Top

23-04-2024 | Gastrectomy | Original Article

Differences in glycemic trends due to reconstruction methods after proximal gastrectomy from the perspective of continuous glucose-monitoring

Authors: Katsutoshi Shoda, Takeshi Kubota, Yoshihiko Kawaguchi, Hidenori Akaike, Suguru Maruyama, Yudai Higuchi, Takashi Nakayama, Ryo Saito, Koichi Takiguchi, Shinji Furuya, Kensuke Shiraishi, Hidetake Amemiya, Hiromichi Kawaida, Daisuke Ichikawa

Published in: Surgery Today

Abstract

Purpose

In recent years, clinicians have focused on the importance of preventing hypoglycemia. We evaluated the impact of different reconstruction procedures after proximal gastrectomy on glycemic variability in non-diabetic patients with gastric cancer.

Methods

This prospective observational study was conducted between April 2020 and March 2023. Flash continuous glucose-monitoring, a novel method for assessing glycemic control, was used to evaluate the glycemic profiles after gastrectomy. A flash continuous glucose-monitoring sensor was placed subcutaneously at the time of discharge, and glucose trends were evaluated for 2 weeks.

Results

The anastomotic methods for proximal gastrectomy were esophagogastrostomy in 10 patients and double-tract reconstruction in 10 patients. The time below this range (glucose levels < 70 mg/dL) was significantly higher in the double-tract reconstruction group than in the esophagogastrostomy group (p = 0.049). A higher nocturnal time below this range was significantly correlated with an older age and double-tract reconstruction (p = 0.025 and p = 0.025, respectively).

Conclusion

These findings provide new insights into reconstruction methods after proximal gastrectomy by assessing postoperative hypoglycemia in non-diabetic patients with gastric cancer.

Available only for authorised users

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–49. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660.CrossRefPubMed

Sekiguchi M, Oda I, Matsuda T, Saito Y. Epidemiological trends and future perspectives of gastric cancer in Eastern Asia. Digestion. 2022;103:22–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000518483.CrossRefPubMed

Ichikawa D, Komatsu S, Kosuga T, Konishi H, Okamoto K, Shiozaki A, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics of clinical early gastric cancer in the upper-third stomach. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:12851–6. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i45.12851.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Association JGC, Guidelines JGCT. 6th ed. Gastric Cancer. 2021;2023(26):1–25.

Tsujiura M, Nunobe S. Functional and nutritional outcomes after gastric cancer surgery. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5:29. https://doi.org/10.21037/tgh.2019.11.10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hosoda K, Yamashita K, Sakuramoto S, Katada N, Moriya H, Mieno H, et al. Postoperative quality of life after laparoscopy-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy compared with laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy: a cross-sectional postal questionnaire survey. Am J Surg. 2017;213:763–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.09.041.CrossRefPubMed

Scarpellini E, Arts J, Karamanolis G, Laurenius A, Siquini W, Suzuki H, et al. International consensus on the diagnosis and management of dumping syndrome. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2020;16:448–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-020-0357-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Tan L, Ran MN, Liu ZL, Tang LH, Ma Z, He Z, et al. Comparison of the prognosis of four different surgical strategies for proximal gastric cancer: a network meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2022;407:63–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-021-02378-4.CrossRefPubMed

Kubota T, Shoda K, Ushigome E, Kosuga T, Konishi H, Shiozaki A, et al. Utility of continuous glucose monitoring following gastrectomy. Gastric Cancer. 2020;23:699–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-019-01036-5.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Leelarathna L, Wilmot EG. Flash forward: a review of flash glucose monitoring. Diabet Med. 2018;35:472–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13584.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Huhn EA, Linder T, Eppel D, Weißhaupt K, Klapp C, Schellong K, et al. Effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring to improve glycaemic control and pregnancy outcome in patients with gestational diabetes mellitus: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2020;10: e040498. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040498.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, Amiel SA, Beck R, Biester T, et al. Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes Care. 2019;42:1593–603. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci19-0028.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. TNM classification of malignant tumours. 8th ed. John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2017.

14.

Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 3rd. English ed. Gastric Cancer. 2011;14:101–12

15.

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Komatsu S, Kosuga T, Kubota T, Kumano T, Okamoto K, Ichikawa D, et al. Non-flap hand-sewn esophagogastrostomy as a simple anti-reflux procedure in laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2020;405:541–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-020-01900-4.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Nunobe S, Ida S. Current status of proximal gastrectomy for gastric and esophagogastric junctional cancer: a review. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2020;4:498–504. https://doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12365.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Kuroda S, Choda Y, Otsuka S, Ueyama S, Tanaka N, Muraoka A, et al. Multicenter retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the double-flap technique as antireflux esophagogastrostomy after proximal gastrectomy (rD-FLAP study). Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2019;3:96–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12216.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Ji X, Jin C, Ji K, Zhang J, Wu X, Jia Z, et al. Double tract reconstruction reduces reflux esophagitis and improves quality of life after radical proximal gastrectomy for patients with upper gastric or esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Cancer Res Treat. 2021;53:784–94. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2020.1064.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Ikeda M, Takiguchi N, Morita T, Matsubara H, Takeno A, Takagane A, et al. Quality of life comparison between esophagogastrostomy and double tract reconstruction for proximal gastrectomy assessed by Postgastrectomy Syndrome Assessment Scale (PGSAS)-45. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2023;7:430–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12645.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Lu S, Ma F, Yang W, Peng L, Hua Y. Is single tract jejunal interposition better than double tract reconstruction after proximal gastrectomy? Updates Surg. 2023;75:53–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-022-01393-4.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Yamashita K, Iwatsuki M, Koga Y, Toihata T, Kiyozumi Y, Kuroda D, et al. Preservation of physiological passage through the remnant stomach prevents postoperative malnutrition after proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction. Surg Today. 2019;49:748–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-019-01799-5.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Shibamoto J, Kubota T, Nishibeppu K, Ohashi T, Konishi H, Shiozaki A, et al. Clinical relevance of proximal gastrectomy with double-flap esophagogastrostomy reconstruction with glycemic profile and postgastrectomy syndromes. Anticancer Res. 2023;43:857–64. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.16228.CrossRefPubMed

24.

International Hypoglycaemia Study Group. Hypoglycaemia, cardiovascular disease, and mortality in diabetes: epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7:385–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30315-2.CrossRef

25.

Fanelli CG, Porcellati F, Pampanelli S, Bolli GB. Insulin therapy and hypoglycaemia: the size of the problem. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2004;20(Suppl 2):S32–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.514.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Shoda K, Kubota T, Ushigome E, Konishi H, Shiozaki A, Fujiwara H, et al. Dynamics of glucose levels after Billroth I versus Roux-en-Y reconstruction in patients who undergo distal gastrectomy. Surg Today. 2022;52:889–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-021-02404-4.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Rubino F. Is type 2 diabetes an operable intestinal disease? A provocative yet reasonable hypothesis. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(Suppl 2):S290–6. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc08-s271.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Drucker DJ, Nauck MA. The incretin system: glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes. Lancet. 2006;368:1696–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69705-5.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Differences in glycemic trends due to reconstruction methods after proximal gastrectomy from the perspective of continuous glucose-monitoring
Authors: Katsutoshi Shoda
Takeshi Kubota
Yoshihiko Kawaguchi
Hidenori Akaike
Suguru Maruyama
Yudai Higuchi
Takashi Nakayama
Ryo Saito
Koichi Takiguchi
Shinji Furuya
Kensuke Shiraishi
Hidetake Amemiya
Hiromichi Kawaida
Daisuke Ichikawa
Publication date: 23-04-2024
Publisher: Springer Nature Singapore
Keywords: Gastrectomy
Gastrectomy
Hypoglycemia
Gastric Cancer
Gastric Cancer
Published in: Surgery Today
Print ISSN: 0941-1291
Electronic ISSN: 1436-2813
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-024-02845-7

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Differences in glycemic trends due to reconstruction methods after proximal gastrectomy from the perspective of continuous glucose-monitoring

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content