Skip to main content
Download PDF

A meta-analysis of the efficacy of Roux-en-Y anastomosis and jejunal interposition after total gastrectomy

World Journal of Surgical Oncology volume 21, Article number: 136 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

To compare the clinical efficacy of two alimentary tract reconstruction methods—“P”-shape jejunal interposition (PJI) and Roux-en-Y anastomosis after total gastrectomy.

Method

The following search phrases were utilized to search PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China Academic Journals Network Full-text Database (CNKI), and Wanfang Database as of April 2022: “gastrectomy,” “Roux-en-Y,” “interposition,” “total gastrectomy,” and “jejunal interposition.” Meta-analysis of the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complication rate, and postoperative nutritional status of patients was performed using RevMan 5.4 software.

Results

A total of 24 studies and 1887 patients were included in the study. Among patients who received a total gastrectomy, the operation time in the PJI group was substantially longer than that in the Roux-en-Y group (WMD = 19.77, 95% CI: 5.84–33.70, P = 0.005). The incidence of postoperative reflux esophagitis in the PJI group was considerably reduced than that in the Roux-en-Y group (OR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.28–0.56, P < 0.01). The probability of postoperative dumping syndrome in the PJI group was significantly lower than that in the Roux-en-Y group (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.17–0.43, P < 0.01), and the postoperative body mass changes were significantly lower in the PJI group than in the Roux-en-Y group (WMD = 3.94, 95% CI: 2.24–5.64, P < 0.01). The PJI group had substantially higher postoperative hemoglobin, albumin, and total protein levels than the Roux-en-Y group (WMD = 13.94, 95% CI: 7.77–19.20, P < 0.01; WMD = 3.97, 95% CI: 2.58–5.37, P < 0.01; WMD = 5.31, 95% CI: 3.45–7.16, P < 0.01). The prognostic nutritional index was higher in the PJI group than in the Roux-en-Y group (WMD = 9.25, 95% CI: 7.37–11.13, P < 0.01).

Conclusion

PJI is a safe and effective reconstruction method and is superior to Roux-en-Y anastomosis in the prevention and treatment of postoperative complications and postoperative nutritional recovery in patients after total gastrectomy.

Background

Gastric carcinoma is a highly prevalent malignant tumor in clinical practice, with a high invasiveness and metastatic rate; it is the fifth most common cancer in the world [1]. Its morbidity and mortality rate rank second and third, respectively, in China [2]. With the improvements made in laparoscopic technology, laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) is the procedure of choice for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. However, the choice of alimentary tract reconstruction method following total gastrectomy depends on the postoperative recovery and long-term life quality of patients and has traditionally been the focus of clinical research [3]. Complications associated with total gastrectomy, including reflux esophagitis, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic hemorrhage, and anastomotic stenosis, are the primary factors limiting patient recovery following surgery and may even lead to unplanned repeat surgery or death [4]. There are numerous methods for reconstructing the alimentary tract after a total gastrectomy [5], and each procedure has its own advantages. However, a consensus has not yet been reached as to which method is superior [6]. Using meta-analysis, we examined the optimal surgical technique for alimentary tract reconstruction following total gastrectomy based on the literature on the most prevalent methods utilized in clinical practice (esophageal jejunal Roux-en-Y anastomosis and jejunal interposition). In esophageal jejunal Roux-en-Y anastomosis [6], the duodenal stump was closed, the lower end of the esophagus was anastomosed with the distal jejunum, and the continuous broken end of the duodenum was anastomosed with the output end of the jejunum in y-style. Jejunal interposition is more common in China but is not very common in the West. The interleaved jejunum is a section of jejunum used in the operation. The upper end is anastomosed with the esophagus, and the lower end is anastomosed with the pancreatoduodenum. In the middle of the jejunum, the anastomosis is opened to the postoperative residual stomach. This is equivalent to the establishment of a jejunal tee between the esophagus, the remnant stomach, and the intestine. Intermediate jejunum has a certain food storage function [6].

Data and method

Literature search strategy

As of April 2022, we searched the published literature on alimentary tract reconstruction following total gastrectomy on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China Academic Journals Network Full-text Database (CNKI), and Wanfang Database. In addition, we conducted an exhaustive search based on the reference list. The language of the search was not limited. The search terms were “gastrectomy,” “Roux-en-Y,” “interposition,” “total gastrectomy,” and “jejunal interposition.”

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria

(1) The study type was set as a randomized controlled trial (RCT); (2) the included participants were all gastric cancer patients who underwent selective total gastrectomy and alimentary reconstruction—either Roux-en-Y anastomosis or jejunal interposition; (3) none of the patients underwent treatments such as radiotherapy or chemotherapy prior to surgery, which could have affected the outcome; (4) the literature compared Roux-en-Y and “P”-shape jejunal interposition (PJI); (5) the study should have close follow-up and detailed clinical data, and the endpoint event should be derivable from the original data.

Exclusion criteria

(1) Reviews, expert recommendations, meta-analysis, case reports, animal experiments, and cadavers; (2) few cases included in any group of the literature (< 10 cases); (3) patients with distant metastases, recurrent tumors, or other systemic malignancies; (4) literature that did not have any outcome indicators; (5) there were obvious differences in postoperative treatments; (6) repetitive literature; (7) literature where the original text could not be retrieved.

Outcome indicators

The outcome indicators mainly included the occurrence of postoperative complications and nutritional indicators of patients.

Literature screening and data extraction

According to the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, two independent reviewers separately evaluated the literature, and a senior investigator made the final determination in cases of disagreement. Two individuals independently appraised the extracted literature, and the pertinent data mostly consisted of study characteristics, basic patient data, surgery-related outcome indicators, postoperative complication outcome index, and postoperative nutrition index.

Literature quality evaluation

The literature was independently evaluated by two researchers and the quality assessment of RCTs was typically completed using the Risk of Bias tool developed by the Cochrane Collaboration.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. The mean difference (MD) was used as the effect index for the measurement data, and the odds ratio (OR) was used as the effect index for the counting data. The point estimate and 95% CI were calculated for each effect size. The chi-square test was used to determine the heterogeneity between the results of the study (test level was α = 0.1). Also, the heterogeneity was determined by the combination of the I2 value. For studies with no statistical heterogeneity, the fixed-effect model was adopted for pooled analysis. For studies with statistical heterogeneity, the random-effects model was adopted for pooled analysis. Significant clinical heterogeneity was processed using methods such as subgroup analysis or sensitivity analysis, or only descriptive analysis. The test level for meta-analysis was α = 0.05.

Results

Literature search results

The preliminary screening yielded a total of 498 articles, including 185 in English and 313 in Chinese. By examining the titles and abstracts, 460 irrelevant and non-RCT references were excluded, and 38 RCTs were initially included. After a comprehensive reading of the full text, 24 articles were included in the study, including 4 in English and 20 in Chinese. In the 24 included RCTs, there were a total of 1887 cases of alimentary tract reconstruction following total gastrectomy for gastric cancer, including 944 cases in the “P”-shape jejunal interposition (PJI) group and 943 cases in the Roux-en-Y group (Supplemental Fig. 1). Randomization and double-blinded allocation were adopted in the included studies. All patients in the 24 studies were followed up after treatment, and loss of follow-up was noticed in 2 studies. The Jadad scores were used for quality assessment of the RCTs, and the scores of the 24 included studies were all above 4, indicating high quality (Table 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Comparison of operation time between the PJI group and the Roux-en-Y group

Full size image
Table 1 Basic characteristics and quality evaluation of the included literature
Full size table

Efficacy analysis

Operation time

Heterogeneity of operation time between the two surgical methods was reported in 7 studies (P < 0.01, I2 = 98%) [7,8,9, 18, 24, 27, 29]. The random-effects model was adopted for analysis, and the results showed that the operation time in the PJI group was significantly higher than that in the Roux-en-Y group (WMD = 19.77, 95% CI: 5.84–33.70, P = 0.005) (Fig. 1).

