Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
In Vivo
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
In Vivo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit iiar on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies
Open Access

Esophagogastrostomy Versus Double Tract Reconstruction for Laparoscopic Proximal Gastrectomy: Short-term Outcomes Based on Nutritional Parameters and Skeletal Muscle Index

KOSHIRO MORINO, TAKU KITANO, YOSHIO KADOKAWA, NOZOMU NAKANISHI, MICHIHIRO YAMAMOTO and TAKAFUMI MACHIMOTO
In Vivo May 2024, 38 (3) 1325-1331; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.13572
KOSHIRO MORINO
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Tenri Hospital, Tenri, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: morino0311@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp
TAKU KITANO
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Tenri Hospital, Tenri, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
YOSHIO KADOKAWA
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Tenri Hospital, Tenri, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
NOZOMU NAKANISHI
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Tenri Hospital, Tenri, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MICHIHIRO YAMAMOTO
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Tenri Hospital, Tenri, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TAKAFUMI MACHIMOTO
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Tenri Hospital, Tenri, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: The optimal reconstruction method for laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) remains controversial. The present study aimed to compare short-term outcomes, including assessment of nutritional parameters and skeletal muscle, between two different methods, double-tract reconstruction (DTR) versus esophagogastrostomy (EG). Patients and Methods: Data from patients who underwent LPG for gastric tumor(s) between 2018 and 2021, were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two group: DTR (n=11) and EG (n=17). Since 2020, the authors have applied the modified side overlap with fundoplication by Yamashita (mSOFY) method as the EG technique. Results: Compared with DTR, EG was associated with a shorter reconstruction time (p=0.003). Complications of grade ≥3 occurred only in the EG group [n=4 (23.5%)] and the incidence of abnormal endoscopic findings after surgery was numerically higher in the EG group (n=2 vs. n=9; p=0.047). Across virtually all data points on the line graph, the EG group exhibited greater changes in post-discharge nutritional parameters, with Skeletal Muscle Index also demonstrating significant superiority (0.83 vs. 0.89; p=0.045). Conclusion: Among reconstruction methods for LPG, EG demonstrated superiority over DTR in preserving nutritional parameters and skeletal muscle mass. However, further research, including larger cohorts and longer-term follow-up, is necessary to validate this finding.

Key Words:
  • Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy
  • esophagogastrostomy
  • mSOFY
  • double tract reconstruction
  • Skeletal Muscle Index

Gastric cancer is a major disease worldwide, ranking as the fifth most common cancer and the third most common cause of cancer-related deaths (1). Surgical resection with lymph node dissection remains the only curative treatment, with distal or total gastrectomy being the standard procedure(s). However, a paradigm shift toward proximal gastrectomy has occurred, and the indications for early-stage upper gastric cancer have expanded substantially (2-5). Previous studies have reported advantages in nutritional aspects and non-inferiority in oncological aspects of proximal compared with total gastrectomy (6-8). Furthermore, the incidence of proximal gastric cancers has steadily increased (9). Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) is a standard approach, and several reconstruction methods, including jejunal interposition (10), double-tract reconstruction (DTR) (11), and esophagogastrostomy (EG) (3, 12-16), have been used. Up to 2019, we performed DTR and, in 2020, we introduced one of the EG techniques, a modified side overlap with fundoplication by Yamashita (mSOFY) (12). Most recently, EG has been highlighted due to its simplicity; however, there is diversity, even among EG techniques, resulting in ongoing controversy regarding the optimal reconstruction method(s).

Sarcopenia and low skeletal muscle mass have emerged as poor prognostic factors in oncology and transplant research (17-19). For patients with gastric cancers, malnutrition, and body weight loss after surgery have deleterious impacts and their prevention remains a pivotal issue for adjuvant therapy for advanced cancer (20). A previous study reported that total and proximal gastrectomy were involved in the occurrence of weight loss (2); however, the association between the skeletal muscle mass and each reconstruction method for LPG remains poorly documented. The present study aimed to investigate short-term outcomes, including the estimation of nutrition and skeletal muscle mass, for two different reconstruction methods (i.e., EG versus DTR).

Patients and Methods

Patients. The protocol for this single-center, retrospective study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Tenri Hospital (approval code 1301), and the requirement for written informed consent was waived. Prospectively collected data from patients who underwent LPG for gastric tumor(s) at Tenri Hospital between 2018 and 2021 were retrieved. Follow-up data for these patients were updated in December 2022. LPG was indicated for patients with clinically diagnosed early gastric cancer and other tumors (e.g., gastrointestinal stromal and neuroendocrine tumors) in the upper stomach.

