Comparison of quality-of-life after proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction versus gastric tube reconstruction in patients with proximal gastric cancer
10.3760/cma.j.cn441530-20230204-00026
- VernacularTitle:近端胃切除双通道吻合与管型胃食管吻合手术后生活质量的比较
- Author:
Hengfei GAO
1
;
Liang TAO
;
Linsen BAO
;
Feng WANG
;
Song LIU
;
Xiaofeng LU
;
Meng WANG
Author Information
1. 南京大学医学院附属鼓楼医院普通外科，南京 210008
- Keywords:
Stomach neoplasms;
Proximal gastrectomy;
Reconstruction;
Double tract reconstruction;
Gastric tube gastric reconstruction;
Complications;
Quality of life
- From:
Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
2023;26(12):1162-1170
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the surgical safety and postoperative quality of life between proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction (PG-DT) and proximal gastrectomy with gastric tube reconstruction (PG-GT) for proximal gastric cancer.Methods:This was a retrospective cohort study of clinical and follow-up data of 99 patients with proximal gastric cancer who had undergone double tract or gastric tube surgery in Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital from January 2016 to September 2021. We allocated them to two groups according to surgical procedure, namely a double tract group (PG-DT, 50 patients) and gastric tube group (PG-GT, 49 patients). Proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction entails constructing a Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy after severing the proximal stomach, and then constructing a side-to-side anastomosis between the residual stomach and the jejunum to establish an anti-reflux barrier and thus minimize postoperative gastroesophageal reflux. Proximal gastrectomy with gastric tube reconstruction entails severing the proximal gastric stomach, constructing a tubular shaped gastric remnant, and then using a linear stapler to directly anastomose the posterior wall of the esophagus to the anterior wall of the resultant gastric tube. The primary end point was the quality of life of the two groups 1 year postoperatively (post-gastrectomy syndrome assessment scale: the higher the scores for change in body mass, food intake per meal, meal quality subscale, total physical health measurement, and total mental health measurement, the better the quality-of-life, and the higher the scores for other indicators, the worse the quality-of-life). The secondary end points were intraoperative and postoperative status, changes in nutritional status 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, and long-term postoperative complications (gastroesophageal reflux, anastomotic stenosis, intestinal obstruction, and gastric emptying disorder 1 year postoperatively).Results:In the PG-DT group, there were 35 (70%) men and 15 (30%) women, 33 (66.0%) patients were aged <65 years, and 37 (74.0%) of them had a body mass index of 18–25 kg/m 2; whereas in the PG-GT group, there were 41 (83.7%) men and eight (16.3%) women, 21 (42.9%) patients aged <65 years, and 34 (69.4%) patients with a body mass index of 18–25 kg/m 2. There were no significant differences in baseline data between the two groups except for age ( P=0.021). There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph node dissected, length of hospital stay, and incidence of perioperative complications between the two groups (all P>0.05). Compared with the PG-GT group, the incidence and severity of postoperative reflux esophagitis were significantly lower in the PG-DT group (4.0% [2/50] vs. 26.5% [13/49], χ 2=13.507, P=0.009). The incidences of postoperative anastomotic stenosis, intestinal obstruction, and gastric retention did not differ significantly between the two groups (all P>0.05). Patients in the PG-DT group had better quality-of-life scores for esophageal reflux (2.8 [2.3,4.0] vs. 4.8 [3.8,5.0], Z=3.489, P<0.001), eating discomfort (2.7 [1.7,3.0] vs. 3.3 [2.7,4.0 ], Z=3.393, P=0.001), and total symptoms (2.3 [1.7,2.7] vs. 2.5 [2.2,2.9], Z=2.243, P=0.025) than those in the gastric tube group; The scores for postoperative symptoms (2.0 [1.0,3.0] vs. 2.0 [2.0, 3.0], Z=2.127, P=0.033), meals consumed (2.0 [1.0, 2.0] vs. 2.0 [2.0, 3.0], Z=3.976, P<0.001), work (1.0 [1.0, 2.0] vs. 2.0 [1.0, 2.0], Z=2.279, P=0.023] and daily life (1.7 [1.3, 2.0] vs. 2.0 [2.0, 2.3], Z=3.950, P<0.001) were better in the PG-DT than the PG-GT group. Patients in the PG-GT group scored better than those in the PG-DT group for somatic symptoms, such as anal evacuation (3.0 [2.0, 4.0] vs. 3.5 [2.0, 5.0], Z=2.345, P=0.019). There were no significant differences in hemoglobin, serum albumin, serum total protein, or weight loss 1 year postoperatively between the two groups (all P>0.05). Conclusions:The safety of double tract anastomosis for proximal gastric cancer is comparable to that of gastric tube surgery. Compared with gastric tube surgery, double tract anastomosis achieves less esophageal reflux and better quality of life, making it a preferable surgical procedure for proximal gastric cancer.
