1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Double-tract reconstruction for oesofagocardial gastric cancer: A systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The number of people with gastric cardia and distal oesophageal cancers has increased in the last five years. The surgical treatment method of choice is proximal gastrectomy, with an option being reconstruction of the gastrointestinal tract. There are many reconstruction techniques for anastomosis of the oesophagus and distal parts of the digestive tract. However, all can result in complications. This systematic review aims to identify the efficacy of the double-tract reconstruction method after gastric resection. Different operative techniques for gastric reconstruction have been included in this review. The double-tract reconstruction method, which is gaining popularity among surgeons in Asia and Europe, is a promising technique that improves the early and late results of surgical treatment. This method is associated with low complications related to gastroesophageal reflux disease and dysphagia. Double-tract reconstruction is a promising method for the treatment of patients with esofagocardial gastric cancer. However, further studies are required on the long-term complications and side effects.

          Highlights

          • For the past 10 years there've been an increase in number of cases of proximal stomach and gastroesophageal junction cancers.

          • Double tract reconstruction can restore normal metabolic functions at the remote postoperative period.

          • Double tract operation can give the opportunity for free access to the major duodenal papilla by the preservation of gastrointestinal tract continuity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries

          This article provides a status report on the global burden of cancer worldwide using the GLOBOCAN 2018 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, with a focus on geographic variability across 20 world regions. There will be an estimated 18.1 million new cancer cases (17.0 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 9.6 million cancer deaths (9.5 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) in 2018. In both sexes combined, lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer (11.6% of the total cases) and the leading cause of cancer death (18.4% of the total cancer deaths), closely followed by female breast cancer (11.6%), prostate cancer (7.1%), and colorectal cancer (6.1%) for incidence and colorectal cancer (9.2%), stomach cancer (8.2%), and liver cancer (8.2%) for mortality. Lung cancer is the most frequent cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among males, followed by prostate and colorectal cancer (for incidence) and liver and stomach cancer (for mortality). Among females, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death, followed by colorectal and lung cancer (for incidence), and vice versa (for mortality); cervical cancer ranks fourth for both incidence and mortality. The most frequently diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death, however, substantially vary across countries and within each country depending on the degree of economic development and associated social and life style factors. It is noteworthy that high-quality cancer registry data, the basis for planning and implementing evidence-based cancer control programs, are not available in most low- and middle-income countries. The Global Initiative for Cancer Registry Development is an international partnership that supports better estimation, as well as the collection and use of local data, to prioritize and evaluate national cancer control efforts. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2018;0:1-31. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.

            Although quality assessment is gaining increasing attention, there is still no consensus on how to define and grade postoperative complications. This shortcoming hampers comparison of outcome data among different centers and therapies and over time. A classification of complications published by one of the authors in 1992 was critically re-evaluated and modified to increase its accuracy and its acceptability in the surgical community. Modifications mainly focused on the manner of reporting life-threatening and permanently disabling complications. The new grading system still mostly relies on the therapy used to treat the complication. The classification was tested in a cohort of 6336 patients who underwent elective general surgery at our institution. The reproducibility and personal judgment of the classification were evaluated through an international survey with 2 questionnaires sent to 10 surgical centers worldwide. The new ranking system significantly correlated with complexity of surgery (P < 0.0001) as well as with the length of the hospital stay (P < 0.0001). A total of 144 surgeons from 10 different centers around the world and at different levels of training returned the survey. Ninety percent of the case presentations were correctly graded. The classification was considered to be simple (92% of the respondents), reproducible (91%), logical (92%), useful (90%), and comprehensive (89%). The answers of both questionnaires were not dependent on the origin of the reply and the level of training of the surgeons. The new complication classification appears reliable and may represent a compelling tool for quality assessment in surgery in all parts of the world.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

              The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Ann Med Surg (Lond)
                Ann Med Surg (Lond)
                Annals of Medicine and Surgery
                Elsevier
                2049-0801
                22 June 2021
                July 2021
                22 June 2021
                : 67
                : 102496
                Affiliations
                [1]Department of Surgery, Medical Center of Far Eastern Federal University, 690922, 10 Ajax Bay, Russky Island, Vladivostok, Russia
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Department of Surgery, Medical Center of Far Eastern Federal University, 18, Mojjevelovaya street, 81 690035, Vladivostok, Russia. masliantcev.ev@ 123456dvfu.ru
                Article
                S2049-0801(21)00446-5 102496
                10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102496
                8226393
                34194733
                1ecb099b-4cd6-41f2-aa77-50d5ef00c3b2
                © 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of IJS Publishing Group Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 18 April 2021
                : 5 June 2021
                : 6 June 2021
                Categories
                Systematic Review / Meta-analysis

                oncology,gastrectomy,proximal gastrectomy,double-tract reconstruction,gastric cancer,dt, double-tract,pg, proximal gastrectomy,tg, total gastrectomy

                Comments

                Comment on this article