Comparison of the Long-term Outcome Between Billroth-I and Roux-en-Y Reconstruction Following Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Background Various reconstruction methods have been performed following distal gastrectomy; however, each reconstruction method has its own advantages and disadvantages. This study aims to compare the long-term outcomes between Billroth-I (B-I) and Roux-en-Y (RY) reconstruction after distal gastrect...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of gastrointestinal surgery 2021-08, Vol.25 (8), p.1955-1961
Hauptverfasser: Wu, Chia-Hung, Huang, Kuo-Hung, Chen, Ming-Huang, Fang, Wen-Liang, Chao, Yee, Lo, Su-Shun, Li, Anna Fen-Yau, Wu, Chew-Wun, Shyr, Yi-Ming
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1961
container_issue 8
container_start_page 1955
container_title Journal of gastrointestinal surgery
container_volume 25
creator Wu, Chia-Hung
Huang, Kuo-Hung
Chen, Ming-Huang
Fang, Wen-Liang
Chao, Yee
Lo, Su-Shun
Li, Anna Fen-Yau
Wu, Chew-Wun
Shyr, Yi-Ming
description Background Various reconstruction methods have been performed following distal gastrectomy; however, each reconstruction method has its own advantages and disadvantages. This study aims to compare the long-term outcomes between Billroth-I (B-I) and Roux-en-Y (RY) reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods A total of 459 patients who underwent distal gastrectomy (B-I: 166, RY: 293) were included. Postoperative endoscopic findings and biliary tract stone formation were compared between the two groups. Results At 1 year and 2 years postoperatively, gastric residue was more common in the RY group, gastritis was similar between groups, and bile reflux was more common in the B-I group. At 5 years postoperatively, gastric residue was similar between the groups, while gastritis and bile reflux were more common in the B-I group. Gastroesophageal reflux was more common in the B-I group at 1 year postoperatively, but gastroesophageal reflux became not significantly different between the groups at 2 and 5 years postoperatively. Gallstone formation was more common in the RY group and in patients aged ≥ 65 years. Conclusion During long-term follow-up, RY reconstruction was associated with lower incidence of bile reflux and gastritis, and higher incidence of gallstone formation than B-I reconstruction. The incidence of gastric residue was more common in the RY reconstruction group in the early postoperative period and became not significantly different between the two groups over time. For aged patients with RY reconstruction, cholecystectomy is recommended concurrently as gastrectomy.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11605-020-04867-1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2461863535</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2556147577</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-2726a639f95632ff87974f09c179878000bbecb56882d5e11e60c36e806331b33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc9rFDEUx4Motq7-Ax4k4MVL9CXZ_JijXW0tLBSKgp7CTPbNdspMsiYZas_9xxudquBBckjC-7zvC_kQ8pLDWw5g3mXONSgGAhisrTaMPyLH3BrJ1lrox_UMDWdCqa9H5FnO1wDcALdPyZGUApSE5pjcbeJ0aNOQY6Cxp-UK6TaGPSuYJnoxFx8npCdYbhADPRnGMcVyxc5pG3b0Ms4_GAb2jV6ijyGXNPsy1KDTOI7xZgh7-mHIpR3pWVuL6Eucbmkf03IfPN20wWN6Tp707ZjxxcO-Il9OP37efGLbi7Pzzfst89KowoQRutWy6Rulpeh7axqz7qHx3DTWWADoOvSd0taKnULOUYOXGi1oKXkn5Yq8WXIPKX6fMRc3DdnjOLYB45ydWGtutVR1rcjrf9DrOKdQX-fqf2q-NsqYSomF8inmnLB3hzRMbbp1HNxPRW5R5Koi90uR47Xp1UP03E24-9Py20kF5ALkWgp7TH9n_yf2HtAKm2k</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2556147577</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of the Long-term Outcome Between Billroth-I and Roux-en-Y Reconstruction Following Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Wu, Chia-Hung ; Huang, Kuo-Hung ; Chen, Ming-Huang ; Fang, Wen-Liang ; Chao, Yee ; Lo, Su-Shun ; Li, Anna Fen-Yau ; Wu, Chew-Wun ; Shyr, Yi-Ming</creator><creatorcontrib>Wu, Chia-Hung ; Huang, Kuo-Hung ; Chen, Ming-Huang ; Fang, Wen-Liang ; Chao, Yee ; Lo, Su-Shun ; Li, Anna Fen-Yau ; Wu, Chew-Wun ; Shyr, Yi-Ming</creatorcontrib><description>Background Various reconstruction methods have been performed following distal gastrectomy; however, each reconstruction method has its own advantages and disadvantages. This study aims to compare the long-term outcomes between Billroth-I (B-I) and Roux-en-Y (RY) reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods A total of 459 patients who underwent distal gastrectomy (B-I: 166, RY: 293) were included. Postoperative endoscopic findings and biliary tract stone formation were compared between the two groups. Results At 1 year and 2 years postoperatively, gastric residue was more common in the RY group, gastritis was similar between groups, and bile reflux was more common in the B-I group. At 5 years postoperatively, gastric residue was similar between the groups, while gastritis and bile reflux were more common in the B-I group. Gastroesophageal reflux was more common in the B-I group at 1 year postoperatively, but gastroesophageal reflux became not significantly different between the groups at 2 and 5 years postoperatively. Gallstone formation was more common in the RY group and in patients aged ≥ 65 years. Conclusion During long-term follow-up, RY reconstruction was associated with lower incidence of bile reflux and gastritis, and higher incidence of gallstone formation than B-I reconstruction. The incidence of gastric residue was more common in the RY reconstruction group in the early postoperative period and became not significantly different between the two groups over time. For aged patients with RY reconstruction, cholecystectomy is recommended