperative bodyweight ratio (mean difference: 3.56, 95% confidence interval: 1.32-5.79, P = .002), postoperative/preoperative serum-hemoglobin ratio (mean difference 3.73, 95% confidence interval: 1.59-5.88, P < .001), and postoperative serum vitamin B₁₂ levels (mean difference 42.46, 95% confidence interval: 6.37-78.55, P = .02) were superior after proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction, while postoperative/preoperative serum-albumin ratio (mean difference 1.24, 95% confidence interval: -4.76 to 7.24, P = .69) and postoperative/preoperative serum total protein ratio (mean difference 1.12, 95% confidence interval: -2.77 to 5.00, P = .57) were not different. Health-related quality of life data were reported in only 2 studies, which found no significant advantages for proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction offers advantages in postoperative nutritional parameters compared to total gastrectomy (GRADE: moderate quality of evidence). Oncological effectiveness of proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction cannot be assessed (GRADE: very low quality of evidence). Further thoroughly planned randomized controlled trials in Western patient cohorts are necessary to improve treatment for gastric cancer patients.

The comparison of long-term oncological outcomes and complications after proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction versus total gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Conventional methods for treating patients with proximal gastric cancer (PGC) include proximal gastrectomy (PG) and total gastrectomy (TG) and such methods have become challenging due to double tract reconstruction (DTR). However, the clinical outcomes remain unclear. This study was performed with the aim of verifying that PG-DTR was beneficial in terms of reducing the incidence of postoperative complications and improving the prognosis.

METHODS

The PGC patient cohort was retrospectively grouped into the PG-DTR and TG groups. Clinicopathological features, complications, and survival data were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 388 patients were included in the analyses. Patients who were subjected to TG tended to have more severe gastroesophageal reflux (GR) (P = 0.041), anemia (P = 0.007), and hypoalbuminemia (P < 0.001). Overall survival rates, regardless of clinical stage, were significantly different between the PG-DTR and TG groups (all P < 0.05). The multivariate Cox regression analysis confirmed that surgical procedure, tumor size, infiltration depth, lymph node metastasis, differentiation, and age were independent risk factors. The patients were likely to benefit from PG-DTR (all HR > 1 and P < 0.05). However, no significant differences were observed in the risks of GR, anemia, and hypoalbuminemia (all P > 0.05). Moreover, the nomogram derived from significant parameters showed great calibration and discrimination ability and significant clinical benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

The patients who underwent PG-DTR had a favorable prognosis. The risk of postoperative complications, such as severe GR, anemia, and hypoalbuminemia, was lower in PG-DTR than in TG. Thus, PG-DTR is more beneficial for patients with PGC and may be a valuable and promising surgical procedure.

Clinical Comparison of Proximal Gastrectomy With Double-Tract Reconstruction Versus Total Gastrectomy With Roux-en-Y Anastomosis for Siewert Type II/III Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction

Purpose

The incidence of adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) has increased in recent years, and the optimal surgical strategy for AEG remains highly controversial. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (PG-DT) for the treatment of patients with AEG.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively analyzed patients with Siewert type II/III AEG between January 2013 and July 2018. Clinicopathological characteristics, survival, surgical outcomes, quality of life (QOL), and nutritional status were compared between the PG-DT and total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis (TG-RY) groups.

Results

After propensity score matching, 33 patients in each group were analyzed. There were no statistical differences between the 2 groups in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival. The surgical option was not an independent prognostic factor based on the multivariate analysis. In addition, no differences were found in terms of surgical complications. There were no significant differences in QOL assessed by the Visick grade, Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale, or endoscopic findings. Furthermore, the long-term nutritional advantage of the PG-DT group was significantly greater than that of the TG-RY group.

Conclusions

PG-DT is a safe and effective procedure for patients with local Siewert type II/III AEG, regardless of the TNM stage.

Comparison of the prognosis of four different surgical strategies for proximal gastric cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is controversy regarding the long-term prognosis and short-term postoperative complications of different surgical strategies for proximal gastric cancer (PGC).

METHODS

We searched for articles published in Embase (Ovid), Medline (Ovid), PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science between January 1, 1990, and February 1, 2021. We screened out the literature comparing different surgical strategies. We then evaluated the long-term and short-term outcome of different surgical strategies using a network meta-analysis, which summarizes the hazard ratio, odds ratio, mean difference, and 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between different surgical strategies for 5-year overall survival (OS), anastomotic leakage, or weight loss after 1 year. Compared with total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (TG-RY) and proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction (PG-DTR), the proximal gastrectomy with esophagogastrostomy (PG-EG) strategy significantly increased the incidence of reflux esophagitis; and the operation time and blood loss of the PG-EG strategy were significantly less than those of the other surgical strategies. The anastomotic stenosis rates of the PG-EG and proximal gastrectomy with jejunum interstitial (PG-JI) strategies were significantly higher than those of TG-RY and PG-DTR; the hemoglobin level after 1 year for the PG-DTR strategy was significantly higher than that of the TG-RY strategy.

