2020 Volume 63 Issue 4 Pages 335-342
Background The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative complications and nutritional status between esophagogastrostomy and double-tract reconstruction in patients who underwent laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy, and assess the advantages of both surgical procedures.
Methods Between 2010 and 2018, 47 cases underwent proximal gastrectomy with esophagogastrostomy (n = 23) or double-tract reconstruction (n = 24) at our institution for the treatment of clinical T1N0 adenocarcinoma located in the upper third of the stomach. Patient clinical characteristics, short-term outcomes, nutrition status, and skeletal muscle index were compared among the two groups.
Results There was no significant difference between esophagogastrostomy and double-tract reconstruction in terms of operation time, blood loss, and length of postoperative hospital stay. Reflux symptoms and anastomotic stenosis were significantly higher in the esophagogastrostomy group compared with the double-tract reconstruction group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively). There was no significant difference in anastomotic leakage, surgical site infection, and pancreatic fistula. For the nutritional status, the decrease rate of cholinesterase was significantly higher in the esophagogastrostomy group compared with the double-tract reconstruction group at 6 months (P = 0.008) There was no significant difference in the decrease rate of skeletal muscle mass index at 1 year after surgery.
Conclusion Compared with esophagogastrostomy, double-tract reconstruction tends to have better short-term nutritional status and postoperative outcomes in terms of preventing the occurrence of gastroesophageal reflux and anastomosis stenosis. These findings suggest that double-tract reconstruction may be a useful method in laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy.