Zhiwen Xu, Wei Lin, Su Yan, Shaoqin Chen, Jinping Chen, Qingqi Hong, Hexin Lin, Liangbin Xiao, Jingtao Zhu, Haoyu Bai, Xuejun Yu, Jun You
{"title":"食管胃交界处腺癌的腹腔镜辅助近端胃切除术加双袢重建与腹腔镜辅助全胃切除术加Roux-en-Y重建的短期和长期疗效对比:基于倾向评分匹配分析的多中心研究","authors":"Zhiwen Xu, Wei Lin, Su Yan, Shaoqin Chen, Jinping Chen, Qingqi Hong, Hexin Lin, Liangbin Xiao, Jingtao Zhu, Haoyu Bai, Xuejun Yu, Jun You","doi":"10.1155/2024/5517459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<i>Purpose</i>. To compare the antireflux effect, long-term nutritional levels, and quality of life (QoL) between laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (LPG-DTR) and laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (LTG-RY) for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG). <i>Methods</i>. This multicenter retrospective cohort study collected clinicopathological and follow-up data of AEG patients from January 2016 to January 2021 at five high-volume surgery centers. The study included patients who underwent digestive tract reconstruction with LPG-DTR or LTG-RY after tumor resection. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to minimize confounding factors. The comparison after PSM included postoperative complications, reflux esophagitis, long-term nutritional levels, and QoL. <i>Results</i>. A total of 151 consecutive patients underwent either LPG-DTR or LTG-RY. After PSM, 50 patients from each group were included in the analysis. The frequency of reflux esophagitis and Clavien–Dindo classification did not significantly differ between the two groups (<span><svg height=\"9.2729pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.6359 19.289 9.2729\" width=\"19.289pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"></path></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.658,0)\"></path></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"9.2729pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.8711838 -8.6359 21.918 9.2729\" width=\"21.918pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.921,0)\"></path></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,29.161,0)\"></path></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,32.125,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.365,0)\"></path></g></svg>).</span></span> At 1 year after surgery, the LPG-DTR group showed significantly higher weight and hemoglobin levels than the LTG-RY group (<span><svg height=\"9.2729pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.6359 19.289 9.2729\" width=\"19.289pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-81\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.658,0)\"></path></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"9.2729pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.8711838 -8.6359 21.918 9.2729\" width=\"21.918pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.921,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,29.161,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-47\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,32.125,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.365,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-54\"></use></g></svg>).</span></span> The overall postoperative Visick grade differed significantly between the groups (<span><svg height=\"9.2729pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.6359 19.289 9.2729\" width=\"19.289pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-81\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.658,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g117-91\"></use></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"9.2729pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.8711838 -8.6359 21.918 9.2729\" width=\"21.918pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.921,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,29.161,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-47\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,32.125,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.365,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-54\"></use></g></svg>),</span></span> but there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with Visick≥III (<span><svg height=\"9.2729pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.6359 19.289 9.2729\" width=\"19.289pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-81\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.658,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g117-92\"></use></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"9.2729pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.8711838 -8.6359 21.918 9.2729\" width=\"21.918pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.921,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,29.161,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-47\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,32.125,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.365,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-54\"></use></g></svg>).</span></span> <i>Conclusion</i>. Both LPG-DTR and LTG-RY are safe and feasible methods for digestive tract reconstruction in patients with AEG. Both methods have similar antireflux effects and postoperative QoL. However, LPG-DTR resulted in superior nutritional levels compared to LTG-RY. Therefore, LPG-DTR is considered a relatively effective method for digestive tract reconstruction in AEG patients.","PeriodicalId":12597,"journal":{"name":"Gastroenterology Research and Practice","volume":"2016 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopy-Assisted Proximal Gastrectomy with Double-Tract Reconstruction versus Laparoscopy-Assisted Total Gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y Reconstruction for Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction: A Multicenter Study Based on Propensity Score Matching Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Zhiwen Xu, Wei Lin, Su Yan, Shaoqin Chen, Jinping Chen, Qingqi Hong, Hexin Lin, Liangbin Xiao, Jingtao Zhu, Haoyu Bai, Xuejun Yu, Jun You\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2024/5517459\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<i>Purpose</i>. To compare the antireflux effect, long-term nutritional levels, and quality of life (QoL) between laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (LPG-DTR) and laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (LTG-RY) for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG). <i>Methods</i>. This multicenter retrospective cohort study collected clinicopathological and follow-up data of AEG patients from January 2016 to January 2021 at five high-volume surgery centers. The study included patients who underwent digestive tract reconstruction with LPG-DTR or LTG-RY after tumor resection. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to minimize confounding factors. The comparison after PSM included postoperative complications, reflux esophagitis, long-term nutritional levels, and QoL. <i>Results</i>. A total of 151 consecutive patients underwent either LPG-DTR or LTG-RY. After PSM, 50 patients from each group were included in the analysis. The frequency of reflux esophagitis and Clavien–Dindo classification did not significantly differ between the two groups (<span><svg height=\\\"9.2729pt\\\" style=\\\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\\\" version=\\\"1.1\\\" viewbox=\\\"-0.0498162 -8.6359 19.289 9.2729\\\" width=\\\"19.289pt\\\" xmlns=\\\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\\\" xmlns:xlink=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\\\"><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\\\"></path></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.658,0)\\\"></path></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\\\"9.2729pt\\\" style=\\\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\\\" version=\\\"1.1\\\" viewbox=\\\"22.8711838 -8.6359 21.918 9.2729\\\" width=\\\"21.918pt\\\" xmlns=\\\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\\\" xmlns:xlink=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\\\"><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.921,0)\\\"></path></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,29.161,0)\\\"></path></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,32.125,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-49\\\"></use></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.365,0)\\\"></path></g></svg>).