Objective: To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of modified double-channel anastomosis for digestive tract reconstruction in Methodology: Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, this study included a total of 21 patients with oesophagogastric junction cancer or proximal gastric cancer who underwent laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with modified double-channel anastomosis. After resection of the proximal stomach, the remaining stomach was shaped into a tube. The distal end of the oesophagus was anastomosed to the jejunum. The jejunum was anastomosed 10-15 cm from the oesophagojejunostomy site laterally to the anterior wall of the stomach 3 cm from the gastric remnant. General data including operative time, anastomosis time, intraoperative blood loss, time to oral intake, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications were evaluated. Postoperative gastroscopy and gastrointestinal imaging were performed to assess the residual stomach motility and anti-reflux effect. Results: All twenty-one patients underwent modified double-channel anastomosis. The mean operation time was 254 (211 - 297) minutes. Mean reconstruction time was 65 (60 - 70) minutes. A mean of 19 (15 - 29) lymph nodes were cleared. Mean intraoperative blood loss was 86 (78.5-105ml). Mean time to oral intake was 6 (5 - 6.5) days. Postoperatively, there were two cases of pulmonary infection. There was no occurrence of anastomotic stenosis, anastomotic bleeding, or leakage. Gastrointestinal contrast study at 6 months postoperatively revealed reduced gastrointestinal motility in three cases and good residual gastric motility observed in the remaining patients. Gastroscopic examination at 6 months postoperatively revealed only one case of reflux oesophagitis. Conclusion: Modified double-channel anastomosis for proximal gastrectomy is safe and feasible. It provides a good anti-reflux effect and gastric emptying function without increasing the risk of postoperative complications.
Morbid obesity and its accompanying diseases have become one of the most serious public health problems warranting global effort and bariatric and metabolic surgery is still the most effective method for long-term weight control. Among all bariatric and metabolic procedures, sleeve gastrectomy is currently the most widely used, but it is not a perfect procedure. One of the most serious issues that this surgical procedure faces is the possibility of worsening existing or developing de novo gastroesophageal reflux disease after surgery. Moreover, there is currently a lack of high-level clinical trial evidence on the diagnosis and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease in patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy. Therefore, initiated by four domestic bariatric and metabolic surgery centers, 41 experts with rich experience in bariatric and metabolic surgery and diagnosis and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease from China, Japan, and South Korea reached a consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease in sleeve gastrectomy patients using the Delphi method. There are a total of 59 consultation questions in this consensus, of which 44 have reached a consensus. We hope that this consensus can not only serve as a reference for clinical diagnosis and treatment, but also provide more possible directions for future high-quality clinical research.
In the 21st century,surgery has entered the 4.0 era,also known as the era of surgical intelligence.As technology continues to improve and advance,robotic surgery has become an important direction of development in the field of minimally invasive surgery.With significant technical advantages such as high-definition 3D stereoscopic vision and the elimination of physiological tremors,robotic surgery is increasingly being applied in the field of hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery,gradually becoming the primary surgical approach in this domain.Compared to traditional open surgery and laparoscopic surgical techniques,robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery demonstrates notable advantages in terms of precision and safety.It not only reduces intraoperative blood loss but also shortens postoperative hospitalization,thereby accelerating patient recovery.The authors'center is one of the largest robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery centers in the world.Since 2011,it has pioneered robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery and successfully performed nearly 10 000 cases,gaining a wealth of surgical experience.During this period,the authors'team established a complete robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery system.This article summarizes the latest research developments in the field of robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery at home and abroad,combining the rich clinical experience of the authors'center,to provide an in-depth review of the progress and and emerging surgical techniques in robotic pancreatic surgery,liver surgery,and biliary surgery,and also offer an outlook on future trends in robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery.
本刊编辑部发现仍有个别作者一稿两投和一稿两用,为了维护本刊的声誉和广大读者的利益,本刊就一稿两投和一稿两用问题的处理声明如下. 1.一稿两投和一稿两用的认定:凡属原始研究的报告,同语种一式两份投寄不同的杂志,或主要数据和图表相同、只是文字表述可能存在某些不同之处的两篇文稿,分别投寄不同的杂志,属一稿两投;一经为两杂志刊用,则为一稿两用.
Objective:To compare the aortic remodeling of the Fabulous stent system and standard thoracic aortic endovascular repair (TEVAR) on distal aorta type B aortic dissection (TBAD). Methods:The prospective data collected between Dec 2017 and Oct 2019 from 134 patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD) who underwent treatment with the "Fabulous" stent system, and retrospective data from 159 TBAD patients receiving standard TEVAR from corresponding multicenter. By using propensity score matching analysis, we compared the prognosis and aortic remodeling outcomes in patients undergoing Fabulous and standard TEVAR treatments during a 1-year postoperative follow-up.Results:In this study, 62 patients in Fabulous group and 62 patients in standard TEVAR were included.There were no significant statistical differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. In terms of aortic remodeling in bare stent region, Fabulous group had better change trends of diameter of true lumen [10.6 (4.4, 14.5) mm vs. 4.7 (0.9, 10.7) mm, P=0.001] and false lumen [-24.2 (-30.5, -4.9) mm vs. 0.7 (-11.8, 2.3) mm, P<0.001] than those in the standard TEVAR group. The rate of complete false lumen thrombosis was also higher in the Fabulous group (62.9% vs. 37.1%, P=0.042). Conclusion:The Fabulous stent system, when compared to standard TEVAR surgery, demonstrates good aortic remodeling outcomes in the distal aorta.
