Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, 52 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
BMC Cancer. 2024 Jan 10;24(1):56. doi: 10.1186/s12885-024-11827-4.
The optimal reconstruction method after proximal gastrectomy remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term outcomes and long-term quality of life of various reconstruction methods.
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched to identify comparative studies concerning the reconstruction methods after proximal gastrectomy. The reconstruction methods were classified into six groups: double tract reconstruction (DTR), esophagogastrostomy (EG), gastric tube reconstruction (GT), jejunal interposition (JI), jejunal pouch interposition (JPI) and double flap technique (DFT). Esophagogastric anastomosis group (EG group) included EG, GT and DFT, while esophagojejunal anastomosis group (EJ group) included DTR, JI and JPI.
A total of 27 studies with 2410 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results indicated that the incidences of reflux esophagitis of DTR, EG, GT, JI, JPI and DFT were 7.6%, 27.3%, 4.5%, 7.1%, 14.0%, and 9.1%, respectively. The EG group had more reflux esophagitis (OR = 3.68, 95%CI 2.44-5.57, P < 0.00001) and anastomotic stricture (OR = 1.58, 95%CI 1.02-2.45, P = 0.04) than the EJ group. But the EG group showed shorter operation time (MD=-56.34, 95%CI -76.75- -35.94, P < 0.00001), lesser intraoperative blood loss (MD=-126.52, 95%CI -187.91- -65.12, P < 0.0001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD=-2.07, 95%CI -3.66- -0.48, P = 0.01). Meanwhile, the EG group had fewer postoperative complications (OR = 0.68, 95%CI 0.51-0.90, P = 0.006) and lesser weight loss (MD=-1.25, 95%CI -2.11- -0.39, P = 0.004). For specific reconstruction methods, there were lesser reflux esophagitis (OR = 0.10, 95%CI 0.06-0.18, P < 0.00001) and anastomotic stricture (OR = 0.14, 95%CI 0.06-0.33, P < 0.00001) in DTR than the esophagogastrostomy. DTR and esophagogastrostomy showed no significant difference in anastomotic leakage (OR = 1.01, 95%CI 0.34-3.01, P = 0.98).
Esophagojejunal anastomosis after proximal gastrectomy can reduce the incidences of reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stricture, while esophagogastric anastomosis has advantages in technical simplicity and long-term weight status. Double tract reconstruction is a safe technique with excellent anti-reflux effectiveness and favorable quality of life.
This meta-analysis was registered on the PROSPERO (CRD42022381357).
近端胃切除术后的最佳重建方法仍不清楚。本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在比较各种重建方法的短期结果和长期生活质量。
检索 PubMed、Embase、Web of Science 和 Cochrane Library,以确定与近端胃切除术后重建方法相关的比较研究。重建方法分为六组:双管重建(DTR)、食管胃吻合术(EG)、胃管重建(GT)、空肠间置(JI)、空肠袋间置(JPI)和双瓣技术(DFT)。食管胃吻合组(EG 组)包括 EG、GT 和 DFT,而食管空肠吻合组(EJ 组)包括 DTR、JI 和 JPI。
共纳入 27 项研究,共 2410 例患者。荟萃分析结果表明,DTR、EG、GT、JI、JPI 和 DFT 的反流性食管炎发生率分别为 7.6%、27.3%、4.5%、7.1%、14.0%和 9.1%。EG 组反流性食管炎(OR=3.68,95%CI 2.44-5.57,P<0.00001)和吻合口狭窄(OR=1.58,95%CI 1.02-2.45,P=0.04)的发生率均高于 EJ 组。但 EG 组手术时间更短(MD=-56.34,95%CI -76.75- -35.94,P<0.00001),术中出血量更少(MD=-126.52,95%CI -187.91- -65.12,P<0.0001),术后住院时间更短(MD=-2.07,95%CI -3.66- -0.48,P=0.01)。同时,EG 组术后并发症更少(OR=0.68,95%CI 0.51-0.90,P=0.006),体重减轻更少(MD=-1.25,95%CI -2.11- -0.39,P=0.004)。对于特定的重建方法,DTR 组的反流性食管炎(OR=0.10,95%CI 0.06-0.18,P<0.00001)和吻合口狭窄(OR=0.14,95%CI 0.06-0.33,P<0.00001)发生率均低于食管胃吻合术。DTR 和食管胃吻合术在吻合口漏方面无显著差异(OR=1.01,95%CI 0.34-3.01,P=0.98)。
近端胃切除术后食管空肠吻合可降低反流性食管炎和吻合口狭窄的发生率,而食管胃吻合术在技术简单性和长期体重状况方面具有优势。双管重建是一种安全的技术,具有良好的抗反流效果和良好的生活质量。
本荟萃分析已在 PROSPERO(CRD42022381357)上注册。