Dataset Information

Proximal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer.

ABSTRACT: Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) is theoretically a superior choice of minimally-invasive surgery and function-preserving surgery for the treatment of proximal early gastric cancer (EGC) over procedures such as laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG), open total gastrectomy (OTG) and open proximal gastrectomy (OPG). However, LPG and OPG are not popular surgical options due to three main concerns: the first, oncological safety; the second, functional benefits; and the third, anastomosis-related late complications (reflux symptoms and anastomotic stricture). Numerous recent studies have concluded that OPG and LPG present similar oncological safety profiles and improved functional benefits when compared with OTG and LTG. While OPG with modified esophagogastrostomy does not provide satisfactory results, OPG with modified esophagojejunostomy showed similar rates of anastomosis-related late complications when compared to OTG. At this stage, no standard reconstruction method post-LPG exists in the clinical setting. We recently showed that LPG with double tract reconstruction (DTR) is a superior choice over LTG for proximal EGC in terms of maintaining body weight and preventing anemia. However, as there is no definitive evidence in favor of LPG with DTR, a randomized clinical trial comparing LPG with DTR to LTG was recommended. This trial, the Korean Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery Study-05 (NCT01433861), is expected to assist surgeons in choice of surgical approach and strategy for patients with proximal EGC.

SUBMITTER: Jung DH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4496445 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Proximal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer.

Jung Do Hyun DH Ahn Sang-Hoon SH Park Do Joong DJ Kim Hyung-Ho HH

Journal of gastric cancer 20150630 2

Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) is theoretically a superior choice of minimally-invasive surgery and function-preserving surgery for the treatment of proximal early gastric cancer (EGC) over procedures such as laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG), open total gastrectomy (OTG) and open proximal gastrectomy (OPG). However, LPG and OPG are not popular surgical options due to three main concerns: the first, oncological safety; the second, functional benefits; and the third, anastomosis-relat ...[more]