Intraoperative blood loss

Intraoperative blood loss was reported in 9 included studies [8, 17, 18, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30]. Heterogeneity was noticed between the studies (P = 0.002, I2 = 73%), and the random-effects model was adopted for analysis. The results showed that there was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss between the two groups (WMD =  − 7.21, 95% CI =  − 17.45–3.02, P = 0.17) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Comparison of intraoperative blood loss between the PJI group and the Roux-en-Y group

Full size image

Reflux esophagitis

The occurrence of postoperative reflux esophagitis in both groups was reported in 18 studies [9, 10, 13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24, 27,28,29,30]. There was no heterogeneity between studies (P = 0.17, I2 = 24%), and the fixed−effect model was used for analysis. The results revealed that the incidence of postoperative reflux esophagitis in the PJI group was significantly lower than that in the Roux-en-Y group (OR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.28–0.56, P < 0.01) (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Comparison of the incidence of postoperative reflux esophagitis between the PJI group and the Roux-en-Y group

Full size image

Dumping syndrome

The occurrence of postoperative dumping syndrome in both groups was reported in 14 studies [10, 13,14,15, 17,18,19,20,21,22, 24, 25, 28, 30]. There was no heterogeneity between the studies (P = 0.92, I2 = 0), and the fixed−effect model was adopted for pooled analysis. The results revealed that the probability of postoperative dumping syndrome in the PJI group was significantly lower than that in the Roux-en-Y group (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.17–0.43, P < 0.01) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Comparison of the incidence of postoperative dumping syndrome between the PJI group and the Roux-en-Y group

Full size image

Changes in postoperative body mass

Changes in postoperative body mass in both groups were reported in 15 studies [9,10,11,12,13, 15, 17, 19,20,21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30]. There was heterogeneity between the studies (P < 0.01, I2 = 98%), and the random−effects model was adopted for analysis. The results revealed that the changes in postoperative body mass in patients in the PJI group were significantly lower than those in the Roux-en-Y group (WMD = 3.94, 95% CI: 2.24–5.64, P < 0.01) (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Comparison of changes in postoperative body mass between the PJI group and the Roux-en-Y group

Full size image

Changes in postoperative hemoglobin, albumin, and total protein

  • (1) Changes in postoperative hemoglobin of patients in the two groups were reported in 16 studies [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16, 19, 20, 22,23,24,25, 27, 30]. There was heterogeneity between the studies (P < 0.01, I2 = 99%), and the random−effects model was adopted for analysis. The results revealed that the postoperative hemoglobin of patients in the PJI group was higher than that in the Roux-en-Y group (WMD = 13.94, 95% CI: 7.77–19.20, P < 0.01) (Fig. 6A).

  • (2) Postoperative albumin of patients in the two groups was reported in 12 studies [9,10,11, 15, 19, 20, 22,23,24,25,26,27]. There was heterogeneity between the studies (P < 0.01, I2 = 82%), and the random-effects model was adopted for analysis. The results showed that postoperative albumin in the PJI group was higher than that in the Roux-en-Y group (WMD = 3.97, 95% CI: 2.58–5.37, P < 0.01) (Fig. 6B).