Surgical procedure. For LPG, 5 working ports were inserted into the umbilicus (12 mm), right upper quadrant (5 mm), right lower quadrant (12 mm), left upper quadrant (5 mm), and left lower quadrant (12 mm). For all patients with adenocarcinoma, D1+ lymphadenectomy was performed according to the Japanese Gastric Cancer treatment guidelines (21) and was omitted for other tumors. After securing the margin from tumor with endoscopy, the stomach and abdominal esophagus were transected intracorporeally using linear staplers and the dissected stomach was extracted through a supraumbilical incision. Subsequently, reconstruction was performed after confirming R0 status. For all patients, DTR was performed up to 2019, and the mSOFY method, which is one of the EG techniques, since 2020.

For DTR, esophagojejunostomy and gastrojejunostomy were performed intracorporeally, and jejunojejunostomy was performed extracorporeally via mini-laparotomy using a linear stapler. The distances between the gastrojejunostomy, and both the esophagojejunostomy and the jejunojejunostomy, were estimated to be 15-20 cm, respectively.

In the mSOFY method, the bilateral diaphragmatic crus were dissected to enhance gastric elevation and it was confirmed that the esophagus overlapped ≥5 cm at the center of the remnant stomach before EG (Yamashita et al. call it SOFY check). A 45 mm linear stapler was inserted into the esophagus and stomach, and the right-side wall of the esophagus and the anterior wall of the remnant stomach were anastomosed. The left side of esophagus and remnant stomach were sutured at 3 points so that the esophagus was adhered flat to the gastric wall. The staple line of the esophageal stump was buried sutured to complete the reconstruction. Other detailed procedures were performed according to the original studies (12).

Data collection. Clinicopathological characteristics included age, sex, height/weight, body mass index (BMI), hemoglobin, cholinesterase, albumin, total protein, and indication(s) for surgery. Operative variables included duration, reconstruction duration, blood loss, length of dissected abdominal esophagus and postoperative hospital stay, complications (per Clavien-Dindo classification version 2.0) (22), and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. All patients underwent laboratory investigations and assessment of clinical symptoms every 3 months, computed tomography (CT) at 6-month intervals, and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy at 1 year after surgery unless there was a confirmed relapse.

Outcomes. Patients were classified into 1 of 2 groups according to surgical procedure: EG and DTR. The primary outcome was skeletal muscle index (SMI), which was measured and compared at the time before surgery and six months after surgery. The axial and transversal psoas muscle at the level of the L3 vertebra were measured in all patients based on abdominal CT at both time points (18). SMI was calculated using a simplified version of the following equation:

Embedded Image

The secondary endpoints were other short-term outcomes, including the following: surgical characteristics (operative duration, reconstruction duration, blood loss, length of postoperative hospital stay); postoperative complications; body weight, changes in nutritional parameters after discharge; and abnormal endoscopic findings (e.g., reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis) 1 year after surgery. Nutritional parameters, including hemoglobin, serum cholinesterase, albumin, and total protein, were evaluated every 3 months. The presence of reflux esophagitis was defined based on grades B-D of the Los Angeles classification (23), and the presence of anastomotic stenosis was defined as requiring endoscopic dilatation.

Statistical analyses. Continuous variables are expressed as median (range) and were compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test. All tests were two-tailed, and differences with p<0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed using JMP version 16.0 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

Results

Patients. A flow-diagram illustrating patient inclusion in presented in Figure 1. A total of 257 consecutive patients, who underwent gastrectomy during the study period, were identified. Twenty-eight patients who underwent LPG were included as per the eligibility criteria for the study. Among the patients, 11 (39.3%) underwent DTR and 17 (60.7%) underwent EG.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Flow-diagram illustrating patient inclusion.

Patient characteristics and surgical outcomes. Clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes are summarized in Table I. There were no significant intergroup differences in basic patient characteristics. Regarding surgical outcomes, the EG group had a shorter reconstruction time (p=0.003), with no differences observed in other surgical outcomes. Complications of grade ≥3 occurred exclusively in the EG group [n=4 (23.5%)], characterized as the following anastomotic problems: leakage (n=2); ulcer (n=1); and stenosis (n=1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Clinicopathological characteristics and surgical outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy.