PMID: 26161281

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe current standard operation for proximal gastric and gastroesophageal junction (P/GEJ) cancers with limited esophageal extension is total gastrectomy (TG). TG is associated with impaired appetite and weight loss due to the loss of gastric functions such as production of ghrelin and with anemia due to intrinsic factor loss and vitamin B12 malabsorption. Theoretically, proximal gastrectomy (PG) can mitigate these problems by preserving gastric function. However, PG with direct esophagogastric reconstruction is associated with severe postoperative reflux, delayed gastric emptying, and poor quality of life (QoL). Minimally invasive PG (MIPG) with antireflux techniques has been increasingly performed by experts but is technically demanding owing to its complexity. Moreover, the actual advantages of MIPG over minimally invasive TG (MITG) with regards to postoperative QoL are unknown. Our overall objective of this study is to determine the short-term QoL benefits of MIPG. Our central hypotheses are that MIPG is safe and that patients have improved appetite after MIPG with effective antireflux techniques, which leads to an overall QoL improvement when compared with MITG.MethodsEnrollment of a total of 60 patients in this prospective survey-collection study is expected. Procedures (MITG versus MIPG, antireflux techniques for MIPG [double-tract reconstruction versus the double-flap technique]) will be chosen based on surgeon and/or patient preference. Randomization is not considered feasible because patients often have strong preferences regarding MITG and MIPG. The primary outcome is appetite level (reported on a 0-10 scale) at 3 months after surgery. With an expected 30 patients per cohort (MITG versus MIPG), this study will have 80% power to detect a one-point difference in appetite level. Patient-reported outcomes will be longitudinally collected (including questions about appetite and reflux), and specific QoL items, body weight, body mass index and ghrelin, albumin, and hemoglobin levels will be compared.DiscussionSurgeons from the US, Japan, and South Korea formed this collaboration with the agreement that the surgical approach to P/GEJ cancers is an internationally important but controversial topic that requires immediate action. At the completion of the proposed research, our expected outcome is the establishment of the benefit and safety of MIPG.Trial registrationThis trial was registered with Clinical Trials Reporting Program Registration under the registration number NCI-2022-00267 on January 11, 2022, as well as with ClinicalTrials.gov under the registration number NCT05205343 on January 11, 2022.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and clinical effect of tubular esophagogastric anastomosis in laparoscopic radical proximal gastrectomy.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted involving 191 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical proximal gastrectomy in the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University from January 2017 to October 2020. Patients were divided into tubular esophagogastric anastomosis group (TG group) and traditional esophagogastric anastomosis group (EG group) according to the digestive tract reconstruction. Their intraoperative conditions, perioperative recovery and postoperative follow-up were compared. Patients were also divided into indocyanine green group and non-indocyanine green group according to whether or not indocyanine green tracer technology was used during the operation. Their intraoperative condition and perioperative recovery were compared and analyzed after propensity score matching.ResultsThe operation was successfully completed in all patients. Compared with the EG group, the TG group had less volume of gastric tube drainage, shorter gastric tube drainage time and proton pump inhibitors application time, and lower reuse rate of proton pump inhibitors. However, the TG group had a higher anastomotic stenosis at three months after surgery, as measured using anastomotic width and dysphagia score. Nevertheless, the incidence of reflux esophagitis and postoperative quality of life score in the TG group were lower compared with the EG group at 1st and 2nd year after surgery. In the indocyanine green analysis, the indocyanine green group had significantly shorter total operation time and lymph node dissection time and less intraoperative blood loss compared with the non-indocyanine green group. However, compared with the non-indocyanine green group, more postoperative lymph nodes were obtained in the indocyanine green group.ConclusionLaparoscopic radical proximal gastrectomy is safe and effective treatment option for upper gastric cancer. Tubular esophagogastric anastomosis has more advantages in restoring postoperative gastrointestinal function and reducing reflux, but it has a higher incidence of postoperative anastomotic stenosis compared with traditional esophagogastrostomy. The application of indocyanine green tracer technique in laparoscopic radical proximal gastrectomy has positive significance.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Compared with open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer has achieved rapid development and popularities in the past decades. However, lack of comprehensive analysis in long-term oncological outcomes such as recurrence and mortality hinder its full support as a valid procedure. Therefore, there are still debates on whether one of these options is superior. AIM:To evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients METHODS: Two authors independently extracted study data. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for binary outcomes, mean difference (MD) or the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes, and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. Review Manager 5.3 and STATA software were used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS:Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 5204 participants were included in this meta-analysis. There were no differences in the primary outcomes including the number of lymph nodes harvested during operation, severe complications, short-term and long-term recurrence, and mortality. As for secondary outcomes, compared with the OG group, longer operative time was required for patients in the LG group (MD?=?58.80?min, 95% CI?=?[45.80, 71.81], P?<?0.001), but there were less intraoperative blood loss (MD?=?-?54.93?ml, 95% CI?=?[-?81.60, -?28.26], P?<?0.001), less analgesic administration (frequency: MD?=?-?1.73, 95% CI?=?[-?2.21, -?1.24], P?<?0.001; duration: MD?=?-?1.26?days, 95% CI?=?[-?1.40, -?1.12], P?<?0.001), shorter hospital stay (MD?=?-?1.37?days, 95% CI?=?[-?2.05, -?0.70], P?<?0.001), shorter time to first flatus (MD?=?-?0.58?days, 95% CI?=?[-?0.79, -?0.37], P?<?0.001), ambulation (MD?=?-?0.50?days, 95% CI?=?[-?0.90, -?0.09], P?=?0.02) and oral intake (MD?=?-?0.64?days, 95% CI?=?[-?1.24, -?0.03], P?<?0.04), and less total complications (RR?=?0.81, 95% CI?=?[0.71, 0.93], P?=?0.003) in the OG group. There was no difference in blood transfusions (number, quantity) between these two groups. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and the adjustment of Duval's trim and fill methods for publication bias did not change the conclusions. CONCLUSION:LG was comparable to OG in the primary outcomes and had some advantages in secondary outcomes for gastric cancer patients. LG is superior to OG for gastric cancer patients.

Dataset Information

Proximal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer.

Publications

Proximal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets