Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of reconstruction methods on a patient’s quality of life after a proximal gastrectomy: subjective symptoms evaluation using questionnaire survey

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and aims

Proximal gastrectomy is typically indicated in early gastric cancer of the upper third of the stomach. Esophagogastrostomy (EG) and jejunum interposition (JI) are often selected as reconstruction methods, although the more appropriate method of the two is unknown.

Materials and methods

One hundred and seven patients, who underwent a proximal gastrectomy followed by either an EG or a JI, were sent a questionnaire of 33 questions about subjective symptoms. Eighty-three patients (45 in the JI group and 38 in the EG group) returned the questionnaire. Results were compared between the two groups to identify the appropriate reconstruction method after a proximal gastrectomy. Also, changes in a patient’s body weight after surgery were compared.

Results

Early and late dumping syndromes and gastroesophageal reflux associated symptoms were equally observed between the two groups. However, abdominal discomfort after meals (P = 0.008), continuous gastric fullness (P = 0.028), and hiccups between meals (P = 0.022) were often observed in the JI group. The loss of body weight was not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusion

EG is a better reconstruction method compared to a JI after a proximal gastrectomy when evaluating subjective symptoms. Prospective study is warranted to clarify the better reconstruction method following proximal gastrectomy in terms of both subjective and objective symptoms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tashiro A, Sano M, Kinameri K, Fujita K, Takeuchi Y (2006) Comparing mass screening techniques for gastric cancer in Japan. World J Gastroenterol 12:4873–4874

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Miki K (2006) Gastric cancer screening using the serum pepsinogen test method. Gastric Cancer 9:245–253 doi:10.1007/s10120-006-0397-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kunisaki C, Ishino J, Nakajima S, Motohashi H, Akiyama H, Nomura M, Matsuda G, Otsuka Y, Ono HA, Shimada H (2006) Outcomes of mass screening for gastric carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 13:221–228 doi:10.1245/ASO.2006.04.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gotoda T, Yanagisawa A, Sasako M, Ono H, Nakanishi Y, Shimoda T, Kato Y (2000) Incidence of lymph node metastasis from early gastric cancer: estimation with a large number of cases at two large centers. Gastric Cancer 3:219–225 doi:10.1007/PL00011720

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shiraishi N, Adachi Y, Kitano S, Kakisako K, Inomata M, Yasuda K (2002) Clinical outcome of proximal versus total gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer. World J Surg 26:1150–1154 doi:10.1007/s00268-002-6369-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Harrison LE, Karpeh MS, Brennan MF (1998) Total gastrectomy is not necessary for proximal gastric cancer. Surgery 123:127–130

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Katai H, Sano T, Fukagawa T, Shinohara H, Sasako M (2003) Prospective study of proximal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer in the upper third of the stomach. Br J Surg 90:850–853 doi:10.1002/bjs.4106

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Furukawa H, Hiratsuka M, Imaoka S, Ishikawa O, Kabuto T, Sasaki Y, Kameyama M, Ohigashi H, Nakano H, Yasuda T (1998) Limited surgery for early gastric cancer in cardia. Ann Surg Oncol 5:338–341 doi:10.1007/BF02303497

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Shiraishi N, Hirose R, Morimoto A, Kawano K, Adachi Y, Kitano S (1998) Gastric tube reconstruction prevented esophageal reflux after proximal gastrectomy. Gastric Cancer 1:78–79 doi:10.1007/s101200050058

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hsu CP, Chen CY, Hsieh YH, Hsia JY, Shai SE, Kao CH (1997) Esophageal reflux after total or proximal gastrectomy in patients with adenocarcinoma of the gastric cardia. Am J Gastroenterol 92:1347–1350

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Adachi Y, Inoue T, Hagino Y, Shiraishi N, Shimoda K, Kitano S (1999) Surgical results of proximal gastrectomy for early-stage gastric cancer: jejunal interposition and gastric tube reconstruction. Gastric Cancer 2:40–45 doi:10.1007/s101200050019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Iwata T, Kurita N, Ikemoto T, Nishioka M, Andoh T, Shimada M (2006) Evaluation of reconstruction after proximal gastrectomy: prospective comparative study of jejunal interposition and jejunal pouch interposition. Hepatogastroenterology 53:301–303

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Uyama I, Ogiwara H, Takahara T, Kikuchi K, Iida S (1995) Laparoscopic and minilaparotomy proximal gastrectomy and esophagogastrostomy: technique and case report. Surg Laparosc Endosc 5:487–491

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kameyama J, Ishida H, Yasaku Y, Suzuki A, Kuzu H, Tsukamoto M (1993) Proximal gastrectomy reconstructed by interposition of a jejunal pouch. Surgical technique. Eur J Surg 159:491–493

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tokunaga M, Ohyama S, Hiki N, Hoshino E, Nunobe S, Fukunaga T, Seto Y, Yamaguchi T (2008) Endoscopic evaluation of reflux esophagitis after proximal gastrectomy: comparison between esophagogastric anastomosis and jejunal interposition. World J Surg 32:1473–1477 doi:10.1007/s00268-007-9459-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tomita R, Fujisaki S, Tanjoh K, Fukuzawa M (2001) A novel operative technique on proximal gastrectomy reconstructed by interposition of a jejunal J pouch with preservation of the vagal nerve and lower esophageal sphincter. Hepatogastroenterology 48:1186–1191

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Japanese Gastric Cancer A (1998) Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma—2nd English edition. Gastric Cancer 1:10–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nagao F, Hayashi S, Yamaguchi Y, Shiratori T, Ohkubo T, Okajima K (1972) Symposium “Early dumping syndrome”. Jpn J Gastroenterol Surg 4:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nunobe S, Sasako M, Saka M, Fukagawa T, Katai H, Sano T (2007) Symptom evaluation of long-term postoperative outcomes after pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 10:167–172 doi:10.1007/s10120-007-0434-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kitagawa Y, Kitano S, Kubota T, Kumai K, Otani Y, Saikawa Y, Yoshida M, Kitajima M (2005) Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer—toward a confluence of two major streams: a review. Gastric Cancer 8:103–110 doi:10.1007/s10120-005-0326-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ichikawa D, Ueshima Y, Shirono K, Kan K, Shioaki Y, Lee CJ, Hamashima T, Deguchi E, Ikeda E, Mutoh F, Oka T, Kurioka H (2001) Esophagogastrostomy reconstruction after limited proximal gastrectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 48:1797–1801

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Armstrong D, Bennett JR, Blum AL, Dent J, De Dombal FT, Galmiche JP, Lundell L, Margulies M, Richter JE, Spechler SJ, Tytgat GN, Wallin L (1996) The endoscopic assessment of esophagitis: a progress report on observer agreement. Gastroenterology 111:85–92 doi:10.1053/gast.1996.v111.pm8698230

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Johnson DA, Fennerty MB (2004) Heartburn severity underestimates erosive esophagitis severity in elderly patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology 126:660–664 doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2003.12.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lagergren J, Bergstrom R, Lindgren A, Nyren O (1999) Symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux as a risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 340:825–831 doi:10.1056/NEJM199903183401101

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Falk GW, Richter JE (1998) Reflux disease and Barrett's esophagus. Endoscopy 30:61–72 doi:10.1055/s-2007-1001232

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are deeply indebted to Noriko Okita for her secretary work and checking the English in this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 3-10-6 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan

    Masanori Tokunaga, Naoki Hiki, Shigekazu Ohyama, Souya Nunobe, Akira Miki, Tetsu Fukunaga, Yasuyuki Seto, Takeshi Sano & Toshiharu Yamaguchi

Authors
  1. Masanori Tokunaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Naoki Hiki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shigekazu Ohyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Souya Nunobe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Akira Miki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tetsu Fukunaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yasuyuki Seto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Takeshi Sano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Toshiharu Yamaguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naoki Hiki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tokunaga, M., Hiki, N., Ohyama, S. et al. Effects of reconstruction methods on a patient’s quality of life after a proximal gastrectomy: subjective symptoms evaluation using questionnaire survey. Langenbecks Arch Surg 394, 637–641 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-008-0442-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-008-0442-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation