Clinical efficacy and safety of double-channel anastomosis and tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis in gastrectomy
Bei-Ying Liu,Shuai Wu,Yu Xu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v16.i7.2012
2024-07-27
World J Gastrointest Surg
Abstract:Background: With the continuous progress of surgical technology and improvements in medical standards, the treatment of gastric cancer surgery is also evolving. Proximal gastrectomy is a common treatment, but double-channel anastomosis and tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis have attracted much attention in terms of surgical options. Each of these two surgical methods has advantages and disadvantages, so it is particularly important to compare and analyze their clinical efficacy and safety. Aim: To compare the surgical safety, clinical efficacy, and safety of double-channel anastomosis and tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis in proximal gastrectomy. Methods: The clinical and follow-up data of 99 patients with proximal gastric cancer who underwent proximal gastrectomy and were admitted to our hospital between January 2018 and September 2023 were included in this retrospective cohort study. According to the different anastomosis methods used, the patients were divided into a double-channel anastomosis group (50 patients) and a tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis group (49 patients). In the double-channel anastomosis, Roux-en-Y anastomosis of the esophagus and jejunum was performed after proximal gastric dissection, and then side-to-side anastomosis was performed between the residual stomach and jejunum to establish an antireflux barrier and reduce postoperative gastroesophageal reflux. In the tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis group, after the proximal end of the stomach was cut, tubular gastroplasty was performed on the distal stump of the stomach and a linear stapler was used to anastomose the posterior wall of the esophagus and the anterior wall of the stomach tube. The main outcome measure was quality of life 1 year after surgery in both groups, and the evaluation criteria were based on the postgastrectomy syndrome assessment scale. The greater the changes in body mass, food intake per meal, meal quality subscale score, and total measures of physical and mental health score, the better the condition; the greater the other indicators, the worse the condition. The secondary outcome measures were intraoperative and postoperative conditions, the incidence of postoperative long-term complications, and changes in nutritional status at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: In the double-channel anastomosis cohort, there were 35 males (70%) and 15 females (30%), 33 (66.0%) were under 65 years of age, and 37 (74.0%) had a body mass index ranging from 18 to 25 kg/m2. In the group undergoing tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis, there were eight females (16.3%), 21 (42.9%) individuals were under the age of 65 years, and 34 (69.4%) had a body mass index ranging from 18 to 25 kg/m2. The baseline data did not significantly differ between the two groups (P > 0.05 for all), with the exception of age (P = 0.021). The duration of hospitalization, number of lymph nodes dissected, intraoperative blood loss, and perioperative complication rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05 for all). Patients in the dual-channel anastomosis group scored better on quality of life measures than did those in the tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis group. Specifically, they had lower 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], total symptoms [2.3 (1.7, 2.7) vs 2.5 (2.2, 2.9), Z = 2.243, P = 0.025], and other aspects of quality of life. The postoperative symptoms [2.0 (1.0, 3.0) vs 2.0 (2.0, 3.0), Z = 2.127, P = 0.033], meals [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 all better than those of the tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis group. The group that underwent tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis had a superior anal exhaust score [3.0 (2.0, 4.0) vs 3.5 (2.0, 5.0) (Z = 2.345, P = 0.019] compared to the dual-channel anastomosis group. Hemoglobin, serum albumin, total serum protein, and the rate at which body mass decreased one year following surgery did not differ significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05 for all). Conclusion: The safety of double-channel anastomosis in proximal gastric cancer surgery is equivalent to that of tubular gastric surgery. Compared with tubular gastric surgery, double-channel anastomosis is a preferred surgical technique for proximal gastric cancer. It offers advantages such as less esophageal reflux and improved quality of life.