Literature DB >> 15650801

Duodenogastric reflux after esophagectomy and gastric pull-up: the effect of the route of reconstruction.

Iraklis E Katsoulis1, Ioannis Robotis, Grigorios Kouraklis, Panagiotis Yannopoulos.   

Abstract

Duodenogastric reflux (DGR) is a common sequel of subtotal esophagectomy and gastric pull-up, and it may contribute to mucosal changes of both the gastric conduit and the esophageal remnant. This study investigated the effect of the route of reconstruction on the DGR. 24-hour ambulatory bilirubin monitoring was performed on patients who underwent transhiatal subtotal esophagectomy and a gastric tube interposition either in the posterior mediastinum (PM group, n = 11), or in the retrosternal space (RS group, n = 8): A Control group of 8 healthy volunteers was also studied. The median percentage of reflux time, the median number of reflux episodes, and the median number of reflux episodes longer than 5 minutes, in PM versus RS groups, were 29.1% versus 0.15% (p < 0.001), 185 versus 8 (p = 0.002) and 10 versus 0 (p = 0.001), respectively. The values of the above variables in PM versus control groups were 29.1% versus 3.95% (p = 0.007), 185 versus 21 (p = 0.02), and 10 versus 2 (p = 0.009), respectively, whereas in RS versus control groups they were 0.15% versus 3.95% (p = 0.01), 8 versus 21 (p = 0.04), and 0 versus 2 (p = 0.05), respectively. Posterior mediastinal gastric interposition is associated with high reflux of duodenal contents, whereas retrosternal interposition minimizes the reflux at levels even lower than those of the healthy individuals. The latter type of reconstruction may be a good alternative from that perspective, especially in patients with long life expectancy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15650801     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-004-7568-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  26 in total

1.  How important is the route of reconstruction after esophagectomy: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  K A Gawad; S B Hosch; D Bumann; M Lübeck; L C Moneke; C Bloechle; W T Knoefel; C Busch; T Küchler; J R Izbicki
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 10.864

2.  Effect of cholecystectomy on gastroesophageal and duodenogastric reflux.

Authors:  D K Manifold; A Anggiansah; W J Owen
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  Comparative anatomical study of the anterior and posterior mediastinum as access routes after esophagectomy.

Authors:  R P Coral; M Constant-Neto; I S Silva; A N Kalil; R Boose; T Beduschi; T F Gemelle
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 3.429

4.  Functional evaluation of the intrathoracic stomach as an oesophageal substitute.

Authors:  L Bonavina; M Anselmino; A Ruol; R Bardini; N Borsato; A Peracchia
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 6.939

5.  A physical model of the intrathoracic stomach.

Authors:  W A Bemelman; J Verburg; W H Brummelkamp; P J Klopper
Journal:  Am J Physiol       Date:  1988-02

6.  [Comparison of duodenogastric reflux (DGR) to esophageal substitute between retro-sternal route and posterior mediastinal route].

Authors:  Y Yamashita; T Hirai; S Saeki; A Yoshimoto; K Noma; T Toge
Journal:  Nihon Kyobu Geka Gakkai Zasshi       Date:  1994-10

7.  Analysis of ambulatory duodenogastroesophageal reflux monitoring.

Authors:  R Cuomo; G Koek; D Sifrim; J Janssens; J Tack
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  Intestinal metaplasia in patients with columnar lined esophagus is associated with high levels of duodenogastroesophageal reflux.

Authors:  L Martinez de Haro ; A Ortiz; P Parrilla; V Munitiz; J Molina; J Bermejo; A Rios
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Assessment of non-acid esophageal reflux: comparison between long-term reflux aspiration test and fiberoptic bilirubin monitoring.

Authors:  F Stipa; H J Stein; H Feussner; S Kraemer; J R Siewert
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 3.429

10.  Pathologic duodenogastric reflux associated with persistence of symptoms after cholecystectomy.

Authors:  P Wilson; J R Jamieson; R A Hinder; M Anselmino; G Perdikis; R K Ueda; T R DeMeester
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 3.982

View more
  9 in total

1.  Comparison of the short-term health-related quality of life in patients with esophageal cancer with different routes of gastric tube reconstruction after minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Authors:  Hao Wang; Lijie Tan; Mingxiang Feng; Yi Zhang; Qun Wang
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-09-21       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Surveillance and treatment for second primary cancer in the gastric tube after radical esophagectomy.

Authors:  Takeo Bamba; Shin-ichi Kosugi; Manabu Takeuchi; Masaaki Kobayashi; Tatsuo Kanda; Atsushi Matsuki; Katsuyoshi Hatakeyama
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-12-09       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Gastric tube perforation after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Hideyuki Ubukata; Takeshi Nakachi; Takanobu Tabuchi; Hiroyuki Nagata; Akira Takemura; Jiro Shimazaki; Satoru Konishi; Takafumi Tabuchi
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2011-05-01       Impact factor: 2.549

4.  Gastric Conduit Perforation: A Late Fatal Complication after Esophagectomy.

Authors:  Aditya A Kulkarni; Vivek Chauhan; Vishal Sharma; Harjeet Singh
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2019-06-24

5.  A flow visualization model of duodenogastric reflux after esophagectomy with gastric interposition.

Authors:  Chul-Hyun Park; Jae-Ik Lee; Jaeyong Sung; Sunghoon Choi; Kwang-Pil Ko
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2013-09-25       Impact factor: 1.637

6.  Comparison of the outcomes between thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy via retrosternal and prevertebral lifting paths by the same surgeon.

Authors:  Bing Lv; Yong-Zhong Tao; Yu Zhu; Jing Wu; Bin Zhong; Fu-Chao Luo; Yang Liu; Ze-Xue Zhang
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-08-30       Impact factor: 2.754

7.  Comparison of end-to-side hand-sewn and side-to-side stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis in patients with lower thoracic esophageal cancer undergoing transhiatal esophagectomy: an Iranian retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Seyed Ziaeddin Rasihashemi; Ali Ramouz; Samad Beheshtirouy; Hassan Amini
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-07-31       Impact factor: 3.067

8.  Impact of Reconstruction Route on Postoperative Morbidity After Esophagectomy: Analysis of Esophagectomies in the Japanese National Clinical Database.

Authors:  Hirotoshi Kikuchi; Hideki Endo; Hiroyuki Yamamoto; Soji Ozawa; Hiroaki Miyata; Yoshihiro Kakeji; Hisahiro Matsubara; Yuichiro Doki; Yuko Kitagawa; Hiroya Takeuchi
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol Surg       Date:  2021-09-06

9.  Dislocation of the gastric conduit reconstructed via the posterior mediastinal route is a significant risk factor for anastomotic disorder after McKeown esophagectomy.

Authors:  Masanobu Nakajima; Hiroto Muroi; Maiko Kikuchi; Junki Fujita; Keisuke Ihara; Masatoshi Nakagawa; Shinji Morita; Takatoshi Nakamura; Satoru Yamaguchi; Kazuyuki Kojima
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol Surg       Date:  2021-08-12
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.