[Comparison of quality-of-life after proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction versus gastric tube reconstruction in patients with proximal gastric cancer].

Objective: To compare the surgical safety and postoperative quality of life between proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction (PG-DT) and proximal gastrectomy with gastric tube reconstruction (PG-GT) for proximal gastric cancer. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of clinical and follow-up data of 99 patients with proximal gastric cancer who had undergone double tract or gastric tube surgery in Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital from January 2016 to September 2021. We allocated them to two groups according to surgical procedure, namely a double tract group (PG-DT, 50 patients) and gastric tube group (PG-GT, 49 patients). Proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction entails constructing a Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy after severing the proximal stomach, and then constructing a side-to-side anastomosis between the residual stomach and the jejunum to establish an anti-reflux barrier and thus minimize postoperative gastroesophageal reflux. Proximal gastrectomy with gastric tube reconstruction entails severing the proximal gastric stomach, constructing a tubular shaped gastric remnant, and then using a linear stapler to directly anastomose the posterior wall of the esophagus to the anterior wall of the resultant gastric tube. The primary end point was the quality of life of the two groups 1 year postoperatively (post-gastrectomy syndrome assessment scale: the higher the scores for change in body mass, food intake per meal, meal quality subscale, total physical health measurement, and total mental health measurement, the better the quality-of-life, and the higher the scores for other indicators, the worse the quality-of-life). The secondary end points were intraoperative and postoperative status, changes in nutritional status 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, and long-term postoperative complications (gastroesophageal reflux, anastomotic stenosis, intestinal obstruction, and gastric emptying disorder 1 year postoperatively). Results: In the PG-DT group, there were 35 (70%) men and 15 (30%) women, 33 (66.0%) patients were aged <65 years, and 37 (74.0%) of them had a body mass index of 18-25 kg/m2; whereas in the PG-GT group, there were 41 (83.7%) men and eight (16.3%) women, 21 (42.9%) patients aged <65 years, and 34 (69.4%) patients with a body mass index of 18-25 kg/m2. There were no significant differences in baseline data between the two groups except for age (P=0.021). There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph node dissected, length of hospital stay, and incidence of perioperative complications between the two groups (all P>0.05). Compared with the PG-GT group, the incidence and severity of postoperative reflux esophagitis were significantly lower in the PG-DT group (4.0% [2/50] vs. 26.5% [13/49], χ2=13.507, P=0.009). The incidences of postoperative anastomotic stenosis, intestinal obstruction, and gastric retention did not differ significantly between the two groups (all P>0.05). Patients in the PG-DT group had better quality-of-life 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), and total symptoms (2.3 [1.7,2.7] vs. 2.5 [2.2,2.9], Z=2.243, P=0.025) than those in the gastric tube group; The scores for postoperative symptoms (2.0 [1.0,3.0] vs. 2.0 [2.0, 3.0], Z=2.127, P=0.033), meals consumed (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 better in the PG-DT than the PG-GT group. Patients in the PG-GT group scored better than those in the PG-DT group for somatic symptoms, such as anal evacuation (3.0 [2.0, 4.0] vs. 3.5 [2.0, 5.0], Z=2.345, P=0.019). There were no significant differences in hemoglobin, serum albumin, serum total protein, or weight loss 1 year postoperatively between the two groups (all P>0.05). Conclusions: The safety of double tract anastomosis for proximal gastric cancer is comparable to that of gastric tube surgery. Compared with gastric tube surgery, double tract anastomosis achieves less esophageal reflux and better quality of life, making it a preferable surgical procedure for proximal gastric cancer.