CONCLUSION

Our comprehensive literature research found that different surgical strategies had no significant difference in the long-term survival of PGC, but the incidence of reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis after PG-DTR and TG-RY was significantly reduced.

Short-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Proximal Gastrectomy With Double-Tract Reconstruction Versus Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy for Upper Early Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Purpose

Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (LPG-DTR) is a function-preserving procedure performed for treating upper early gastric cancer (EGC). However, few studies have compared the outcomes of LPG-DTR with those of laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG). This study aimed at comparing the short-term outcomes of LPG-DTR between LTG and upper EGC.

Materials and Methods

For upper-third EGC, a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial was performed to compare those who underwent LPG-DTR with those who underwent LTG. Short-term outcomes, including clinicopathologic results, morbidity, mortality, and postoperative courses, were evaluated using a full analysis set based on the intention-to-treat principle and the per-protocol set.

Results

Of the patients, 138 who fulfilled the criteria were randomized to each group. One patient in the LPG-DTR group withdrew consent. Sixty-eight patients underwent LPG-DTR and 69 underwent LTG. The operative time (LPG-DTR=219.4 minutes; LTG=201.8 minutes; P=0.085), estimated blood loss (LPG-DTR=76.0 mL; LTG=66.1 mL; P=0.413), and the morbidity rate (LPG-DTR=23.5%; LTG=17.4%; P=0.373) between the groups were not significantly different. No mortality occurred in either of the study groups. Two weeks post operation, the Visick scores for postprandial symptoms, including reflux symptoms, were not significantly different between the groups (P=0.749). Laboratory findings on postoperative day 5 were not significantly different between the groups.

Conclusions

The short-term outcomes of LPG-DTR for upper EGC were comparable to those of LTG.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02892643

Proximal gastrectomy may be a reasonable choice for patients with selected proximal advanced gastric cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether proximal gastrectomy (PG) can be applied to patients with proximal advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains controversial. We aimed to explore the oncological safety of PG for proximal AGC in this study.

METHODS

452 patients undergoing surgery for proximal AGC in the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University were enrolled in this study. 329 patients with AGC were finally analyzed, of which 254 patients underwent total gastrectomy (TG) and 75 patients underwent PG. We used propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis to reduce biases.

RESULTS

After PSM, 67 patients with proximal AGC were included in the PG group and TG group, respectively. The estimated 5-year OS rates for TG and PG group after PSM were 64.3% and 74.9%, respectively, and no significant difference in OS existed between the two groups (p = 0.275). Multivariate analysis showed that PG was not an independent prognostic factor. Incidence of metastasis in No.5 or 6 lymph node (LN) station was significantly higher in the patients with pathological T4 and Borrmann III tumors (9.9% and 10.6%) than those with pathological T2/3 and Borrmann I/II tumors (2.2% and 3.3%). No metastasis was observed in No.5 or 6 LN station in patients with pathological T2/3 tumors or Borrmann I/II tumors when tumor size was ≤4 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

PG is a reasonable choice for patients with selected proximal AGC, especially for those with tumors of size ≤4 cm, Borrmann type I/II, and pathological T2/3. Future prospective randomized trials should be conducted first in patients with these specific proximal tumors.

Esophagogastrostomy With Fundoplication Versus Double-tract Reconstruction After Laparoscopic Proximal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

PURPOSE

We investigated that double-tract reconstruction (DTR) may be more beneficial than esophagogastrostomy (EG) with fundoplication in terms of nutritional outcomes, focusing on loss of body weight.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 56 consecutive patients with early gastric cancer in the upper third of the stomach who received laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy, 39 underwent EG. In the 17 patients requiring resection of the abdominal esophagus or where the size of the remnant stomach was 50% or less, we performed DTR.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the rate of body weight change at 6 or 12 months, or in biochemical markers (hemoglobin, total protein, and albumin) at 12 months. However, 8 patients in the EG group had extreme body weight loss (≥20%) within 12 months. Conversely, in the DTR group, no patients had any extreme body weight loss.

CONCLUSION

DTR is useful after laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy, especially in terms of preventing extreme body weight loss.

