These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Safety and short-term outcomes of a modified valvuloplastic esophagogastrostomy versus gastric tube anastomosis after laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy: a retrospective cohort study.
    Author: Li B, Wang Y, Wu Z, Shan F, Li S, Jia Y, Miao R, Li Z, Xue K, Yan C, Li S, Ji J, Li Z.
    Journal: Surg Endosc; 2024 Mar; 38(3):1523-1532. PubMed ID: 38272976.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: There is no optimal reconstruction method after proximal gastrectomy. The valvuloplastic esophagogastrostomy can reduce postoperative reflux esophagitis, but it is technically complex with a long operation time. The gastric tube anastomosis is technically simple, but the incidences of reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stricture are higher. METHODS: We have devised a modified valvuloplastic esophagogastrostomy after laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy (LAPG), the arch-bridge anastomosis. After reviewing our prospectively maintained gastric cancer database, 43 patients who underwent LAPG from November 2021 to April 2023 were included in this cohort study, with 25 patients received the arch-bridge anastomosis and 18 patients received gastric tube anastomosis. The short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups to evaluate the efficacy of the arch-bridge anastomosis. Reporting was consistent with the STROCSS 2021 guideline. RESULTS: The median operation time was 180 min in the arch-bridge group, significantly shorter than the gastric tube group (p = 0.003). In the arch-bridge group, none of the 25 patients experienced anastomotic leakage, while one patient (4%) experienced anastomotic stricture requiring endoscopic balloon dilation. The postoperative length of stay was shorter in the arch-bridge group (9 vs. 11, p = 0.034). None of the patients in the arch-bridge group experienced gastroesophageal reflux and used proton pump inhibitor (PPI), while four (22.2%) patients in the gastric tube group used PPI (p = 0.025). The incidence of reflux esophagitis (Los Angeles grade B or more severe) by endoscopy was lower in the arch-bridge group (0% vs. 25.0%). CONCLUSION: The arch-bridge anastomosis is a safe, time-saving, and feasible reconstruction method. It can reduce postoperative reflux and anastomotic stricture incidences in a selected cohort of patients undergoing laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]