Gastric remnant cancer and long-term survival in Central Norway 2001 to 2016 - A population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: Gastric remnant cancer (GRC) has been defined as a distinct clinical entity and is reported to account for 1-8% of all gastric cancers. We aimed to characterize GRC patients and assess survival in a Western population. METHODS: Retrospective population-based cohort study including 1217 patients diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma in Central Norway 2001-2016. GRCs (n = 78) defined as adenocarcinomas arising in the residual stomach after distal gastrectomy were compared to non-GRC (n = 1139) and to proximal non-GRC (n = 595). RESULTS: 78 (6.4 %) gastric cancers were GRC. The annual number and proportion of GRC declined during the study period (p = 0.003). Median latency from distal gastrectomy to GRC diagnosis was 37.6 years (15.7-68.0) and previous Billroth II reconstruction was most common (87.7%). Compared to controls, GRC patients were more frequently males (83.3%), diagnosed in earlier TNM stages and were older at diagnosis. A smaller proportion of GRC patients received perioperative or palliative chemotherapy, but the R0/R1resection rate of 41.0% was no different from non-GRC patients. Overall median survival for GRC patients irrespective of treatment was 7.0 months, which did not differ from non-GRCs or proximal non-GRC. In multivariate analyses TNM stage and age were independently associated with mortality, whereas GRC per se was not. CONCLUSIONS: Numbers of GRCs declined during the study period, but the latency between distal gastrectomy and GRC diagnosis was long. GRC patients were more frequently male and older than other gastric cancer patients. GRC was not independently associated with survival after adjusting for TNM stage and tumor location.

Robotic Splenic Vessels Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy in a Post-Distal Gastrectomy Patient.

BACKGROUND: The optimal procedure during distal pancreatectomy (DP) for patients who have undergone distal gastrectomy (DG) remains unclear. Several papers on remnant gastric ischemia have reported that the preserved splenic vessels are essential for the proximal remnant stomach.1-4 We evaluated the outcomes of DP for post-DG patients in our hospital and introduced robotic splenic vessels preserving DP (R-SPDP). METHODS: Postoperative short-term outcomes of DP for post-DG patients during 2014 and 2021 were evaluated. Next, R-SPDP was performed for a post-DG patient with the intention of preserving the remnant stomach safely. The double bipolar method was used to dissect the adhesions around the splenic vessels.5,6 The splenic artery was clamped at the root side to prevent bleeding.7 All short gastric arteries and veins, which were the main feeders of the remnant stomach, were preserved and resection was completed. After resection, the indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence angiography confirmed blood flow in the short gastric arteries and veins and good return blood flow to the splenic vein.8 RESULTS: Of four patients (50.0%, of 8 DP patients) in whom the remnant stomach was preserved, one conventional DP case had poor ICG perfusion and presented with remnant stomach ischemia postoperatively. The R-SPDP case with good ICG perfusion had a total operation time of 371 minutes and intraoperative blood loss of 10 mL. The oral diet was started on postoperative Day 3, and the postoperative course was uneventful. CONCLUSIONS: R-SPDP can be a good option for post-DG patients to preserve the remnant stomach safely.

Surgical treatment of gastric stump carcinoma after Whipple procedure: A case report.

RATIONALE: Gastric stump carcinoma (GSC) is very exceptional and little known after Whipple procedure, and its diagnosis and treatment are extremely difficult to handle. PATIENT CONCERNS: The patient, a 68-year-old man, visited our hospital's General surgery outpatient clinic complaining of upper abdominal pain that had been bothering him for half a month. The endoscopy revealed lesions in the stomach residual, and the pathological results suggested adenocarcinoma. The patient underwent Whipple procedure for periampullary adenocarcinoma in the 4th year ago. DIAGNOSES: The final diagnosis was gastric adenocarcinoma and its pathological stage was Ⅱ A (T3N0M0). INTERVENTIONS: The patient underwent stump gastrectomy and end-to-side esophagojejunostomy (Roux-en-Y reconstruction). OUTCOMES: The operation went smoothly and the patient recovered well with only mild bloating and nausea, and the symptoms completely disappeared during the hospital stay. LESSONS: The development of GSC several years after Whipple procedure is uncommon. This is the first case from China that has received international attention. Early diagnosis is crucial. Surgery is considered to be the most effective treatment for GSC after Whipple procedure if long-term survival is possible and surgical risks are controllable.

Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor in the Excluded Gastric Remnant After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumors of the GI tract. Despite this, they rarely occur, accounting for only 1% to 3% of all gastrointestinal tumors. This report describes a 53-year-old female patient with surgical history of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) who presented with right upper quadrant abdominal pain. CT imaging revealed a large 20 × 12 × 16 cm mass in the excluded stomach remnant. Ultrasound-guided biopsy confirmed this mass to be a GIST. The patient was treated surgically with exploratory laparotomy with distal pancreatectomy, partial colectomy, partial gastrectomy, and splenectomy. There are currently only 3 known reported cases of GISTs after RYGB.

Accurate intraoperative real-time blood flow assessment of the remnant stomach during robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection using indocyanine green fluorescence imaging and da Vinci Firefly technology.

INTRODUCTION: Ischemic gastropathy is one of the unique postoperative complications associated with distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate blood flow to the stomach following a resection; however, no intraoperative procedures have been established to assess this issue. Herein we describe two cases in which intraoperative evaluation of real-time blood flow in the residual stomach was performed using indocyanine green fluorescence and da Vinci Firefly technology during a robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection. METHODS: Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection was performed using a da Vinci Xi surgical system on two patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer and suspected invasion of the celiac artery. Indocyanine green (ICG) (0.5 mg/kg) was injected intravenously after resection to evaluate real-time blood flow of the stomach using the da Vinci Firefly system. Blood flow of the stomach was evaluated 60 seconds after the intravenous injection of ICG. RESULTS: All cases were confirmed that there was sufficient blood flow in the residual stomach. Therefore, reconstruction of the left gastric artery was not performed, and the surgery was completed with preservation of the stomach. Good postoperative outcomes were achieved and there was no evidence of ischemic gastropathy or delayed gastric emptying in both cases. CONCLUSION: This method is very useful in determining whether or not to perform reconstruction of the left gastric artery and/or additional resection of the remnant stomach during a robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection.

Clinicopathological Features of Remnant Gastric Cancer After Gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Remnant gastric cancer (RGC) encompasses all cancers arising from the remnant stomach. Various studies have reported on RGC and its prognosis, but no consensus on its surgical treatment and postoperative management has been reached. Moreover, the correlation between the clinicopathological characteristics and long-term outcomes of RGC remains unclear. This study investigated the clinicopathological factors associated with the long-term survival of RGC patients. METHODS: The medical records (March 1993-September 2020) of 104 RGC patients from Tokyo Medical University Hospital database were analyzed. Of these 104 patients, the medical records of 63 patients who underwent surgical curative resection were analyzed using R. Kaplan-Meier plots of cumulative incidence of RGC were made. Differences in survival rates were compared using the log-rank test. Prognostic factors were analyzed using multivariate Cox regression analysis (P < .05). RESULTS: Of the 104 RGC patients, 63 underwent total remnant stomach excision. The median time from the first surgery to the total excision was 10 years. The 5-year survival rate of the 63 RGC patients was .55 ((95% CI); .417-.671). The clinicopathological factors that were significantly associated with the long-term outcome of the RGC patients were tumor diameter (≥3.5 cm), presence or absence of combined resection of multiple organs, tumor invasion (deeper than T2), TNM stage, and postoperative morbidity. The multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that tumor invasion depth was the only independent prognostic factor for RGC patients [HR (95% CI): 5.49 (2.629-11.5), P ≤ .005]. CONCLUSIONS: Among prognostic factors, tumor invasion depth was the only independent factor affecting RGC's long-term outcome.

Utility and Feasibility of Removing Surgical Staples from the Remnant Stomach or Gastric Conduit during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.

Objective Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric cancer in the remnant stomach poses some specific technical difficulties due to severe fibrosis and the presence of surgical staples. Therefore, we clarified the feasibility and safety of removing staples. Methods We retrospectively analyzed ESD outcomes of cases of gastric cancer in the remnant stomach. Materials This study reviewed 227 patients who underwent ESD for gastric cancer in the remnant stomach or gastric conduit. Patients were divided into those in whom resection extended to the anastomotic site or suture line (AS group; n=90) and those without such extension (non-AS group; n=137). The AS group was further divided into cases in which staples were removed (staple group; n=22) and those in which they were not (control group; n=68). Results The rates of specimen damage and curative resection and the duration and speed of the procedure were significantly worse in the AS group than the non-AS group. There were no significant differences between the staple group and the control group in the curative or complete resection rates, and no complications occurred in the staple group. In a propensity score-matched analysis, the rate of specimen damage was significantly lower in the staple group than in the control group (p=0.002), and the procedure speed tended to be faster (p=0.077). Conclusion Staple removal may improve the outcomes of ESD in patients with gastric cancer in the remnant stomach or gastric conduit by reducing the risk of specimen damage and increasing the procedure speed without complications.

