Search

Background: Surgical procedures for proximal gastric cancer remain a highly debated topic. Total gastrectomy (TG) is widely accepted as a standard radical surgery. However, subtotal esophagectomy, proximal gastrectomy (PG) or even subtotal gastrectomy, when a small upper portion of the stomach can technically be preserved, are alternatives in current clinical practice. Methods: Using a cohort of the PGSAS NEXT trial, consisting of 1909 patients responding to a questionnaire sent to 70 institutions between July 2018 and December 2019, gastrectomy type, reconstruction method, and furthermore the remnant stomach size and the anti-reflux procedures for PG were evaluated. Results: TG was the procedure most commonly performed (63.0%), followed by PG (33.4%). Roux-en-Y was preferentially employed following TG irrespective of esophageal tumor invasion, while jejunal pouch was adopted in 8.5% of cases with an abdominal esophageal stump. Esophagogastrostomy was most commonly selected after PG, followed by the double-tract method. The former was preferentially employed for larger remnant stomachs (≧3/4), while being used slightly less often for tumors with as compared to those without esophageal invasion in cases with a remnant stomach 2/3 the size of the original stomach. Application of the double-tract method gradually increased as the remnant stomach size decreased. Anti-reflux procedures following esophagogastrostomy varied markedly. Conclusions: TG is the mainstream and PG remains an alternative in current Japanese clinical practice for proximal gastric cancer. Remnant stomach size and esophageal stump location appear to influence the choice of reconstruction method following PG.

Aim: An innovative method of digestive tract reconstruction following proximal gastrectomy, the uncut interposed jejunum pouch, esophagus and residual stomach double anastomosis(Uncut-D), was established in recent years. In order to fully clarify the superiority of the procedure, this study has conducted a systematic analysis and thorough discussion. Methods: 118 patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction who underwent proximal gastrectomy were enrolled in this study. According to the methods of digestive tract reconstruction, these patients were divided into three groups: Uncut-D(n = 43), esophagogastrostomy (EG, n = 36), jejunal interposition (JI, n = 39).The preoperative indicators, surgical complications and related indicators of postoperative quality of life were analyzed. Results: There were no significant differences in preoperative data among all groups (P > 0.05); The digestive tract reconstruction time in Uncut-D group was more than that in EG group, and less than that in JI group (P

