4.5 Article

Surgical treatment of gastric stump carcinoma after Whipple procedure: A case report

Journal

MEDICINE
Volume 102, Issue 20, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000033808

Keywords

case report; gastric stump carcinoma; surgical treatment; Whipple procedure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This case report highlights the rarity of gastric stump carcinoma (GSC) after Whipple procedure and emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis and surgical treatment. The successful outcome of stump gastrectomy in this patient suggests that surgery can be an effective approach for GSC if long-term survival is possible.
Rationale:Gastric stump carcinoma (GSC) is very exceptional and little known after Whipple procedure, and its diagnosis and treatment are extremely difficult to handle. Patient concerns:The patient, a 68-year-old man, visited our hospital's General surgery outpatient clinic complaining of upper abdominal pain that had been bothering him for half a month. The endoscopy revealed lesions in the stomach residual, and the pathological results suggested adenocarcinoma. The patient underwent Whipple procedure for periampullary adenocarcinoma in the 4th year ago. Diagnoses:The final diagnosis was gastric adenocarcinoma and its pathological stage was II A (T3N0M0). Interventions:The patient underwent stump gastrectomy and end-to-side esophagojejunostomy (Roux-en-Y reconstruction). Outcomes:The operation went smoothly and the patient recovered well with only mild bloating and nausea, and the symptoms completely disappeared during the hospital stay. Lessons:The development of GSC several years after Whipple procedure is uncommon. This is the first case from China that has received international attention. Early diagnosis is crucial. Surgery is considered to be the most effective treatment for GSC after Whipple procedure if long-term survival is possible and surgical risks are controllable.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available