Safety and efficacy of double-tract reconstruction with remnant stomach conservation in esophagectomy for patients with a history of distal gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Total gastrectomy with jejunum or colon reconstruction after esophagectomy is commonly performed in patients with esophageal cancer who have a history of distal gastrectomy. In this study, we examined the safety and effectiveness of double-tract reconstruction (DTR) with preservation of the remnant stomach for said patient population. METHODS: Twenty-seven esophageal cancer patients with a history of distal gastrectomy who underwent transthoracic esophagectomy between 2010 and 2020 in our institution were retrospectively analyzed; 15 of these patients underwent DTR, whereas 12 underwent completion gastrectomy with jejunal Roux-en-Y reconstruction (RYR). Short-term outcomes, postoperative nutritional indexes, and ghrelin levels were evaluated. Moreover, abdominal lymph-node metastasis and recurrence, which were removed by total residual gastrectomy, were examined to determine the oncological validity of residual stomach preservation. RESULTS: There was no metastasis and recurrence in abdominal lymph nodes, such as #4sa or #11d, which were removed by total residual gastrectomy. Total operation time did not differ between the groups (P = 0.4247). The blood loss for the DTR group was 495 ± 446 mL, whereas that for the RYR group was 844 ± 575 mL (P = 0.0168). Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complications were not significantly different between the groups (P = 0.7063). The rates of serum total protein values at 6 months in the DTR and RYR groups were 112% ± 12.2% and 102.6% ± 10.7% (P = 0.0403), respectively. The prognostic nutritional indexes at 6 months in the DTR and RYR groups were 108.6% ± 14.5% and 83.2% ± 42.6% (P = 0.0376), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DTR in esophagectomy is safe and effective for patients with a history of distal gastrectomy.

Uncut interposed jejunum pouch versus esophago-gastrostomy and double anastomoses of jejunum to the esophagus and residual stomach: An innovative method of digestive tract reconstruction following proximal gastrectomy.

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 < 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.

A rare complication of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: case report of gastric remnant necrosis.

Gastric remnant necrosis is a very rare, but potential life-threatening complication after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). We report a case of gastric remnant necrosis that was complicated by peritonitis and resulted in septic shock in a 49-year-old woman who had undergone a LRYGB three months prior to admission. An emergent laparoscopy with subtotal gastrectomy was performed. The patient was treated for septic shock and could leave the hospital in a good condition. Potential etiological factors for gastric remnant necrosis were elaborated.

Optimal Procedures for Double Tract Reconstruction After Proximal Gastrectomy Assessed by Postgastrectomy Syndrome Assessment Scale-45.

BACKGROUND: Although double tract reconstruction after proximal gastrectomy (PGDT) is commonly performed for proximal gastric or esophagogastric junction cancer, the impact of the procedure on postoperative quality of life (QOL) has not been clarified. We aimed to clarify the optimal PGDT procedure in terms of postoperative QOL. METHODS: Postoperative QOL was analyzed in 172 patients who underwent PGDT for proximal gastric cancer and were enrolled in the PGSAS-NEXT study, a multicenter cross-sectional study in Japan (UMIN000032221), in relation to the remnant stomach size, length of interposed jejunum between the esophagojejunostomy (E-J) and jejunogastrostomy (J-G), and size of the J-G. RESULTS: The remnant stomach size was approximately one-third in 13, half in 97, and two-thirds in 60 patients. Dissatisfaction scores for symptoms, diet, work, and daily life subscales were lower in patients with a larger stomach (p < 0.05). These patients also scored better in terms of weight loss (- 13.5%, - 14.0%, and - 11.2%, respectively) and amount of food ingested per meal (52%, 62%, and 66%). The length of the interposed jejunum was ≤ 10 cm in 62 and ≥ 11 cm in 97 patients. Weight loss (- 11.3% and - 13.8%) and dissatisfaction scores were better in the ≤ 10 cm group (p < 0.05). J-G size was ≤ 5 cm in 27 and ≥ 6 cm in 135 patients. The amount of food ingested (56%, 64%) and dissatisfaction scores were better in the > 6 cm group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Larger remnant stomach, shorter length of interposed jejunum, and longer J-G might contribute to better postoperative QOL after PGDT.