  • (3) Postoperative total protein of patients in the two groups was reported in 14 studies [9, 10, 12,13,14,15, 19, 20, 22,23,24,25, 27, 30]. There was heterogeneity between the studies (P < 0.01, I2 = 82%), and the random−effects model was adopted for analysis. The results revealed that postoperative total protein in the PJI group was higher than that in the Roux-en-Y group (WMD = 5.31, 95% CI: 3.45–7.16, P < 0.01) (Fig. 6C).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Comparison of changes in postoperative hemoglobin, albumin, and total protein levels between the PJI group and the Roux-en-Y group. A Comparison of postoperative hemoglobin between the PJI group and the Roux-en-Y group. B Comparison of postoperative albumin between the PJI group and the Roux-en-Y group. C Comparison of postoperative total protein between the PJI group and the Roux-en-Y group

Full size image

Prognostic nutritional index

Prognostic nutritional index of patients in the two groups was reported in 2 studies [9, 30]. There was heterogeneity between the studies (P < 0.15, I2 = 53%), and the random−effects model was adopted for analysis. The results revealed that the prognostic nutritional index of patients in the PJI group was better than that in the Roux−en-Y group (WMD = 9.25, 95% CI: 7.37–11.13, P < 0.01) (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Comparison of the postoperative prognostic nutritional index between the PJI group and the Roux-en-Y group

Full size image

Publication bias

The funnel plots of the incidences of reflux esophagitis and dumping syndrome were symmetrical, indicating a small publication bias (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8
figure 8

Funnel plots of the incidences of reflux esophagitis and dumping syndrome. A Funnel plot of the publication bias related to reflux esophagitis. B Funnel plot of the publication bias related to dumping syndrome

Full size image

Discussion

Gastric cancer is one of the most prevalent malignant tumors in China. As a result of dietary and lifestyle changes, the incidence of gastric cancer is increasing annually, the affected population is getting younger, [31] and the mortality rate is approximately 75%. The current standard treatment method for advanced gastric cancer is total gastrectomy, which has been performed for more than a century. After a total gastrectomy, the patient may experience loss of appetite or decreased food intake, resulting in severe malnutrition. Consequently, the reconstruction of the alimentary tract following a total gastrectomy is a major concern. Currently, there is no consensus on the alimentary tract reconstruction method following total gastrectomy. The traditional esophageal jejunal Roux-en-Y anastomosis is often preferred due to its simple procedure and effectiveness in improving postoperative reflux. The complications after esophageal jejunal Roux-en-Y anastomosis include anastomotic leakage, empyema, subdiaphragmatic abscess, and postoperative intestinal obstruction. However, the issue of nutrient absorption after total gastrectomy is a matter of concern. To improve the long-term life quality of patients, jejunal interposition that preserves the duodenum is preferred. Roux-en-Y anastomosis transected jejunum, which damaged the integrity of conduction between the intestinal tract and related nerves, and food did not pass through the duodenum, which interfered with normal digestion and absorption function. Compared with the traditional Roux-en-Y anastomosis, the interposition jejunal gastroreplacement operation did not completely cut the jejunum during the operation, so as to maintain the integrity of the patient’s intestinal physiology and nerve conduction, and to preserve the patient’s digestive tract function to the greatest extent, so as to avoid postoperative reflux esophagitis. The physiological function of the duodenum is preserved, which is conducive to promoting the secretion of cholecystokinin and pancreatic fluid, and provides a good intestinal alkaline environment for patients, which effectively reduces the occurrence probability of retention syndrome and anastomotic leakage, and also plays an important role in the growth of intestinal mucosa. This operation can effectively improve the quality of life of patients after surgery. However, jejunal interposition is a relatively complex procedure, involves a longer operation time, and correspondingly has an increased risk of postoperative complications. Its complications include anastomotic leakage, anastomotic hemorrhage, anastomotic stenosis, intestinal obstruction, infection, obstruction of jejunal bag emptying, reflux esophagitis, R-S syndrome, dumping syndrome, early fullness, gallstones, bile reflux, Roux-en-Y retention syndrome, anemia, malnutrition, etc. Although there are several controversies, a vast number of clinical studies have been conducted on this topic. However, there is a lack of large-scale, multi-center, prospective RCTs. Publication bias was frequently observed in studies, and there is still no consensus on the reconstruction method of the alimentary tract following total gastrectomy.