Postoperative outcomes after discharge. Postoperative outcomes after discharge in the DTR and EG groups are summarized in Table II. The incidence of abnormal endoscopic findings after surgery was significantly greater in the EG group [n=2 (18.1%) vs. n=9 (56.2%); p=0.047], comprising reflux esophagitis (n=1 and 4, respectively) and anastomotic stenosis (n=1 and 5, respectively). All patients who experienced reflux esophagitis in the EG group exhibited esophageal invasion, and all those with stenosis had undergone surgery during the introduction period. The endoscopic favorable observation of remnant stomach was significantly more prevalent in the EG group. The SMI in the 2 groups was 6.71 and 6.80 (p=0.906), and the post/preoperative ratio of SMI in the EG group was significantly higher than that in the DTR group (0.83 vs. 0.89, respectively; p=0.045) (Figure 2A).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Postoperative outcomes after discharge in the double tract reconstruction (DTR) and esophagogastrostomy (EG) groups.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Post/Pre-operative ratio of Skeletal Muscle Index (SMI) (A) in the double tract reconstruction (DTR) and esophagogastrostomy (EG) groups and (B) in the length of resected abdominal esophagus <2 cm and ≥2 cm in the EG group.

Assessment of changes in nutritional parameters. Changes in the ratio of each nutritional parameter, from 1-month preoperatively to 1-, 6-, and 12-months after surgery, are summarized in Figure 3. For three parameters (hemoglobin, cholinesterase, albumin), the line graphs for the EG group exceeded those of the DTR group. Furthermore, in the EG group, cholinesterase level ratio was significantly higher at 1 month (0.85 vs. 0.75; p=0.029), and albumin level ratio tended to be higher at 6 months after surgery (0.98 vs. 0.88; p=0.081).

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Changes in nutritional parameters after surgery in the double tract reconstruction (DTR) and esophagogastrostomy (EG) groups. Hb: Hemoglobin; ChE: cholinesterase; Alb: albumin; TP: total protein.

Association between abdominal esophageal resection distance and SMI. Additionally, postoperative outcomes in the EG group were divided based on the length of resected abdominal esophagus (≥2 cm and <2 cm) (Table III). Reflux esophagitis occurred only in patients with length ≥2 cm (n=4 and 0; p=0.019), and the SMI tended to be associated with the distance (0.86 vs. 0.93; p=0.079 (Figure 2B).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Postoperative outcomes after discharge in length of resected abdominal esophagus ≥2 cm and <2 cm in the esophagogastrostomy (EG) group.

Discussion

The present study aimed to investigate the short-term outcomes of LPG using two different reconstruction methods—DTR and EG—focusing on the evaluation of skeletal muscle and nutritional parameters. The EG method resulted in a high incidence of short-term complications during the early introduction period and a high frequency of long-term complications, such as reflux esophagitis, in cases involving esophageal invasion. However, in terms of postoperative nutritional status and reduction in skeletal muscle mass, the EG method yielded superior outcomes compared to DTR. Our findings shed light on the potential benefits and challenges associated with these reconstruction methods, providing valuable insights for clinical practice and further research.

In LPG, various reconstruction methods, including DTR, jejunal interposition, and EG (11), have been used; however, a unified consensus regarding the optimal method remains elusive. DTR and jejunal interposition, which require three anastomoses, are complex and time-consuming, while EG presents issues with reflux esophagitis. Although previous studies have explored the association between reconstruction methods and nutritional status or weight loss (14, 24), few have investigated changes in skeletal muscle mass. Given the emerging importance of sarcopenia as a prognostic factor, addressing postoperative weight loss remains a crucial challenge in gastrectomy.

Sarcopenia is considered a poor prognostic factor in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer (25). Although proximal gastrectomy was initially intended for early-stage cancer(s), its indications have expanded to include advanced cancers, with adjuvant chemotherapy administered after surgery. Prioritizing reconstruction methods that focus on nutrition and skeletal muscle is essential for long-term prognosis, leading to the novel insight that EG may be superior based on the results of the present study.

A shorter reconstruction time was associated with EG; however, complications of grade ≥3, including anastomotic problems, were exclusively observed in this group, emphasizing the need to carefully consider risks and benefits when choosing between reconstruction methods. However, the EG group demonstrated a significant difference in the post/preoperative ratio of skeletal muscle index (SMI), suggesting its positive impact on preserving skeletal muscle mass compared with DTR. Because sarcopenia and low SMI are associated with poor prognosis in cancer (25), the potential of EG in maintaining skeletal muscle is crucial for clinical outcomes and quality of life.