Laparoscopic Proximal Gastrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy for Proximal Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) and laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) with regard to outcomes, including efficacy and safety, in patients with proximal gastric cancer.

METHODS

Original English-language articles comparing LPG and LTG for proximal gastric cancer up to November 2019 were systematically searched in the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases by two independent reviewers. Our main endpoints were surgery-related features (operation time, blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, and postoperative hospital stay), postoperative complications (anastomotic leakage, anastomotic bleeding, anastomotic stenosis, and reflux esophagitis), and oncologic outcomes (5-year overall survival and recurrent cancer).

RESULTS

Fourteen studies including a total of 1,282 cases (510 LPG and 772 LTG) were enrolled. Fewer lymph nodes were harvested (WMD = -13.33, 95% CI: -15.66 to -11.00, P < 0.00001) and more postoperative anastomotic stenosis (OR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.21 to 3.39, P = 0.007) observed in LPG than LTG. There were no significant differences in other explored parameters between the two methods. However, based on a subgroup analysis of digestive tract reconstruction, LPG with esophagogastrostomy (LPG-EG) had shorter operative time (WMD = -42.51, 95% CI: -58.99 to -26.03, P < 0.00001), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -79.52, 95% CI: -116.63 to -42.41, P < 0.0001), and more reflux esophagitis (OR = 3.92, 95% CI: 1.56 to 9.83, P = 0.004) than was observed for LTG. There was no difference between LPG performed with the double tract anastomosis/double-flap technique (DT/DFT) and LTG.

CONCLUSION

LPG can be performed as an alternative to LTG for proximal gastric cancer, especially LPG-DT/DFT, with comparable safety and efficacy.

Double Tract Reconstruction Reduces Reflux Esophagitis and Improves Quality of Life after Radical Proximal Gastrectomy for Patients with Upper Gastric or Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma

Purpose

The aim of the present study was to compare the difference between double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy.

Materials and Methods

Patients who underwent radical proximal gastrectomy with esophagogastrostomy or double tract reconstruction were included in this study.

Results

Sixty-four patients were included in this study and divided into two groups according to reconstruction method. The two groups were well balanced in perioperative safety and 3-year overall survival (OS). The rates of postoperative reflux esophagitis in the double tract reconstruction group and esophagogastrostomy group were 8.0% and 30.8%, respectively (p=0.032). Patients in the double tract reconstruction group had a better global health status (p < 0.001) and emotional functioning (p < 0.001), and complained less about nausea and vomiting (p < 0.001), pain (p=0.039), insomnia (p=0.003), and appetite loss (p < 0.001) based on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Regarding the EORTC QLQ-STO22 questionnaire, patients in the double tract reconstruction group complained less about dysphagia (p=0.030), pain (p=0.008), reflux (p < 0.001), eating (p < 0.001), anxiety (p < 0.001), dry mouth (p=0.007), and taste (p=0.001). The multiple linear regression analysis showed that reconstruction method, postoperative complications, reflux esophagitis, and operation duration had a linear relationship with the global health status score.

Conclusion

Double tract reconstruction could better prevent reflux esophagitis and improve quality of life without scarifying perioperative safety or 3-year OS.

Validation of a novel reconstruction method of laparoscopic gastrectomy for proximal early gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Recently, a novel surgical procedure, named as laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) with double-tract reconstruction (DTR), has been reported to provide surgical benefits in the treatment of proximal early gastric cancer (EGC) over traditional laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG). These benefits include a lower incidence of some surgical complications and better postoperative nutritional status. However, the number of relevant studies is still too low to validate such benefits. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the surgical features, complications, and postoperative nutritional status of LPG with DTR in comparison to those of LTG.

Methods

Online databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE) were scoured for relevant studies published by April 2020. The quality assessment of the included articles was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Egger’s test was utilized to assess publication bias.

Results

Nine studies (687 patients) were enrolled for this meta-analysis, and we found that LPG with DTR and LTG had similar surgical features. However, LPG with DTR was superior to LTG in the incidence of reflux syndrome [OR = 0.185; 95%CI 0.083, 0.414; P = 0.000], postoperative nutritional status (hemoglobin [WMD = − 2.326; 95%CI − 4.491, − 0.160; P = 0.035], vitamin B12 [WMD = − 13.072; 95%CI − 22.850, − 3.294; P = 0.009], and body weight [WMD = − 3.514; 95%CI − 5.579, − 1.449; P = 0.001]).

Conclusions

LPG with DTR has better performance in the incidence of reflux syndrome and postoperative nutritional status compared with LTG. This surgical procedure may therefore have more benefits for patients with proximal EGC.