An innovative method of digestive tract reconstruction following proximal gastrectomy, the uncut interposed jejunum pouch, esophagus and residual stomach double anastomosis(Uncut-D), was established in recent years. In order to fully clarify the superiority of the procedure, this study has conducted a systematic analysis and thorough discussion. 118 patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction who underwent proximal gastrectomy were enrolled in this study. According to the methods of digestive tract reconstruction, these patients were divided into three groups: Uncut-D(n = 43), esophagogastrostomy (EG, n = 36), jejunal interposition (JI, n = 39).The preoperative indicators, surgical complications and related indicators of postoperative quality of life were analyzed. There were no significant differences in preoperative data among all groups (P > 0.05); The digestive tract reconstruction time in Uncut-D group was more than that in EG group, and less than that in JI group (P < 0.05). The incidence of esophageal anastomotic stenosis in Uncut-D group was significantly lower than that in EG group (P < 0.05); In Uncut-D group, the incidence of reflux esophagitis, postoperative nutrition index(PNI), weight recovery and Visick classification were significantly better than those in EG group (P < 0.05), furthermore, the incidence of delayed gastric emptying,PNI and weight recovery were better than those in JI group (P < 0.05). The Uncut-D procedure gave full play to jejunal continuity and the advantages of pouch, and played a valuable role in gastric and cardiac replacement, which significantly reduced long-term complications, improved postoperative nutritional status of patients and long-term quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surgical procedures for proximal gastric cancer remain a highly debated topic. Total gastrectomy (TG) is widely accepted as a standard radical surgery. However, subtotal esophagectomy, proximal gastrectomy (PG) or even subtotal gastrectomy, when a small upper portion of the stomach can technically be preserved, are alternatives in current clinical practice. Using a cohort of the PGSAS NEXT trial, consisting of 1909 patients responding to a questionnaire sent to 70 institutions between July 2018 and December 2019, gastrectomy type, reconstruction method, and furthermore the remnant stomach size and the anti-reflux procedures for PG were evaluated. TG was the procedure most commonly performed (63.0%), followed by PG (33.4%). Roux-en-Y was preferentially employed following TG irrespective of esophageal tumor invasion, while jejunal pouch was adopted in 8.5% of cases with an abdominal esophageal stump. Esophagogastrostomy was most commonly selected after PG, followed by the double-tract method. The former was preferentially employed for larger remnant stomachs (≧3/4), while being used slightly less often for tumors with as compared to those without esophageal invasion in cases with a remnant stomach 2/3 the size of the original stomach. Application of the double-tract method gradually increased as the remnant stomach size decreased. Anti-reflux procedures following esophagogastrostomy varied markedly. TG is the mainstream and PG remains an alternative in current Japanese clinical practice for proximal gastric cancer. Remnant stomach size and esophageal stump location appear to influence the choice of reconstruction method following PG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the double flap technique effectively reduces the incidence of postoperative reflux esophagitis and anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic gastrectomy, its clinical application is restricted because the procedure is technical complex. We devised a modified esophagogastric reconstructive method which we termed the "arch-bridge-type" reconstruction. This reconstruction method was performed for a 71-year-old man, who was admitted to our hospital with the diagnosis of cT2N0 upper gastric cancer. The present study reported the surgical details and accompanied with the video. The patient underwent surgery successfully without switching to open surgery. The total operation time was 203 min, the time for making the "arch-bridge" was 16 min, and the time for esophagogastric anastomosis under laparoscopy was 23 min. No surgery-related complications occurred. The postoperative hospital stay was 10 days. The upper GI radiography demonstrated that the anastomosis was not narrow and no extravasation of contrast agent was observed. The gastroscopy found no reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis 1 year after surgery. The "arch-bridge-type" reconstruction method is safe and time saving. It has advantages in simplifying the procedure of conventional double flap technique and reducing postoperative complications after proximal gastrectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whether proximal gastrectomy (PG) can be applied to patients with proximal advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains controversial. We aimed to explore the oncological safety of PG for proximal AGC in this study. Methods: 452 patients undergoing surgery for proximal AGC in the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University were enrolled in this study. 329 patients with AGC were finally analyzed, of which 254 patients underwent total gastrectomy (TG) and 75 patients underwent PG. We used propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis to reduce biases. Results: After PSM, 67 patients with proximal AGC were included in the PG group and TG group, respectively. The estimated 5-year OS rates for TG and PG group after PSM were 64.3% and 74.9%, respectively, and no significant difference in OS existed between the two groups (p = 0.275). Multivariate analysis showed that PG was not an independent prognostic factor. Incidence of metastasis in No.5 or 6 lymph node (LN) station was significantly higher in the patients with pathological T4 and Borrmann III tumors (9.9% and 10.6%) than those with pathological T2/3 and Borrmann I/II tumors (2.2% and 3.3%). No metastasis was observed in No.5 or 6 LN station in patients with pathological T2/3 tumors or Borrmann I/II tumors when tumor size was ≤4 cm. Conclusions: PG is a reasonable choice for patients with selected proximal AGC, especially for those with tumors of size ≤4 cm, Borrmann type I/II, and pathological T2/3. Future prospective randomized trials should be conducted first in patients with these specific proximal tumors.

