A Meta-analysis of tubular stomachversus whole stomach for digestive tract reconstruction
10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2015.02.029
- VernacularTitle:管状胃与全胃相比较行消化道重建的Meta分析
- Author:
Lanbo LIU
;
Hai QI
;
Shiyi ZHENG
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Esophageal Neoplasms;
Anastomotic Leak;
Esophagitis,Peptic
- From:
Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research
2015;(2):316-321
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND:Over the past 10 years, scholars have proposed the tubular stomach as an alternative to the whole stomach for digestive tract reconstruction; however, its occurrence rate of postoperative complications has been controversial. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the clinical efficacy of tubular stomach versus whole stomach for digestive tract reconstruction in the resection of esophageal carcinoma. METHODS: The randomized controled trials about tubular stomach for digestive tract reconstruction in the resection of esophageal carcinoma were searched from PubMed, OVID, CNKI, EBSCO, Science online, Wangfang, Super Star Digital Library, CMB, Baidu and Google search engines. Two searchers screened studies based on the included criteria strictly. Literature quality and bias risk were assessed according to the criteria of Cochrane Colaboration, GRADEprofiler3.6.1 software was used for evaluation of the quality grade, and Revman5.3 for data management and statistical analysis. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:Totaly 12 randomized controled trials including 4 137 patients were enroled. Compared with the whole stomach group, in the tubular stomach group, the incidences of reflux esophagitis and thoracic stomach syndrome were significantly lower, but there was no difference in the incidences of anastomotic leakage and anastomotic stenosis between the two groups. These findings indicate that the tubular stomach as a substitute of the whole stomach for digestive tract reconstruction in the resection of esophageal carcinoma is a safe and effective. However, the literatures included are only in English and Chinese, and there is publication bias and smal sample size. Therefore, the large-sample high-quality clinical randomized controled trials are stil needed for further confirmation.