Minimum resection length to ensure a pathologically negative distal margin and the preservation of a larger remnant stomach in proximal gastrectomy for early upper gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: In proximal gastrectomy (PG), a longer distal margin (DM) length should be maintained to obtain a pathologically negative DM. However, a shorter DM length is preferred to preserve a large remnant stomach for favorable postoperative outcomes. Evidence regarding the minimum DM length to ensure a pathologically negative DM is useful. METHODS: Patients who underwent PG or total gastrectomy for cT1N0M0 gastric cancer limited to the upper third were enrolled. A new parameter, ΔDM, which corresponded to the pathological extension distal to the gross tumor boundary towards the resection stump, was evaluated. The maximum ΔDM, which is the length ensuring a pathologically negative DM, was first determined. Furthermore, the possible incidences of pathologically positive DM were calculated for each pathological type and clinical tumor (cTumor) size. RESULTS: Of 361 patients eligible for this study, 190 and 171 were assigned to differentiated (Dif) and undifferentiated types (Und), respectively. The maximum ΔDM was 30 and 40 mm in Dif and Und, respectively. Considering a correlation between cTumor size and ΔDM, and possible incidences of pathologically positive DM, 10, 20, and 30 mm were the minimal gross DM lengths in Dif when cTumor size was ≤ 15 mm, > 15 and ≤ 50 mm, and > 50 mm, respectively. In Und, the incidences of pathologically positive DM were 0.59% and 2.3% for gross DM lengths of 30 and 20 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION: The minimum DM lengths to ensure a pathologically negative DM in PG are proposed according to the pathological type of early upper gastric cancer.

[Choice of digestive tract reconstruction in upper gastric cancer].

With the increasing incidence of upper gastric cancer and early gastric cancer, surgeons have gradually paid attention to the selection of appropriate digestive tract reconstruction methods. At present, the safety of surgery is no longer the main aim pursued by surgeons, and the focus of surgery has gradually changed to postoperative quality of life. Surgical procedures for upper gastric cancer include total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG). Roux-en-Y anastomosis is recommended for digestive tract reconstruction after TG. The classic method of digestive tract reconstruction after PG is distal residual stomach and esophageal anastomosis. However, to prevent esophageal reflux caused by PG, a lot of explorations have been carried out over the years, including tubular gastroesophageal anastomosis, double-flap technique (Kamikawa anastomosis), interposition jejunum, double-tract reconstruction and so on. But the appropriate method of digestive tract reconstruction for upper gastric cancer is still controversial. In this paper, based on literatures and our clinical experience, the selection, surgical difficulties and techniques of digestive tract reconstruction after PG are discussed.

Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy in Patients After Partial Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Study to Assess the Technical Feasibility of Postsurgical Remnant Stomach Access.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the technical feasibility of percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy in patients after partial gastrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 15 consecutive gastrectomized patients with attempted percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy at our institution between April 2014 and March 2021. When the stomach was sufficiently insufflated to distend below the left anterior subcostal margin, percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy with gastropexy was conventionally performed by the Seldinger technique. When the stomach was still highly positioned and/or overlaid by the other organs, some adjunctive maneuvers, such as hydro-displacement, intragastric balloon support, or cephalad oblique puncture or left intercostal puncture, were employed as modified gastrostomy. Ultrasonography or x-ray or computed tomography fluoroscopy was used for imaging guidance during the gastric puncture. Adequate tube placement was defined as technical success. Technical details, clinical outcomes, and complications were reviewed. RESULTS: One patient underwent percutaneous radiologic jejunostomy instead of gastrostomy because safe gastric access could not be ensured. Seven patients underwent conventional gastrostomy; the other seven underwent modified gastrostomy with no gastropexy. The technical success rate was 100% (7/7) in the conventional group and 85.7% (6/7) in the modified group. The stomach was punctured under x-ray or computed tomography fluoroscopy for conventional gastrostomy. In contrast, the combination of various modalities was used for modified gastrostomy except for one failed case with unintentional transhepatic access. During a median follow-up of 108 days, no major complications occurred. CONCLUSION: The adequate combination of multimodal imaging guidance and technical modifications could secure radiological creation of gastrostomy for the postsurgical stomach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4, Case Series.