Furthermore, in this study, we demonstrated an association between the resected length of abdominal esophagus and reflux esophagitis in the EG group. The inventors of the SOFY method, Yamashita et al., also emphasized the importance of overlapping the remnant stomach and abdominal esophagus by at least 5 cm from the perspective of preventing reflux (12). Hence, other methods may be more suitable for patients requiring extensive resection of the abdominal esophagus, such as those with esophagogastric junction cancer, or those with esophageal invasion.

This study has several limitations, the first of which were the relatively small sample size and single-center, retrospective design. The most significant concern was the presence of surgeon bias. The lack of standardization among surgeons and potential lack of technical proficiency in the early introduction of the mSOFY method may have influenced the outcomes. However, it should be noted that, despite these challenging conditions, favorable results were achieved in the EG group. Second, only one type of EG— the mSOFY method—was performed. Evaluating the outcomes based on a small number of cases may have led to an overestimation of the results. A multicenter trial, including various types of EG (26, 27), is needed for further validation.

Conclusion

Among reconstruction methods for LPG, EG demonstrated superiority over DTR in the preservation of nutritional parameters and skeletal muscle mass. Further research including larger cohorts and longer-term outcomes is necessary to validate these findings and provide more comprehensive evidence to support clinical practice.

Acknowledgements

The Authors thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    Koshiro Morino mainly acquired and analyzed the data, and wrote the original draft. Koshiro Morino, Taku Kitano, and Yoshio Kadokawa designed the research. Koshiro Morino and Taku Kitano interpreted the data, and contributed to writing and editing the manuscript. Koshiro Morino, Taku Kitano, Yoshio Kadokawa, Nozomu Nakanishi, and Takafumi Machimoto participated in the data acquisition. Yoshio Kadokawa supervised the research design, interpretation of the data, and contributed to editing the manuscript. All Authors participated in critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    There are no conflicts of interest or funding sources to declare in relation to this study.

  • Received December 20, 2023.
  • Revision received January 22, 2024.
  • Accepted January 23, 2024.
  • Copyright © 2024, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 international license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0).

