Comparative evaluation of reconstructive procedures after gastrectomy with and without duodenal passage preservation in gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

I. Uvarov, O. M. Asipovich, S. N. Derbenev
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of reconstructive procedures after gastrectomy with and without duodenal passage preservation in gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"I. Uvarov, O. M. Asipovich, S. N. Derbenev","doi":"10.25207/1608-6228-2022-29-2-58-78","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. Optimal reconstruction after gastrectomy (GE) in gastric cancer (GC) is currently a pressing issue, with research continuing to advance functional methods, especially those preserving duodenal passage, to improve the patient’s quality of life (QOL) and nutritional status (NS).Objectives. An evaluation of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) targeting GC patients with radical GE and comparing duodenal passage-preserving (DPP) and non-preserving (NDPP) reconstruction techniques in terms of immediate outcomes, post-gastrectomy syndrome, NS and QOL.Methods. Sources were mined in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar electronic databases, as well as CyberLeninka and eLibrary national resources. The RCTs meeting eligibility criteria (15 publications) were covered in a meta-analysis. Outcome variations were defined via odds ratio (OR), standard error estimated with 95% CI, statistical significance was assumed at p <0.05. Review Manager (RevMan v. 5.4., the Cochrane Collaboration, 2020) was used for statistical data processing.Results. A total of 15 RCTs were surveyed (1,766 patients; 722 in DPP and 1,044 in NDPP cohort). The complication and mortality rates did not differ significantly between cohorts. The meta-analysis elicited a significant advantage of DPP-GE regarding the dumping syndrome incidence at all post-surgery terms cumulatively (OR = 0.32 [95% CI: 0.22–0.48], p = 0.00001), as well as the 3- and 12-month terms, with no difference observed for 24 months. No statistically significant DPP vs. NDPP cohort variations have been found regarding reflux, stasis syndrome or NS values. The RCTs were evidently diverse with respect to QOL assessment techniques; 4 of 7 publications reported DPP advantages, and 3 — no significant variation in QOL between the DPP and NDPP cohorts.Conclusion. Further research is necessary to substantiate optimal reconstruction methods, particularly those restoring food passage through duodenum after GE, to facilitate the patient’s most favourable QOL and NS.","PeriodicalId":33483,"journal":{"name":"Kubanskii nauchnyi meditsinskii vestnik","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kubanskii nauchnyi meditsinskii vestnik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25207/1608-6228-2022-29-2-58-78","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. Optimal reconstruction after gastrectomy (GE) in gastric cancer (GC) is currently a pressing issue, with research continuing to advance functional methods, especially those preserving duodenal passage, to improve the patient’s quality of life (QOL) and nutritional status (NS).Objectives. An evaluation of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) targeting GC patients with radical GE and comparing duodenal passage-preserving (DPP) and non-preserving (NDPP) reconstruction techniques in terms of immediate outcomes, post-gastrectomy syndrome, NS and QOL.Methods. Sources were mined in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar electronic databases, as well as CyberLeninka and eLibrary national resources. The RCTs meeting eligibility criteria (15 publications) were covered in a meta-analysis. Outcome variations were defined via odds ratio (OR), standard error estimated with 95% CI, statistical significance was assumed at p <0.05. Review Manager (RevMan v. 5.4., the Cochrane Collaboration, 2020) was used for statistical data processing.Results. A total of 15 RCTs were surveyed (1,766 patients; 722 in DPP and 1,044 in NDPP cohort). The complication and mortality rates did not differ significantly between cohorts. The meta-analysis elicited a significant advantage of DPP-GE regarding the dumping syndrome incidence at all post-surgery terms cumulatively (OR = 0.32 [95% CI: 0.22–0.48], p = 0.00001), as well as the 3- and 12-month terms, with no difference observed for 24 months. No statistically significant DPP vs. NDPP cohort variations have been found regarding reflux, stasis syndrome or NS values. The RCTs were evidently diverse with respect to QOL assessment techniques; 4 of 7 publications reported DPP advantages, and 3 — no significant variation in QOL between the DPP and NDPP cohorts.Conclusion. Further research is necessary to substantiate optimal reconstruction methods, particularly those restoring food passage through duodenum after GE, to facilitate the patient’s most favourable QOL and NS.
癌症胃切除术后保留和不保留十二指肠通道重建手术的比较评价:系统回顾和荟萃分析
背景癌症(GC)胃切除术后最佳重建(GE)是目前的一个紧迫问题,研究继续推进功能性方法,尤其是保留十二指肠通道的方法,以提高患者的生活质量(QOL)和营养状况(NS)。目的。一项针对根治性胃癌GC患者的随机临床试验(RCT)评估,并比较保留十二指肠通道(DPP)和不保留十二指肠通道重建技术在即时结果、胃切除术后综合征、NS和QOL方面的差异。方法。来源于PubMed,Cochrane图书馆,谷歌学者电子数据库,以及CyberLeninka和电子图书馆的国家资源。荟萃分析涵盖了符合资格标准的随机对照试验(15篇出版物)。结果变化通过比值比(OR)来定义,标准误差估计为95%CI,统计学显著性假设为p<0.05。Review Manager(RevMan诉5.4,Cochrane协作,2020)用于统计数据处理。后果共调查了15项随机对照试验(1766名患者;722名在DPP队列中,1044名在NDPP队列中)。不同队列的并发症和死亡率没有显著差异。荟萃分析得出DPP-GE在术后所有时间段以及3个月和12个月时间段的倾倒综合征发病率方面具有显著优势(OR=0.32[95%CI:0.22–0.48],p=0.0001),24个月内没有观察到差异。在反流、停滞综合征或NS值方面,未发现DPP与NDPP队列的统计学显著差异。随机对照试验在生活质量评估技术方面明显存在差异;7篇出版物中有4篇报道了DPP的优势,3篇——DPP和NDPP队列之间的生活质量没有显著变化。结论需要进一步的研究来证实最佳的重建方法,特别是那些在GE后恢复通过十二指肠的食物通道的方法,以促进患者最有利的生活质量和NS。
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
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信