Accuracy of preoperative staging of gastric stump cancer.

BACKGROUND: In this study, the accuracy of preoperative staging for gastric stump cancer, which has not been thoroughly investigated since the condition is rare, was investigated using computed tomography and gastroscopic imaging. METHODS: Between February 1994 and April 2018, 49 patients with gastric stump cancer, following subtotal or total gastrectomy, were reviewed retrospectively. Preoperative diagnoses of clinical T and clinical N categories were compared with post-operative pathological diagnoses (pT and pN categories). Positive predictive values, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were also evaluated. RESULTS: The overall accuracy of T staging was 40.8%. The positive predictive value for cT3/T4 was 96.3%, whereas the positive predictive value for cT1/T2 was 72.7%. The overall accuracy for N staging was 61.2%. The positive predictive value of lymph node positive patients was 73.3%. The positive predictive value and sensitivity of over stage II were 96.6% and 84.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of preoperative diagnosis using both computed tomography and gastroscopy imaging may be feasible for T3/T4 advanced gastric stump cancer, whereas diagnosing T1/2 gastric stump cancer must be carefully considered due to high misdiagnosis rates, relating to depth.

A Modified Billroth-II with Braun Anastomosis in Totally Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy: Initial Experience Compared with Roux-en-Y Anastomosis.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective study aimed to compare the feasibility and effectiveness of a modified Billroth-II with Braun (B-II Braun) reconstruction and those of a Roux-en-Y (R-Y) reconstruction after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy. METHODS: From January 2016 to December 2019, 247 patients underwent total laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG), with B-II Braun reconstruction for 145 patients and R-Y reconstruction for 102 patients. The patients' data were collected prospectively and reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: In this study, the median times of the operation were statistically shorter for B-II Braun than for R-Y (167 min [range, 110-331 min] vs 191 min [range, 123-384 min]; p = 0.001), including anastomotic times (33 min [range, 30-42 min] vs 42 min [range, 40-48 min]; p = 0.001). After a short-term follow-up period, endoscopy showed 31 cases of bile reflux (21.4%), 15 cases of grade 2 gastritis (10.3%), and 6 cases of grade 2 food residue (4.1%) in the B-II Braun group after 6 months. After 1 year, 10 patients (6.9%) had grade 2 gastritis and 2 patients (1.4%) had grade 3 gastritis. However, the remnant stomach of the two groups did not differ significantly in the rate of gastric residue (p = 0.112 after 6 months; p = 0.579 after 1 year, respectively), gastritis (p = 0.726 after 6 months; p = 0.261 after 1 year, respectively), or bile reflux (p = 0.262 after 6 months; p = 0.349 after 1 year, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: For gastric cancer patients, TLDG with modified B-II Braun reconstruction could be technically feasible. It has an acceptable range of postoperative complications and is effective in preventing bile reflux into the gastric remnant.

Gastric Remnant Mucocele after Conversion of Vertical Band Gastroplasty to One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: a Video Vignette.

Conversional bariatric surgery is a challenging procedure to patients as well as the surgeon. One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a known safe conversional procedure after primary restrictive weight loss surgeries such as vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG). A very rare reported complication after these operations is the formation of mucocele of gastric remnant during pouch creation. This is a video report of diagnosis and management of gastric remnant mucocele after conversion of VBG to OAGB.