References

  1. ↵
    1. Smyth EC,
    2. Nilsson M,
    3. Grabsch HI,
    4. van Grieken NC,
    5. Lordick F
    : Gastric cancer. Lancet 396(10251): 635-648, 2020. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31288-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Tsujiura M,
    2. Nunobe S
    : Functional and nutritional outcomes after gastric cancer surgery. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 5: 29, 2020. DOI: 10.21037/tgh.2019.11.10
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    1. Yamashita Y,
    2. Yamamoto A,
    3. Tamamori Y,
    4. Yoshii M,
    5. Nishiguchi Y
    : Side overlap esophagogastrostomy to prevent reflux after proximal gastrectomy. Gastric Cancer 20(4): 728-735, 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s10120-016-0674-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Kano Y,
    2. Ohashi M,
    3. Nunobe S
    : Laparoscopic function-preserving gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer or esophagogastric junction cancer: a narrative review. Cancers (Basel) 15(1): 311, 2023. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15010311
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Nakamura M,
    2. Yamaue H
    : Reconstruction after proximal gastrectomy for gastric cancer in the upper third of the stomach: a review of the literature published from 2000 to 2014. Surg Today 46(5): 517-527, 2016. DOI: 10.1007/s00595-015-1185-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Takiguchi N,
    2. Takahashi M,
    3. Ikeda M,
    4. Inagawa S,
    5. Ueda S,
    6. Nobuoka T,
    7. Ota M,
    8. Iwasaki Y,
    9. Uchida N,
    10. Kodera Y,
    11. Nakada K
    : Long-term quality-of-life comparison of total gastrectomy and proximal gastrectomy by Postgastrectomy Syndrome Assessment Scale (PGSAS-45): a nationwide multi-institutional study. Gastric Cancer 18(2): 407-416, 2015. DOI: 10.1007/s10120-014-0377-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ichikawa D,
    2. Komatsu S,
    3. Kubota T,
    4. Okamoto K,
    5. Shiozaki A,
    6. Fujiwara H,
    7. Otsuji E
    : Long-term outcomes of patients who underwent limited proximal gastrectomy. Gastric Cancer 17(1): 141-145, 2014. DOI: 10.1007/s10120-013-0257-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. ↵
    1. Jung DH,
    2. Ahn SH,
    3. Park DJ,
    4. Kim HH
    : Proximal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. J Gastric Cancer 15(2): 77-86, 2015. DOI: 10.5230/jgc.2015.15.2.77
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Information Committee of Korean Gastric Cancer Association
    : Korean Gastric Cancer Association nationwide survey on gastric cancer in 2014. J Gastric Cancer 16(3): 131-140, 2016. DOI: 10.5230/jgc.2016.16.3.131
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Li Z,
    2. Ma Y,
    3. Liu G,
    4. Fang M,
    5. Xue Y
    : Proximal gastrectomy with gastric tube reconstruction or jejunal interposition reconstruction in upper-third gastric cancer: which offers better short-term surgical outcomes? BMC Surg 21(1): 249, 2021. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-021-01239-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Shaibu Z,
    2. Chen Z,
    3. Mzee SAS,
    4. Theophilus A,
    5. Danbala IA
    : Effects of reconstruction techniques after proximal gastrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 18(1): 171, 2020. DOI: 10.1186/s12957-020-01936-2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. Yamashita Y,
    2. Tatsubayashi T,
    3. Okumura K,
    4. Miyamoto T,
    5. Ueno K
    : Modified side overlap esophagogastrostomy after laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 6(4): 594-599, 2022. DOI: 10.1002/ags3.12549
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Zhang H,
    2. Zheng Z,
    3. Liu X,
    4. Xin C,
    5. Huang Y,
    6. Li Y,
    7. Yin J,
    8. Zhang J
    : Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with SOFY versus laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y for treating cT1-2 Siewert II/III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a single-center prospective cohort study. Langenbecks Arch Surg 408(1): 69, 2023. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-02779-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    1. Yu B,
    2. Park KB,
    3. Park JY,
    4. Lee SS,
    5. Kwon OK,
    6. Chung HY,
    7. Hwang YJ
    : Double tract reconstruction versus double flap technique: short-term clinical outcomes after laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 36(7): 5243-5256, 2022. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08902-3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Sugita H,
    2. Sakuramoto S,
    3. Oya S,
    4. Fujiwara N,
    5. Miyawaki Y,
    6. Satoh H,
    7. Okamoto K,
    8. Yamaguchi S,
    9. Koyama I
    : Linear stapler anastomosis for esophagogastrostomy in laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy reduce reflux esophagitis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 406(8): 2709-2716, 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-021-02250-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    1. Saze Z,
    2. Kase K,
    3. Nakano H,
    4. Yamauchi N,
    5. Kaneta A,
    6. Watanabe Y,
    7. Hanayama H,
    8. Hayase S,
    9. Momma T,
    10. Kono K
    : Functional benefits of the double flap technique after proximal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. BMC Surg 21(1): 392, 2021. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-021-01390-1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    1. Hamaguchi Y,
    2. Kaido T,
    3. Okumura S,
    4. Kobayashi A,
    5. Hammad A,
    6. Tamai Y,
    7. Inagaki N,
    8. Uemoto S
    : Proposal for new diagnostic criteria for low skeletal muscle mass based on computed tomography imaging in Asian adults. Nutrition 32(11-12): 1200-1205, 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2016.04.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Durand F,
    2. Buyse S,
    3. Francoz C,
    4. Laouénan C,
    5. Bruno O,
    6. Belghiti J,
    7. Moreau R,
    8. Vilgrain V,
    9. Valla D
    : Prognostic value of muscle atrophy in cirrhosis using psoas muscle thickness on computed tomography. J Hepatol 60(6): 1151-1157, 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2014.02.026
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Bahat G,
    2. Turkmen BO,
    3. Aliyev S,
    4. Catikkas NM,
    5. Bakir B,
    6. Karan MA
    : Cut-off values of skeletal muscle index and psoas muscle index at L3 vertebra level by computerized tomography to assess low muscle mass. Clin Nutr 40(6): 4360-4365, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2021.01.010
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    1. Okamoto A,
    2. Aikou S,
    3. Iwata R,
    4. Oya S,
    5. Kawasaki K,
    6. Okumura Y,
    7. Yagi K,
    8. Yamashita H,
    9. Nomura S,
    10. Seto Y
    : The type of gastrectomy affects skeletal muscle loss and the long-term outcomes of elderly patients with gastric cancer: a retrospective study using computed tomography images. Surg Today 52(5): 812-821, 2022. DOI: 10.1007/s00595-021-02414-2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. ↵
    1. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association
    : Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 3rd English edition. Gastric Cancer 14(2): 101-112, 2011. DOI: 10.1007/s10120-011-0041-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Katayama H,
    2. Kurokawa Y,
    3. Nakamura K,
    4. Ito H,
    5. Kanemitsu Y,
    6. Masuda N,
    7. Tsubosa Y,
    8. Satoh T,
    9. Yokomizo A,
    10. Fukuda H,
    11. Sasako M
    : Extended Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: Japan Clinical Oncology Group postoperative complications criteria. Surg Today 46(6): 668-685, 2016. DOI: 10.1007/s00595-015-1236-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Armstrong D
    : Endoscopic evaluation of gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Yale J Biol Med 72: 93-100, 1999.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Eom BW,
    2. Park JY,
    3. Park KB,
    4. Yoon HM,
    5. Kwon OK,
    6. Ryu KW,
    7. Kim YW
    : Comparison of nutrition and quality of life of esophagogastrostomy and the double-tract reconstruction after laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy. Medicine (Baltimore) 100(15): e25453, 2021. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025453
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. ↵
    1. Kawamura T,
    2. Makuuchi R,
    3. Tokunaga M,
    4. Tanizawa Y,
    5. Bando E,
    6. Yasui H,
    7. Aoyama T,
    8. Inano T,
    9. Terashima M
    : Long-term outcomes of gastric cancer patients with preoperative sarcopenia. Ann Surg Oncol 25(6): 1625-1632, 2018. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-018-6452-3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    1. Takabatake K,
    2. Konishi H,
    3. Kubota T,
    4. Shiozaki A,
    5. Fujiwara H,
    6. Ohashi T,
    7. Arita T,
    8. Shimizu H,
    9. Yamamoto Y,
    10. Morimura R,
    11. Ikoma H,
    12. Kuriu Y,
    13. Okamoto K,
    14. Otsuji E
    : Postoperative nutrition status of patients with esophago-gastric junction cancer with gastric tube or esophago-gastric reconstruction. Anticancer Res 42(7): 3645-3652, 2022. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15853
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Shibamoto J,
    2. Kubota T,
    3. Nishibeppu K,
    4. Ohashi T,
    5. Konishi H,
    6. Shiozaki A,
    7. Fujiwara H,
    8. Otsuji E
    : Clinical relevance of proximal gastrectomy with double-flap esophagogastrostomy reconstruction with glycemic profile and postgastrectomy syndromes. Anticancer Res 43(2): 857-864, 2023. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.16228
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

