Revisiting Laparoscopic Reconstruction for Billroth 1 Versus Billroth 2 Versus Roux-en-Y After Distal Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in the Modern Era

Min Seo Kim, Yeongkeun Kwon, Eun Pyung Park, Liang An, Haeyeon Park, Sungsoo Park

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: In this modern era, laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) has largely replaced open distal gastrectomy for the treatment of gastric cancer; however, a quantitative review of reconstruction methods applied exclusively using LDG has not yet been published. Thereafter, we compared three reconstruction methods (Billroth I, Billroth II, and Roux-en Y) using the data derived solely from LDG patients. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using electronic bibliographic databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, and Embase), for articles that compared reconstruction methods in LDG, published within the last decade. A systematic review comparing 12 outcome parameters and sensitivity analyses were performed to increase the statistical power and minimize the inconsistency and heterogeneity of results. Results: Twenty-three clinical trials involving 5797 patients were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in the postoperative recovery and intraoperative parameters, except for operation time. B1 demonstrated a significantly shorter operation time when compared with B2 and RY by 21.6 min (P < 0.0001) and 44.69 min (P < 0.0001), respectively. In terms of postoperative endoscopic symptoms, RY was significantly superior to B1 and B2 for bile reflux (P < 0.001) and remnant gastritis (P < 0.001). For postoperative complications, B1 showed a significantly lower rate of postoperative morbidity than did RY and B2 (P = 0.0006 and P = 0.0005, respectively). Conclusions: Our study is the first meta-analysis comparing anastomoses in LDG and introduces novel criteria for consideration when selecting reconstructions in LDG. Considering the significant differences in postoperative complications and endoscopic symptoms, these two parameters lay reasonable groundwork for guiding the surgeon’s choice of reconstruction.

Original languageEnglish
JournalWorld Journal of Surgery
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Gastrectomy
Meta-Analysis
Gastroenterostomy
Bile Reflux
Bibliographic Databases
Gastritis
PubMed
Stomach Neoplasms
Clinical Trials
Morbidity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Revisiting Laparoscopic Reconstruction for Billroth 1 Versus Billroth 2 Versus Roux-en-Y After Distal Gastrectomy : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in the Modern Era. / Kim, Min Seo; Kwon, Yeongkeun; Park, Eun Pyung; An, Liang; Park, Haeyeon; Park, Sungsoo.

In: World Journal of Surgery, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{333917dafb60468b937913d660a89166,
title = "Revisiting Laparoscopic Reconstruction for Billroth 1 Versus Billroth 2 Versus Roux-en-Y After Distal Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in the Modern Era",
abstract = "Background: In this modern era, laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) has largely replaced open distal gastrectomy for the treatment of gastric cancer; however, a quantitative review of reconstruction methods applied exclusively using LDG has not yet been published. Thereafter, we compared three reconstruction methods (Billroth I, Billroth II, and Roux-en Y) using the data derived solely from LDG patients. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using electronic bibliographic databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, and Embase), for articles that compared reconstruction methods in LDG, published within the last decade. A systematic review comparing 12 outcome parameters and sensitivity analyses were performed to increase the statistical power and minimize the inconsistency and heterogeneity of results. Results: Twenty-three clinical trials involving 5797 patients were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in the postoperative recovery and intraoperative parameters, except for operation time. B1 demonstrated a significantly shorter operation time when compared with B2 and RY by 21.6 min (P < 0.0001) and 44.69 min (P < 0.0001), respectively. In terms of postoperative endoscopic symptoms, RY was significantly superior to B1 and B2 for bile reflux (P < 0.001) and remnant gastritis (P < 0.001). For postoperative complications, B1 showed a significantly lower rate of postoperative morbidity than did RY and B2 (P = 0.0006 and P = 0.0005, respectively). Conclusions: Our study is the first meta-analysis comparing anastomoses in LDG and introduces novel criteria for consideration when selecting reconstructions in LDG. Considering the significant differences in postoperative complications and endoscopic symptoms, these two parameters lay reasonable groundwork for guiding the surgeon’s choice of reconstruction.",
author = "Kim, {Min Seo} and Yeongkeun Kwon and Park, {Eun Pyung} and Liang An and Haeyeon Park and Sungsoo Park",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00268-019-04943-x",
language = "English",
journal = "World Journal of Surgery",
issn = "0364-2313",
publisher = "Springer New York",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Revisiting Laparoscopic Reconstruction for Billroth 1 Versus Billroth 2 Versus Roux-en-Y After Distal Gastrectomy