concurrently as gastrectomy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1091-255X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-4626</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11605-020-04867-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33205309</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Anastomosis, Roux-en-Y - adverse effects ; Gallstones ; Gastrectomy - adverse effects ; Gastric cancer ; Gastroenterology ; Gastroenterostomy - adverse effects ; Gastroesophageal reflux ; Gastrointestinal surgery ; Humans ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Original Article ; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology ; Postoperative Complications - etiology ; Stomach Neoplasms - surgery ; Surgery ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2021-08, Vol.25 (8), p.1955-1961</ispartof><rights>The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2020</rights><rights>2020. The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.</rights><rights>The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-2726a639f95632ff87974f09c179878000bbecb56882d5e11e60c36e806331b33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-2726a639f95632ff87974f09c179878000bbecb56882d5e11e60c36e806331b33</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5726-1066</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11605-020-04867-1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11605-020-04867-1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33205309$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wu, Chia-Hung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Kuo-Hung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Ming-Huang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fang, Wen-Liang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chao, Yee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lo, Su-Shun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Anna Fen-Yau</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Chew-Wun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shyr, Yi-Ming</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of the Long-term Outcome Between Billroth-I and Roux-en-Y Reconstruction Following Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer</title><title>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery</title><addtitle>J Gastrointest Surg</addtitle><addtitle>J Gastrointest Surg</addtitle><description>Background Various reconstruction methods have been performed following distal gastrectomy; however, each reconstruction method has its own advantages and disadvantages. This study aims to compare the long-term outcomes between Billroth-I (B-I) and Roux-en-Y (RY) reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods A total of 459 patients who underwent distal gastrectomy (B-I: 166, RY: 293) were included. Postoperative endoscopic findings and biliary tract stone formation were compared between the two groups. Results At 1 year and 2 years postoperatively, gastric residue was more common in the RY group, gastritis was similar between groups, and bile reflux was more common in the B-I group. At 5 years postoperatively, gastric residue was similar between the groups, while gastritis and bile reflux were more common in the B-I group. Gastroesophageal reflux was more common in the B-I group at 1 year postoperatively, but gastroesophageal reflux became not significantly different between the groups at 2 and 5 years postoperatively. Gallstone formation was more common in the RY group and in patients aged ≥ 65 years. Conclusion During long-term follow-up, RY reconstruction was associated with lower incidence of bile reflux and gastritis, and higher incidence of gallstone formation than B-I reconstruction. The incidence of gastric residue was more common in the RY reconstruction group in the early postoperative period and became not significantly different between the two groups over time. For aged patients with RY reconstruction, cholecystectomy is recommended concurrently as gastrectomy.</description><subject>Anastomosis, Roux-en-Y - adverse effects</subject><subject>Gallstones</subject><subject>Gastrectomy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Gastric cancer</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Gastroenterostomy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Gastroesophageal reflux</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal surgery</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - etiology</subject><subject>Stomach Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1091-255X</issn><issn>1873-4626</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc9rFDEUx4Motq7-Ax4k4MVL9CXZ_JijXW0tLBSKgp7CTPbNdspMsiYZas_9xxudquBBckjC-7zvC_kQ8pLDWw5g3mXONSgGAhisrTaMPyLH3BrJ1lrox_UMDWdCqa9H5FnO1wDcALdPyZGUApSE5pjcbeJ0aNOQY6Cxp-UK6TaGPSuYJnoxFx8npCdYbhADPRnGMcVyxc5pG3b0Ms4_GAb2jV6ijyGXNPsy1KDTOI7xZgh7-mHIpR3pWVuL6Eucbmkf03IfPN20wWN6Tp707ZjxxcO-Il9OP37efGLbi7Pzzfst89KowoQRutWy6Rulpeh7axqz7qHx3DTWWADoOvSd0taKnULOUYOXGi1oKXkn5Yq8WXIPKX6fMRc3DdnjOLYB45ydWGtutVR1rcjrf9DrOKdQX-fqf2q-NsqYSomF8inmnLB3hzRMbbp1HNxPRW5R5Koi90uR47Xp1UP03E24-9Py20kF5ALkWgp7TH9n_yf2HtAKm2k</recordid><startdate>20210801</startdate><enddate>20210801</enddate><creator>Wu, Chia-Hung</creator><creator>Huang, Kuo-Hung</creator><creator>Chen, Ming-Huang</creator><creator>Fang, Wen-Liang</creator><creator>Chao, Yee</creator><creator>Lo, Su-Shun</creator><creator>Li, Anna Fen-Yau</creator><creator>Wu, Chew-Wun</creator><creator>Shyr, Yi-Ming</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5726-1066</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210801</creationdate><title>Comparison