The results of this study revealed that compared with Roux-en-Y anastomosis, patients who underwent jejunal interposition after total gastrectomy had lower incidence of reflux esophagitis and dumping syndrome; higher prognostic nutritional index, postoperative hemoglobin, albumin, and total protein levels; and less changes in postoperative body mass; however, the operation time was relatively longer in the jejunal interposition group. There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss between the two groups.

However, one thing that must be brought to our attention is that jejunal interposition is usually a three-anastomoses technique, which potentially increases the overall risk of leakage and other anastomotic complications when compared to a two-anastomoses technique such as the Roux-en-Y. So we should pay more attention to this point in clinical practice and in future studies.

There are certain limitations to this study. First, the sample sizes of some of the studies included in this meta-analysis were small, which may have affected the results. Second, the research was conducted in a single center and there were insufficient measurement indicators in some of the included studies, which may have affected the strength of the results. Third, there may be a distribution bias as studies in other languages were not included. Fourth, the vast majority of the studies in this field come from China and its respective patient population, which could cause bias. Finally, with the development of total gastrectomy and the rapid adoption of laparoscopic techniques, traditional open surgery and laparoscopic surgery may have also had an impact on the outcome.

Conclusion

In conclusion, compared with Roux-en-Y anastomosis, jejunal interposition not only effectively prevents postoperative complications, but also has significant advantages in improving long-term prognosis and life quality of patients, making it a safe and effective method for reconstructing the alimentary tract. However, there is still no consensus on how to reconstruct the alimentary tract following total gastrectomy, and there is a need for a substantial number of clinical cases to resolve the same.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

LTG:

Laparoscopic total gastrectomy

MD:

Mean difference

OR:

Odds ratio

PJI:

“P”-shape jejunal interposition

References

  1. Thrift AP, Nguyen TH. Gastric cancer epidemiology. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2021;31(3):425–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer (2018 Edition) [J]. J Multidiscip Cancer Manag. 2019;5(01):55–82.

  3. Du HY, Wang ZJ, Yang HT. Advances research on digestive tract reconstruction in totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy [J]. Medical Journal of National Defending Forces in Northwest China. 2019;40(05):327–31.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Huang CM, Ji JF, Qin XY. Chinese expert consensus on the prevention and treatment of esophagojejunostomy complications after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer (2020 edition). Chin J Pract Surg. 2021;41(02):121–4.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cai QP. Reasonable selection of digestive tract reconstruction methods after total gastrectomy[J]. Shanghai Yi Yao. 2021;42(11):6–11. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-1533.2021.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Li LP, Cui HP, Shang L. Choice and consideration of digestive tract reconstruction after total gastrectomy and proximal gastrectomy. Chin J Digest Surg. 2021;20(06):643–7.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fuchs KH, Thiede A, Engemann R, Deltz E, Stremme O, Hamelmann H. Reconstruction of the food passage after total gastrectomy: randomized trial. World J Surg. 1995;19(5):698–705; discussion 705-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00295908. PMID: 7571666.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Adachi S, Inagawa S, Enomoto T, Shinozaki E, Oda T, Kawamoto T. Subjective and functional results after total gastrectomy: prospective study for longterm comparison of reconstruction procedures. Gastric Cancer. 2003;6(1):24–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101200300003. PMID: 12673423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang JZ, Lu HS, Wu XY, Huang CM, Wang C, Guan GX, Zhang XF. Influence of different procedures of alimentary tract reconstruction after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer on the nutrition and metabolism of patients: a prospective clinical study. Natl Med J Chin. 2003;17:15–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Liu ZJ, Luo YS, Ge HY, Ma XG, Wang LM, Cheng YD, Zhang CJ. Influence of jejunal interposition pouch reconstruction on nutritional condition of patients after total gastrectomy. Chin J Bases Clin Gen Surg. 2004;01:58–60.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Xu JG. Clinical comparison of two types of total gastrectomy for gastric replacement. Pract Clin Med. 2006;07:66–8.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Yang PM. Comparison of two gastric replacement methods after total gastrectomy. Chin J Gastroenterol. 2006;01:23–5.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dong ZJ, Wu LX, Li EJ. Study on reconstruction of digestive tract after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Hebei Med. 2009;31(21):2953–4.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Long Z. Observation on clinical efficacy of digestive tract reconstruction after total gastrectomy. Chin Med Sci. 2012;2(10):219–22.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Zhan HJ. Prospective randomized controlled clinical study of functional jejunum interposition after total gastrectomy [D]. Tianjin Medical University; 2013.

  16. Zhang ZD, Ma F, Zhang YL, Ma EM, Kong Y, Liu HX, Hua YW. Comparison study of three methods of digestive tract reconstruction after radical gastrectomy in gastric cancer patients. Chin J Gastrointes Surg. 2013;16(11):1073–7.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chen SF. Observation on the therapeutic effect of modified jejunal interposition for gastric replacement on reconstruction of digestive tract after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Med Theory Pract. 2014;27(19):2574–5. https://doi.org/10.19381/j.issn.1001-7585.2014.19.031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wei XJ. Clinical observation on total gastrectomy with OItype jejunal interposition in situ generation for gastric cancer. Guangxi Med. 2014;36(03):315–7.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Shao Y, Yin L. Evaluation of P shape jejunum pan jejunum esophagus Royx-en-Y anastomosis and modified jejunal interposition in total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Chin J Clin Oncol Rehabil. 2015;22(06):705–7. https://doi.org/10.13455/j.cnki.cjcor.2015.06.22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jiang Y, Zheng MS, Wu XL, Lin YF. Effect of interposition jejunum reconstruction on nutritional metabolism and gastrointestinal function of patients after total gastrectomy. Chin Health Standard Manag. 2016;7(24):35–7.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tao XL, Jiang HW, Xu L, Chen J, Xiao SM, Zhou HY. Observation on the effect of adjusting double channel jejunum interposition for gastric reconstruction after total gastrectomy. Shandong Med. 2017;57(40):60–2.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Zhou FY. Comparison of different digestive tract reconstruction methods in patients undergoing total gastrectomy for gastric cancer [J]. Chin Med Guide. 2017;15(32):173–4. https://doi.org/10.15912/j.cnki.gocm.2017.32.137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Li L. The effect of jejunal interposition and Roux-en-Y anastomosis on gastric cancer patients after radical total gastrectomy. Modern Diag Treatment. 2018;29(06):922–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Qin XY. Comparison of functional jejunum interposition and P-Roux-en-Y jejunum interposition in gastric cancer patients after radical total gastrectomy. Henan Med Res. 2018;27(17):3118–20.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tao XL. Early efficacy evaluation of regulated double channel jejunal interposition for gastric cancer after total gastrectomy [D]. Southwest Medical University; 2018.

  26. Yang JX, Jiang HW, Xu L, Tao XL, Zhou HY, Wang ZH. Changes of serum copper in patients with different digestive tract reconstruction after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Chin J Clin Res. 2019;32(01):53–6. https://doi.org/10.13429/j.cnki.cjcr.2019.01.013.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Li Z, Dong J, Huang Q, Zhang W, Tao K. Comparison of three digestive tract reconstruction methods for the treatment of Siewert II and III adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction: a prospective, randomized controlled study. World J Surg Oncol. 2019;17(1):209. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-019-1762-x. PMID:31810484;PMCID:PMC6898954.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Liu J, Liu XW. Effects of two different reconstruction methods of digestive tract after radical total gastrectomy on quality of life and immune nutrition status in patients with gastric cancer. Contemp Med. 2020;26(13):31–3.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wang H, Hu X, Chen S, Xiang J, Yang Z, Zhou Z, Chen Y, Lin Y, Chen Y, Peng J. Functional jejunal interposition versus Roux-en-Y anastomosis after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Surg Oncol. 2020;34:236–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2020.04.023. Epub 2020 Apr 25 PMID: 32891336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Li ZL, Xie XY. The effects of different digestive tract reconstruction methods on gallbladder contraction function and postoperative complications in patients with gastric cancer after laparoscopic total gastrectomy. Pract J Clin Med. 2021;18(02):108–11.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Liu YW, Cheng N, Yang DZ, Jia Y, Dong M, Tang X, Yang XD, Yuan HB. Effects of different reconstruction and anastomosis methods of digestive tract on patients with gastric cancer after total gastrectomy. Cancer Clin Rehabil Chin. 2022;29(03):257–60.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are particularly grateful to all the people who have given us help on our article.