T2 - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in the Modern Era

AU - Kim, Min Seo

AU - Kwon, Yeongkeun

AU - Park, Eun Pyung

AU - An, Liang

AU - Park, Haeyeon

AU - Park, Sungsoo

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Background: In this modern era, laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) has largely replaced open distal gastrectomy for the treatment of gastric cancer; however, a quantitative review of reconstruction methods applied exclusively using LDG has not yet been published. Thereafter, we compared three reconstruction methods (Billroth I, Billroth II, and Roux-en Y) using the data derived solely from LDG patients. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using electronic bibliographic databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, and Embase), for articles that compared reconstruction methods in LDG, published within the last decade. A systematic review comparing 12 outcome parameters and sensitivity analyses were performed to increase the statistical power and minimize the inconsistency and heterogeneity of results. Results: Twenty-three clinical trials involving 5797 patients were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in the postoperative recovery and intraoperative parameters, except for operation time. B1 demonstrated a significantly shorter operation time when compared with B2 and RY by 21.6 min (P < 0.0001) and 44.69 min (P < 0.0001), respectively. In terms of postoperative endoscopic symptoms, RY was significantly superior to B1 and B2 for bile reflux (P < 0.001) and remnant gastritis (P < 0.001). For postoperative complications, B1 showed a significantly lower rate of postoperative morbidity than did RY and B2 (P = 0.0006 and P = 0.0005, respectively). Conclusions: Our study is the first meta-analysis comparing anastomoses in LDG and introduces novel criteria for consideration when selecting reconstructions in LDG. Considering the significant differences in postoperative complications and endoscopic symptoms, these two parameters lay reasonable groundwork for guiding the surgeon’s choice of reconstruction.

AB - Background: In this modern era, laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) has largely replaced open distal gastrectomy for the treatment of gastric cancer; however, a quantitative review of reconstruction methods applied exclusively using LDG has not yet been published. Thereafter, we compared three reconstruction methods (Billroth I, Billroth II, and Roux-en Y) using the data derived solely from LDG patients. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using electronic bibliographic databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, and Embase), for articles that compared reconstruction methods in LDG, published within the last decade. A systematic review comparing 12 outcome parameters and sensitivity analyses were performed to increase the statistical power and minimize the inconsistency and heterogeneity of results. Results: Twenty-three clinical trials involving 5797 patients were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in the postoperative recovery and intraoperative parameters, except for operation time. B1 demonstrated a significantly shorter operation time when compared with B2 and RY by 21.6 min (P < 0.0001) and 44.69 min (P < 0.0001), respectively. In terms of postoperative endoscopic symptoms, RY was significantly superior to B1 and B2 for bile reflux (P < 0.001) and remnant gastritis (P < 0.001). For postoperative complications, B1 showed a significantly lower rate of postoperative morbidity than did RY and B2 (P = 0.0006 and P = 0.0005, respectively). Conclusions: Our study is the first meta-analysis comparing anastomoses in LDG and introduces novel criteria for consideration when selecting reconstructions in LDG. Considering the significant differences in postoperative complications and endoscopic symptoms, these two parameters lay reasonable groundwork for guiding the surgeon’s choice of reconstruction.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061449630&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061449630&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00268-019-04943-x

DO - 10.1007/s00268-019-04943-x

M3 - Review article

C2 - 30756163

AN - SCOPUS:85061449630

JO - World Journal of Surgery

JF - World Journal of Surgery

SN - 0364-2313

ER -