4.6 Article

Reconstruction after proximal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer in the upper third of the stomach: An analysis of our 13-year experience

Journal

SURGERY
Volume 156, Issue 1, Pages 57-63

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.02.015

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23791492] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Fundoplication during esophagogastrostomy (EG) after proximal gastrectomy (PG) is a useful procedure to prevent reflux esophagitis, but it is unclear haw much of the remnant stomach should be wrapped around the esophagus. Methods. We analyzed data from 101 patients who underwent PG for upper third early gastric cancer between 1999 and 2011. In all, 64 patients underwent EG, 25 underwent jejunal interposition (JI), and 12 underwent jejunal pouch interposition (JPI). We compared intraoperative details and postoperative outcomes, and investigated the relationships between the degree of the fundoplication during EG and endoscopic findings. Results. The length of the operation was significantly shorter in the EG group than in the other 2 groups (P < .05), and the intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the EG group (P < .05). The JI and the JPI groups had significantly greater rates of early complications than did the EG group (P = .01). Reflux esophagitis was present in 22% of patients in the EG group,. 8% in the JPI group, and none in the JI group. In the EG group, reflux esophagitis was significantly less common in patients with a > 180 degrees wrap of the remnant stomach around the esophagus than in patients with a smaller wrap (P = .0008). The rate of body weight loss was significantly less in the EG group compared with the other 2 groups (P < .05). Conclusion. Considering the low invasiveness of the procedure and postoperative outcomes, we consider that EG with a > 180 degrees wrap as the optimal reconstructive procedure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available