3.9 Article

Functional Outcomes According to the Size of the Gastric Remnant and Type of Reconstruction Following Open and Laparoscopic Proximal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Journal

HEPATO-GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 59, Issue 118, Pages 1677-1681

Publisher

H G E UPDATE MEDICAL PUBLISHING S A
DOI: 10.5754/hge12256

Keywords

Gastric cancer; Laparoscopic and open proximal gastrectomy; Reconstruction; Surgical technique; Quality of life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims: We compared functional outcomes between different types of reconstruction following open or laparoscopic 1/2- or 2/3-proximal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methodology: Resection and reconstruction were performed by one of the following 6 methods, depending on the depth of cancer invasion and the date of the procedure relative to introduction of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy: open proximal 2/3-gastrectomy with jejunal interposition (2/3PG-int, n=7), open proximal 1/2-gastrectomy with jejunal interposition (1/2PG-int, n=5), laparoscopic proximal 1/2-gastrectomy followed by double tract reconstructions with small (3cm) jejunogastrostomy (L1/2 PG-DT(S), n=19) and laparoscopic proximal 1/2-gastrectomy followed by double tract reconstructions with large (6cm) jejunogastrostomy (L1/2PG-DT(L), n=10). Open total gastrectomy with jejunal interposition (TG, n=12) and laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (LTG, n=14) represented control procedures. Results: Comparison of postoperative/preoperative body weight ratios and food intake ratios revealed better preservation among patients with a larger remnant stomach and with easy flow of food into the remnant stomach (the 1/2PG-int and L1/2PG-DT(L) groups). Conclusions: Better functional outcomes were observed in patients with a large remnant stomach and with easy flow of food into the remnant stomach regardless of whether they underwent open or laparoscopic procedures.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available