Hosoda Kei, Washio Marie, Mieno Hiroaki, Moriya Hiromitsu, Ema Akira, Ushiku Hideki, Watanabe Masahiko, Yamashita Keishi
Department of Surgery, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Kitasato 1-15-1, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, 252-0374, Japan.
Division of Advanced Surgical Oncology, Research and Development Center for New Medical Frontiers, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Sagamihara, Japan.
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2019 Feb;404(1):81-91. doi: 10.1007/s00423-018-1743-5. Epub 2019 Jan 5.
Laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy (LAPG) with esophagogastrostomy using the double-flap technique has been reported to rarely cause gastroesophageal reflux. However, quantitative evaluation of the reflux has hardly been performed. The aim of this study was to clarify the superiority of the double-flap technique of LAPG with esophagogastrostomy compared with the OrVil technique in terms of preventing gastroesophageal reflux.
A total of 40 and 51 patients who underwent LAPG with esophagogastrostomy using the double-flap and OrVil techniques, respectively, for upper one-third gastric cancer were included in this study. Of these, 22 and 13 patients in the double-flap and OrVil groups, respectively, consented to undergo a 24-h impedance-pH monitoring test at 3 months postoperatively. Postoperative complications, including gastroesophageal reflux and anastomotic stricture, were assessed retrospectively.
No significant differences were observed in the patients' background between both groups, except for a higher D1+ dissection rate observed in double-flap group than in the OrVil group (93% vs 25%, P < 0.001). Operative time was significantly longer in the double-flap group than in the OrVil group (353 min vs 280 min, P < 0.001). All reflux % time was significantly lower in the double-flap group than in the OrVil group (1.29% vs 2.62%, P = 0.043). On the other hand, the proportion of anastomotic stricture requiring endoscopic balloon dilatation was lower in the double-flap group than in the OrVil group but without statistical significance (18% vs 27%; P = 0.32).
Despite its longer operative time and still relatively high anastomotic stricture rate, the double-flap technique would be better than the OrVil technique in terms of preventing gastroesophageal reflux in patients who underwent LAPG with esophagogastrostomy.
据报道,采用双瓣技术行腹腔镜辅助近端胃切除术(LAPG)并进行食管胃吻合术很少引起胃食管反流。然而,对反流情况的定量评估却鲜有开展。本研究的目的是阐明在预防胃食管反流方面,LAPG采用双瓣技术行食管胃吻合术相较于OrVil技术的优势。
本研究纳入了分别采用双瓣技术和OrVil技术行LAPG并进行食管胃吻合术治疗上1/3胃癌的40例和51例患者。其中,双瓣组和OrVil组分别有22例和13例患者同意在术后3个月接受24小时阻抗 - pH监测测试。回顾性评估术后并发症,包括胃食管反流和吻合口狭窄。
两组患者的背景情况未观察到显著差异,但双瓣组的D1 + 淋巴结清扫率高于OrVil组(93% 对25%,P < 0.001)。双瓣组的手术时间显著长于OrVil组(353分钟对280分钟,P < 0.001)。双瓣组的所有反流时间百分比显著低于OrVil组(1.29% 对2.62%,P = 0.043)。另一方面,双瓣组需要内镜下球囊扩张的吻合口狭窄比例低于OrVil组,但无统计学意义(18% 对27%;P = 0.32)。
尽管双瓣技术手术时间较长且吻合口狭窄率仍相对较高,但在接受LAPG并进行食管胃吻合术的患者中,在预防胃食管反流方面,双瓣技术优于OrVil技术。