</span></span> At 1 year after surgery, the LPG-DTR group showed significantly higher weight and hemoglobin levels than the LTG-RY group (<span><svg height=\\\"9.2729pt\\\" style=\\\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\\\" version=\\\"1.1\\\" viewbox=\\\"-0.0498162 -8.6359 19.289 9.2729\\\" width=\\\"19.289pt\\\" xmlns=\\\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\\\" xmlns:xlink=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\\\"><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-81\\\"></use></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.658,0)\\\"></path></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\\\"9.2729pt\\\" style=\\\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\\\" version=\\\"1.1\\\" viewbox=\\\"22.8711838 -8.6359 21.918 9.2729\\\" width=\\\"21.918pt\\\" xmlns=\\\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\\\" xmlns:xlink=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\\\"><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.921,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-49\\\"></use></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,29.161,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-47\\\"></use></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,32.125,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-49\\\"></use></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.365,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-54\\\"></use></g></svg>).</span></span> The overall postoperative Visick grade differed significantly between the groups (<span><svg height=\\\"9.2729pt\\\" style=\\\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\\\" version=\\\"1.1\\\" viewbox=\\\"-0.0498162 -8.6359 19.289 9.2729\\\" width=\\\"19.289pt\\\" xmlns=\\\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\\\" xmlns:xlink=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\\\"><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-81\\\"></use></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.658,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g117-91\\\"></use></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\\\"9.2729pt\\\" style=\\\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\\\" version=\\\"1.1\\\" viewbox=\\\"22.8711838 -8.6359 21.918 9.2729\\\" width=\\\"21.918pt\\\" xmlns=\\\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\\\" xmlns:xlink=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\\\"><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.921,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-49\\\"></use></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,29.161,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-47\\\"></use></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,32.125,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-49\\\"></use></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.365,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-54\\\"></use></g></svg>),</span></span> but there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with Visick≥III (<span><svg height=\\\"9.2729pt\\\" style=\\\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\\\" version=\\\"1.1\\\" viewbox=\\\"-0.0498162 -8.6359 19.289 9.2729\\\" width=\\\"19.289pt\\\" xmlns=\\\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\\\" xmlns:xlink=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\\\"><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-81\\\"></use></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.658,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g117-92\\\"></use></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\\\"9.2729pt\\\" style=\\\"vertical-align:-0.6370001pt\\\" version=\\\"1.1\\\" viewbox=\\\"22.8711838 -8.6359 21.918 9.2729\\\" width=\\\"21.918pt\\\" xmlns=\\\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\\\" xmlns:xlink=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\\\"><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.921,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-49\\\"></use></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,29.161,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-47\\\"></use></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,32.125,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-49\\\"></use></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.365,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-54\\\"></use></g></svg>).</span></span> <i>Conclusion</i>. Both LPG-DTR and LTG-RY are safe and feasible methods for digestive tract reconstruction in patients with AEG. Both methods have similar antireflux effects and postoperative QoL. However, LPG-DTR resulted in superior nutritional levels compared to LTG-RY. Therefore, LPG-DTR is considered a relatively effective method for digestive tract reconstruction in AEG patients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12597,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gastroenterology Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\"2016 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gastroenterology Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/5517459\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastroenterology Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/5517459","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopy-Assisted Proximal Gastrectomy with Double-Tract Reconstruction versus Laparoscopy-Assisted Total Gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y Reconstruction for Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction: A Multicenter Study Based on Propensity Score Matching Analysis
Purpose. To compare the antireflux effect, long-term nutritional levels, and quality of life (QoL) between laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (LPG-DTR) and laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (LTG-RY) for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG). Methods. This multicenter retrospective cohort study collected clinicopathological and follow-up data of AEG patients from January 2016 to January 2021 at five high-volume surgery centers. The study included patients who underwent digestive tract reconstruction with LPG-DTR or LTG-RY after tumor resection. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to minimize confounding factors. The comparison after PSM included postoperative complications, reflux esophagitis, long-term nutritional levels, and QoL. Results. A total of 151 consecutive patients underwent either LPG-DTR or LTG-RY. After PSM, 50 patients from each group were included in the analysis. The frequency of reflux esophagitis and Clavien–Dindo classification did not significantly differ between the two groups (). At 1 year after surgery, the LPG-DTR group showed significantly higher weight and hemoglobin levels than the LTG-RY group (). The overall postoperative Visick grade differed significantly between the groups (), but there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with Visick≥III ().Conclusion. Both LPG-DTR and LTG-RY are safe and feasible methods for digestive tract reconstruction in patients with AEG. Both methods have similar antireflux effects and postoperative QoL. However, LPG-DTR resulted in superior nutritional levels compared to LTG-RY. Therefore, LPG-DTR is considered a relatively effective method for digestive tract reconstruction in AEG patients.
期刊介绍:
Gastroenterology Research and Practice is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal which publishes original research articles, review articles and clinical studies based on all areas of gastroenterology, hepatology, pancreas and biliary, and related cancers. The journal welcomes submissions on the physiology, pathophysiology, etiology, diagnosis and therapy of gastrointestinal diseases. The aim of the journal is to provide cutting edge research related to the field of gastroenterology, as well as digestive diseases and disorders.
Topics of interest include:
Management of pancreatic diseases
Third space endoscopy
Endoscopic resection
Therapeutic endoscopy
Therapeutic endosonography.