SynthesisBMC surgery2026
Comparing safety and short-term outcomes of proximal gastrectomy with double-flap technique and other reconstructions for proximal gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProximal gastrectomy (PG) for proximal gastric cancer (PGC) is associated with complications such as gastroesophageal reflux. The double-flap technique (DFT) has been proposed as an effective anti-reflux reconstruction method. This systematic review aims to compare the safety and short-term outcomes of DFT versus other reconstruction methods for proximal gastrectomy.
methodsThe present meta-analysis was conducted, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing DFT with other reconstruction methods for proximal gastric cancer were included. Outcomes assessed included surgical parameters (operative time and intraoperative blood loss), postoperative reflux incidence (subjective reflux symptoms, objective evaluation using endoscopy and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) intake), and other short-term postoperative indicators (postoperative complications and length of postoperative hospital stay). Data were extracted from PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library through June 1st, 2025. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We performed meta-analyses using Review Manager 5.4, presenting mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsA total of 11 retrospective studies were included in this meta-analysis. Qualitative analysis showed DFT had anastomotic leakage, stricture, and pancreatic fistula rates of 1.4%, 5.9%, and 1.8%, respectively. Postoperatively, 17.4% of patients took PPIs, and 3.4% reported subjective reflux symptoms. One year after surgery, during follow-up endoscopy, 5.1% of patients were found to have gastroesophageal reflux (Los Angeles classification grade B or higher). Meta-analysis results showed that the DFT group had significantly longer operative times but reduced intraoperative blood loss compared to the esophagojejunostomy (EJ) groups. Postoperative complication rates, including anastomotic leakage and stricture, were similar across the double tract reconstruction (DTR) group and other esophagogastrostomy (EG) groups. While no significant differences were found in reflux symptoms or esophagitis at the 1-year follow-up, DFT was associated with significantly reduced PPI usage, especially compared to the EG group.
conclusionsDFT is a safe and effective method for reconstructing the digestive tract following PG, offering a balance between surgical complexity and favorable short-term outcomes. Although it does not fully eliminate reflux, its reduced PPI dependency and acceptable complication profile make it a promising option. Further large-scale randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.
trial registrationThe protocol was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO website as CRD42025636187 on January 9th, 2025.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.