Funding

This research was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Hebei (NO. H2020209309), Key Project of Medical Science Research of Hebei (NO. 20160736),

Project of introducing overseas students of Human Resources and Social Security of Hebei (NO. CY201721), and Project of Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei Basic Research Cooperation (NO. J200016).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. North China University of Science and Technology Affiliated Hospital, Tangshan, 063000, China

    Yu-hang Liu

  2. Department of Emergency Intensive Care Unit, Yangpu Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200090, China

    Rui Meng

  3. Tangshan Gongren Hospital, Tangshan, 063000, China

    Bing Zhu & Guan-yi Ding

  4. North China University of Science and Technology Affiliated Hospital, Tangshan, 063000, China

    Qi-qi Zhan & Xin Yang

  5. Tangshan People’s Hospital, Tangshan, 063000, China

    Chun-liang Jia

  6. North China University of Science and Technology Affiliated Hospital, Tangshan, 063000, China & Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, China Hospital Medical Sciences, Shenzhen Center, No.113, Baohe District, Shenzhen, 518000, China

    Wei-guo Xu

Authors
  1. Yu-hang Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rui Meng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bing Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Qi-qi Zhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xin Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Guan-yi Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chun-liang Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Wei-guo Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design of the research: Liu Yuhang. Acquisition of data: Liu Yuhang, Jia Chunliang and Meng Rui. Analysis and interpretation of the data:Yang Xin,Meng Rui,Ding Guanyi and Zhu Bing. Statistical analysis: Liu Yuhang,Zhu Bing,Ding Guanyi and Zhan Qiqi. Obtaining financing:Zhan Qiqi,Yang Xin,Xu Weiguo and Jia Chunliang. Writing of the manuscript: Liu Yuhang, Jia Chunliang and Meng Rui. Critical revision of the manuscript for intellectual content: Liu Yuhang. All authors read and approved the final draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wei-guo Xu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

Supplemental Fig. 1. A Total gastrectomy Roux-en-Y anastomosis. The duodenal stump was first closed, and the jejunum was severed 15-20 cm below the Treitz ligament. End-to-side anastomosis was performed between the distal jejunum and the esophagus, and the stump was kept 3-5 cm and closed. End-to-side jejunal-jejunal anastomosis was performed 40 cm from the distal end of the esophagojejunal anastomosis. B: Total gastrectomy with jejunostomy. Firstly, end-to-side esophagojejunal anastomosis was performed 40 cm below the Treitz ligament, and end-to-side anastomosis was performed on the duodenum at 35 cm away from the anastomosis, and side-to-side anastomosis was performed on the jejunoduodenum about 5 cm below the jejunoduodenal anastomosis and 20 cm below the Treitz ligament. The input branch segment was 5-7 cm away from the esophagojejunoduodenal anastomosis and the output branch segment was 2 cm away from the distal end of the jejunoduodenal anastomosis.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, Yh., Meng, R., Zhu, B. et al. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of Roux-en-Y anastomosis and jejunal interposition after total gastrectomy. World J Surg Onc 21, 136 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-023-03002-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-023-03002-z

Keywords

  • Alimentary tract reconstruction
  • Jejunal interposition
  • Meta-analysis
  • Roux-en-Y
  • Total gastrectomy

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

ISSN: 1477-7819

Contact us