Although proximal gastrectomy (PG) is a function-preserving surgical option, it remains unclear as to which reconstruction method can prevent reflux and maintain body composition. Patients who underwent PG at Keio University between April 2011 and November 2018 were analyzed. Changes in the subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissues were comparatively assessed before and after a year of surgery for three common reconstruction methods. We also compared the endoscopic findings of reflux esophagitis and the number of patients prescribed with proton-pump inhibitor after a year of surgery. This study included 76 patients, of which 33 patients underwent esophagogastrostomy with a circular stapler (CS), 35 under double flap (DF) reconstruction, and 8 underwent double tract (DT) reconstruction. Comparing esophagogastrostomy (CS and DF) and DT showed that esophagogastrostomy could significantly preserve both subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissues (P < 0.001 and P = 0.04, respectively). However, the change in the subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissues was comparable between CS and DF. As for reflux esophagitis, DF showed the lowest incidence rate for esophagitis and the least number of patients who were prescribed a proton-pump inhibitor. DF is a relatively better reconstruction method for preserving fat mass and preventing reflux among the three common reconstruction methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whether proximal gastrectomy (PG) can be applied to patients with proximal advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains controversial. We aimed to explore the oncological safety of PG for proximal AGC in this study. 452 patients undergoing surgery for proximal AGC in the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University were enrolled in this study. 329 patients with AGC were finally analyzed, of which 254 patients underwent total gastrectomy (TG) and 75 patients underwent PG. We used propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis to reduce biases. After PSM, 67 patients with proximal AGC were included in the PG group and TG group, respectively. The estimated 5-year OS rates for TG and PG group after PSM were 64.3% and 74.9%, respectively, and no significant difference in OS existed between the two groups (p = 0.275). Multivariate analysis showed that PG was not an independent prognostic factor. Incidence of metastasis in No.5 or 6 lymph node (LN) station was significantly higher in the patients with pathological T4 and Borrmann III tumors (9.9% and 10.6%) than those with pathological T2/3 and Borrmann I/II tumors (2.2% and 3.3%). No metastasis was observed in No.5 or 6 LN station in patients with pathological T2/3 tumors or Borrmann I/II tumors when tumor size was ≤4 cm. PG is a reasonable choice for patients with selected proximal AGC, especially for those with tumors of size ≤4 cm, Borrmann type I/II, and pathological T2/3. Future prospective randomized trials should be conducted first in patients with these specific proximal tumors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The incidence of proximal gastric cancer has been increasing continuously. This status has prevailed despite the application of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy as a surgical treatment for early proximal gastric cancer. The widespread adoption and standardization of this surgical procedure as the primary treatment for the abovementioned cancer has been hampered by the lack of consensus on the optimal reconstruction method after proximal gastrectomy. In addition, the oncological safety of proximal gastrectomy for advanced gastric disease remains unclear. We reviewed the English-language literature to clarify the current status of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy in proximal gastric cancer. Japanese gastric cancer guidelines have suggested three types of reconstructions for proximal gastrectomy, namely, esophagogastrostomy, double-tract reconstruction, and jejunal interposition. Optimal reconstruction methods remain to be determined because of the lack of adequately performed and well-designed randomized controlled trials. The technical complexity and challenging implementation of reconstruction procedures have resulted in several complications with anastomoses. Multicenter randomized controlled trials are necessary to evaluate the various reconstruction methods and the oncological safety of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy for advanced gastric disease.

The incidence of proximal gastric cancer has been increasing continuously. This status has prevailed despite the application of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy as a surgical treatment for early proximal gastric cancer. The widespread adoption and standardization of this surgical procedure as the primary treatment for the abovementioned cancer has been hampered by the lack of consensus on the optimal reconstruction method after proximal gastrectomy. In addition, the oncological safety of proximal gastrectomy for advanced gastric disease remains unclear. We reviewed the English-language literature to clarify the current status of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy in proximal gastric cancer. Japanese gastric cancer guidelines have suggested three types of reconstructions for proximal gastrectomy, namely, esophagogastrostomy, double-tract reconstruction, and jejunal interposition. Optimal reconstruction methods remain to be determined because of the lack of adequately performed and well-designed randomized controlled trials. The technical complexity and challenging implementation of reconstruction procedures have resulted in several complications with anastomoses. Multicenter randomized controlled trials are necessary to evaluate the various reconstruction methods and the oncological safety of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy for advanced gastric disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]