of the Long-term Outcome Between Billroth-I and Roux-en-Y Reconstruction Following Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer</title><author>Wu, Chia-Hung ; Huang, Kuo-Hung ; Chen, Ming-Huang ; Fang, Wen-Liang ; Chao, Yee ; Lo, Su-Shun ; Li, Anna Fen-Yau ; Wu, Chew-Wun ; Shyr, Yi-Ming</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-2726a639f95632ff87974f09c179878000bbecb56882d5e11e60c36e806331b33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Anastomosis, Roux-en-Y - adverse effects</topic><topic>Gallstones</topic><topic>Gastrectomy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Gastric cancer</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Gastroenterostomy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Gastroesophageal reflux</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal surgery</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - etiology</topic><topic>Stomach Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wu, Chia-Hung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Kuo-Hung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Ming-Huang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fang, Wen-Liang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chao, Yee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lo, Su-Shun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Anna Fen-Yau</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Chew-Wun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shyr, Yi-Ming</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wu, Chia-Hung</au><au>Huang, Kuo-Hung</au><au>Chen, Ming-Huang</au><au>Fang, Wen-Liang</au><au>Chao, Yee</au><au>Lo, Su-Shun</au><au>Li, Anna Fen-Yau</au><au>Wu, Chew-Wun</au><au>Shyr, Yi-Ming</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of the Long-term Outcome Between Billroth-I and Roux-en-Y Reconstruction Following Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer</atitle><jtitle>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery</jtitle><stitle>J Gastrointest Surg</stitle><addtitle>J Gastrointest Surg</addtitle><date>2021-08-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1955</spage><epage>1961</epage><pages>1955-1961</pages><issn>1091-255X</issn><eissn>1873-4626</eissn><abstract>Background Various reconstruction methods have been performed following distal gastrectomy; however, each reconstruction method has its own advantages and disadvantages. This study aims to compare the long-term outcomes between Billroth-I (B-I) and Roux-en-Y (RY) reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods A total of 459 patients who underwent distal gastrectomy (B-I: 166, RY: 293) were included. Postoperative endoscopic findings and biliary tract stone formation were compared between the two groups. Results At 1 year and 2 years postoperatively, gastric residue was more common in the RY group, gastritis was similar between groups, and bile reflux was more common in the B-I group. At 5 years postoperatively, gastric residue was similar between the groups, while gastritis and bile reflux were more common in the B-I group. Gastroesophageal reflux was more common in the B-I group at 1 year postoperatively, but gastroesophageal reflux became not significantly different between the groups at 2 and 5 years postoperatively. Gallstone formation was more common in the RY group and in patients aged ≥ 65 years. Conclusion During long-term follow-up, RY reconstruction was associated with lower incidence of bile reflux and gastritis, and higher incidence of gallstone formation than B-I reconstruction. The incidence of gastric residue was more common in the RY reconstruction group in the early postoperative period and became not significantly different between the two groups over time. For aged patients with RY reconstruction, cholecystectomy is recommended concurrently as gastrectomy.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>33205309</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11605-020-04867-1</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5726-1066</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1091-255X
ispartof Journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2021-08, Vol.25 (8), p.1955-1961
issn 1091-255X
1873-4626
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2461863535
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals
subjects Anastomosis, Roux-en-Y - adverse effects
Gallstones
Gastrectomy - adverse effects
Gastric cancer
Gastroenterology
Gastroenterostomy - adverse effects
Gastroesophageal reflux
Gastrointestinal surgery
Humans
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Original Article
Postoperative Complications - epidemiology
Postoperative Complications - etiology
Stomach Neoplasms - surgery
Surgery
Treatment Outcome
title Comparison of the Long-term Outcome Between Billroth-I and Roux-en-Y Reconstruction Following Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T02%3A47%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20the%20Long-term%20Outcome%20Between%20Billroth-I%20and%20Roux-en-Y%20Reconstruction%20Following%20Distal%20Gastrectomy%20for%20Gastric%20Cancer&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20gastrointestinal%20surgery&rft.au=Wu,%20Chia-Hung&rft.date=2021-08-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1955&rft.epage=1961&rft.pages=1955-1961&rft.issn=1091-255X&rft.eissn=1873-4626&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11605-020-04867-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2556147577%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2556147577&rft_id=info:pmid/33205309&rfr_iscdi=true