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

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Mian Wang, Li-Li Zhang, Gang Wang, Yong-Chang Miao, Tao Zhang, Lei Qiu, Gui-Da Fang, Feng Lu, Da-Lai Xu, Peng Yu
{"title":"Comparative study of clinical efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double-channel anastomosis and tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis.","authors":"Mian Wang, Li-Li Zhang, Gang Wang, Yong-Chang Miao, Tao Zhang, Lei Qiu, Gui-Da Fang, Feng Lu, Da-Lai Xu, Peng Yu","doi":"10.4240/wjgs.v17.i1.101204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare short-term clinical results of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double-channel anastomosis <i>vs</i> tubular gastric anastomosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The differences in baseline data, surgical data, and postoperative complications (20.0% <i>vs</i> 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 (<i>P</i> < 0.05). At 12 months postoperatively, the difference in anastomotic reflux esophagitis between the two groups was statistically significant (<i>P</i> < 0.05) with the experimental group showing less reflux esophagitis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":23759,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","volume":"17 1","pages":"101204"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11757183/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v17.i1.101204","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
5.00%
发文量
111
×
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