In Vivo: 38 (3)
In Vivo
Vol. 38, Issue 3
May-June 2024
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on In Vivo.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Esophagogastrostomy Versus Double Tract Reconstruction for Laparoscopic Proximal Gastrectomy: Short-term Outcomes Based on Nutritional Parameters and Skeletal Muscle Index
(Your Name) has sent you a message from In Vivo
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the In Vivo web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
4 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Esophagogastrostomy Versus Double Tract Reconstruction for Laparoscopic Proximal Gastrectomy: Short-term Outcomes Based on Nutritional Parameters and Skeletal Muscle Index
KOSHIRO MORINO, TAKU KITANO, YOSHIO KADOKAWA, NOZOMU NAKANISHI, MICHIHIRO YAMAMOTO, TAKAFUMI MACHIMOTO
In Vivo May 2024, 38 (3) 1325-1331; DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13572

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Esophagogastrostomy Versus Double Tract Reconstruction for Laparoscopic Proximal Gastrectomy: Short-term Outcomes Based on Nutritional Parameters and Skeletal Muscle Index
KOSHIRO MORINO, TAKU KITANO, YOSHIO KADOKAWA, NOZOMU NAKANISHI, MICHIHIRO YAMAMOTO, TAKAFUMI MACHIMOTO
In Vivo May 2024, 38 (3) 1325-1331; DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13572
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Validation of the Chick Chorioallantoic Membrane (CAM) Model for Biocompatibility Analysis of Biomaterials in the Context of the 3R-cascade: A Pilot Study
  • Immersive Virtual Reality for Reducing Intraoperative Pain: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
  • First Experiences of Pilot Clinical Studies on Boron Neutron Capture Therapy for Recurrent Gastrointestinal Cancers Using an Intravenous Injection of 10BPA
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy
  • esophagogastrostomy
  • mSOFY
  • double tract reconstruction
  • Skeletal Muscle Index
In Vivo

© 2025 In Vivo

Powered by HighWire