4.6 Article

What is the best reconstruction method after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer?

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-011-2064-8

关键词

Distal gastrectomy; Reconstruction; Roux-en-Y; Bile reflux; Laparoscopy; Quality of life; Abdominal; GI; Digestive; G-I

类别

资金

  1. Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Republic of Korea [02-2006-021]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background We performed this prospective randomized study to evaluate what is the best reconstruction method after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods One hundred fifty-nine patients who underwent laparoscopy-assisted or open gastrectomy for gastric cancer were analyzed from March 2006 to August 2007. Billroth I (B-I) anastomosis, Billroth II (B-II) with Braun anastomosis, and Roux-en-Y (R-Y) anastomosis were applied randomly. Additionally, the patients were divided into two groups based on treatment type: laparoscopic and open operation. Endoscopy and hepatobiliary scans were performed to investigate gastric stasis and enterogastric reflux. The Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) was used to evaluate postoperative quality of life, and the hematologic test was used to assess nutritional aspect. Results Endoscopy revealed that reflux after the R-Y anastomosis procedure was significantly less frequent than after the other anastomosis types at 12 months. Comparison of the GIQLI and the nutritional parameters between the reconstruction types revealed that there were no differences, but a significantly higher GIQLI score was observed in the laparoscopic group immediately following the procedure (P = 0.042). Conclusions R-Y anastomosis is superior to B-I and B-II with Braun anastomosis in terms of frequency of bile reflux, despite the fact that there is no difference in the postoperative quality-of-life index and nutritional status between reconstructive procedures. The laparoscopic approach is the better option than open surgery in terms of QOL in the immediate postoperative period.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据