Double-tract reconstruction is superior to esophagogastrostomy in controlling reflux esophagitis and enhancing quality of life after proximal gastrectomy: Results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial in China.

IF 7 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Yinan Zhang, Hongtao Zhang, Yan Yan, Ke Ji, Ziyu Jia, Heli Yang, Biao Fan, Anqiang Wang, Xiaojiang Wu, Ji Zhang, Jiafu Ji, Xin Ji, Zhaode Bu
{"title":"Double-tract reconstruction is superior to esophagogastrostomy in controlling reflux esophagitis and enhancing quality of life after proximal gastrectomy: Results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial in China.","authors":"Yinan Zhang, Hongtao Zhang, Yan Yan, Ke Ji, Ziyu Jia, Heli Yang, Biao Fan, Anqiang Wang, Xiaojiang Wu, Ji Zhang, Jiafu Ji, Xin Ji, Zhaode Bu","doi":"10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2023.06.09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to prospectively compare double-tract reconstruction (DTR) and esophagogastrostomy (EG) after proximal gastrectomy (PG) regarding the incidence of reflux esophagitis, quality of life (QOL), nutritional status and surgical safety.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was a randomized controlled trial. Patients eligible for PG were enrolled and randomly assigned to the EG group and DTR group. The characteristics of patients, parameters for surgical safety, incidence of reflux esophagitis, nutrition status and QOL were collected and compared between the two groups. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis were performed to determine the significant factors affecting the incidence of reflux esophagitis after PG.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-seven patients of the EG group and 36 patients of the DTR group were enrolled. The incidence of reflux esophagitis was significantly lower in the DTR group than in the EG group (8.3% <i>vs.</i> 32.4%, P=0.019). The DTR group demonstrated a more favorable QOL than the EG group after PG. The nutritional status was balanced within the EG group and the DTR group. The operation time was longer in the DTR group than in the EG group (191 min <i>vs.</i> 221 min, P=0.001), while surgical safety was similar in the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our research demonstrated that DTR is superior to EG after PG in terms of the incidence of reflux esophagitis and provides a more satisfactory QOL without increasing surgical complications or sacrificing nutritional status.</p>","PeriodicalId":9882,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Cancer Research","volume":"35 6","pages":"645-659"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10774132/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Journal of Cancer Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2023.06.09","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to prospectively compare double-tract reconstruction (DTR) and esophagogastrostomy (EG) after proximal gastrectomy (PG) regarding the incidence of reflux esophagitis, quality of life (QOL), nutritional status and surgical safety.

Methods: This study was a randomized controlled trial. Patients eligible for PG were enrolled and randomly assigned to the EG group and DTR group. The characteristics of patients, parameters for surgical safety, incidence of reflux esophagitis, nutrition status and QOL were collected and compared between the two groups. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis were performed to determine the significant factors affecting the incidence of reflux esophagitis after PG.

Results: Thirty-seven patients of the EG group and 36 patients of the DTR group were enrolled. The incidence of reflux esophagitis was significantly lower in the DTR group than in the EG group (8.3% vs. 32.4%, P=0.019). The DTR group demonstrated a more favorable QOL than the EG group after PG. The nutritional status was balanced within the EG group and the DTR group. The operation time was longer in the DTR group than in the EG group (191 min vs. 221 min, P=0.001), while surgical safety was similar in the two groups.

Conclusions: Our research demonstrated that DTR is superior to EG after PG in terms of the incidence of reflux esophagitis and provides a more satisfactory QOL without increasing surgical complications or sacrificing nutritional status.

在控制反流性食管炎和提高近端胃切除术后生活质量方面,双管重建术优于食管胃造瘘术:中国一项前瞻性随机对照临床试验的结果。
研究目的本研究旨在前瞻性地比较近端胃切除术(PG)后双管重建术(DTR)和食管胃切除术(EG)在反流性食管炎发生率、生活质量(QOL)、营养状况和手术安全性方面的差异:本研究是一项随机对照试验。方法:该研究是一项随机对照试验,符合胃切除术条件的患者被随机分配到 EG 组和 DTR 组。收集并比较两组患者的特征、手术安全性参数、反流性食管炎发生率、营养状况和 QOL。进行单变量分析和多变量分析,以确定影响 PG 术后反流性食管炎发生率的重要因素:结果:37 名 EG 组患者和 36 名 DTR 组患者入组。DTR 组的反流性食管炎发生率明显低于 EG 组(8.3% 对 32.4%,P=0.019)。PG 治疗后,DTR 组的 QOL 比 EG 组更好。EG 组和 DTR 组的营养状况均衡。DTR 组的手术时间长于 EG 组(191 分钟对 221 分钟,P=0.001),而两组的手术安全性相似:我们的研究表明,就反流性食管炎的发生率而言,DTR优于PG术后的EG,并且在不增加手术并发症或牺牲营养状况的前提下,DTR能提供更令人满意的生活质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
9.80%
发文量
1726
审稿时长
4.5 months
期刊介绍: Chinese Journal of Cancer Research (CJCR; Print ISSN: 1000-9604; Online ISSN:1993-0631) is published by AME Publishing Company in association with Chinese Anti-Cancer Association.It was launched in March 1995 as a quarterly publication and is now published bi-monthly since February 2013. CJCR is published bi-monthly in English, and is an international journal devoted to the life sciences and medical sciences. It publishes peer-reviewed original articles of basic investigations and clinical observations, reviews and brief communications providing a forum for the recent experimental and clinical advances in cancer research. This journal is indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), PubMed/PubMed Central (PMC), Scopus, SciSearch, Chemistry Abstracts (CA), the Excerpta Medica/EMBASE, Chinainfo, CNKI, CSCI, etc.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信