Cargando…
Gastric emptying performance of stomach-partitioning gastrojejunostomy versus conventional gastrojejunostomy for treating gastric outlet obstruction: A retrospective clinical and numerical simulation study
Purpose: This study evaluated the gastric emptying performance of stomach-partitioning gastrojejunostomy (SPGJ) versus conventional gastrojejunostomy (CGJ) for treating gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Methods: First, 73 patients who underwent SPGJ (n = 48) or CGJ (n = 25) were involved. Surgical o...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9982392/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36873355 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1109295 |
_version_ | 1784900321492860928 |
---|---|
author | Zhang, Haiqiao Xu, Fengyan Zheng, Zhi Liu, Xiaoye Yin, Jie Fan, Zhenmin Zhang, Jun |
author_facet | Zhang, Haiqiao Xu, Fengyan Zheng, Zhi Liu, Xiaoye Yin, Jie Fan, Zhenmin Zhang, Jun |
author_sort | Zhang, Haiqiao |
collection | PubMed |
description | Purpose: This study evaluated the gastric emptying performance of stomach-partitioning gastrojejunostomy (SPGJ) versus conventional gastrojejunostomy (CGJ) for treating gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Methods: First, 73 patients who underwent SPGJ (n = 48) or CGJ (n = 25) were involved. Surgical outcomes, postoperative recovery of gastrointestinal function, delayed gastric emptying, and nutritional status of both groups were compared. Second, a three-dimensional stomach model was constructed based on the gastric filling CT images from a GOO patient with a standard stature. The present study evaluated SPGJ numerically by comparing it with CGJ in terms of local flow parameters such as flow velocity, pressure, particle retention time, and particle retention velocity. Results: Clinical data found that SPGJ had significant advantages over CGJ in terms of time to pass gas (3 versus 4 days, p < 0.001), time to oral intake (3 versus 4 days, p = 0.001), postoperative hospitalization (7 versus 9 days, p < 0.001), the incidence of delay gastric emptying (DGE) (2.1% versus 36%, p < 0.001), DGE grading (p < 0.001), and complications (p < 0.001) for GOO patients. Moreover, numerical simulation revealed that the SPGJ model would induce contents in stomach discharge to the anastomosis at a higher speed, and only 5% of that flowed to the pylorus. SPGJ model also had a low-pressure drop as the flow from the lower esophagus to the jejunum, reducing the resistance to food discharge. Besides, the average retention time of particles in the CGJ model is 1.5 times longer than that in the SPGJ models, and the average instantaneous velocity in CGJ and SPGJ models are 22 mm/s and 29 mm/s, respectively. Conclusion: Compared with CGJ, patients after SPGJ had better gastric emptying performance and better postoperative clinical efficacy. Therefore, we think that SPGJ may be a better option for treating GOO. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9982392 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-99823922023-03-04 Gastric emptying performance of stomach-partitioning gastrojejunostomy versus conventional gastrojejunostomy for treating gastric outlet obstruction: A retrospective clinical and numerical simulation study Zhang, Haiqiao Xu, Fengyan Zheng, Zhi Liu, Xiaoye Yin, Jie Fan, Zhenmin Zhang, Jun Front Bioeng Biotechnol Bioengineering and Biotechnology Purpose: This study evaluated the gastric emptying performance of stomach-partitioning gastrojejunostomy (SPGJ) versus conventional gastrojejunostomy (CGJ) for treating gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Methods: First, 73 patients who underwent SPGJ (n = 48) or CGJ (n = 25) were involved. Surgical outcomes, postoperative recovery of gastrointestinal function, delayed gastric emptying, and nutritional status of both groups were compared. Second, a three-dimensional stomach model was constructed based on the gastric filling CT images from a GOO patient with a standard stature. The present study evaluated SPGJ numerically by comparing it with CGJ in terms of local flow parameters such as flow velocity, pressure, particle retention time, and particle retention velocity. Results: Clinical data found that SPGJ had significant advantages over CGJ in terms of time to pass gas (3 versus 4 days, p < 0.001), time to oral intake (3 versus 4 days, p = 0.001), postoperative hospitalization (7 versus 9 days, p < 0.001), the incidence of delay gastric emptying (DGE) (2.1% versus 36%, p < 0.001), DGE grading (p < 0.001), and complications (p < 0.001) for GOO patients. Moreover, numerical simulation revealed that the SPGJ model would induce contents in stomach discharge to the anastomosis at a higher speed, and only 5% of that flowed to the pylorus. SPGJ model also had a low-pressure drop as the flow from the lower esophagus to the jejunum, reducing the resistance to food discharge. Besides, the average retention time of particles in the CGJ model is 1.5 times longer than that in the SPGJ models, and the average instantaneous velocity in CGJ and SPGJ models are 22 mm/s and 29 mm/s, respectively. Conclusion: Compared with CGJ, patients after SPGJ had better gastric emptying performance and better postoperative clinical efficacy. Therefore, we think that SPGJ may be a better option for treating GOO. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-02-17 /pmc/articles/PMC9982392/ /pubmed/36873355 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1109295 Text en Copyright © 2023 Zhang, Xu, Zheng, Liu, Yin, Fan and Zhang. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Bioengineering and Biotechnology Zhang, Haiqiao Xu, Fengyan Zheng, Zhi Liu, Xiaoye Yin, Jie Fan, Zhenmin Zhang, Jun Gastric emptying performance of stomach-partitioning gastrojejunostomy versus conventional gastrojejunostomy for treating gastric outlet obstruction: A retrospective clinical and numerical simulation study |
title | Gastric emptying performance of stomach-partitioning gastrojejunostomy versus conventional gastrojejunostomy for treating gastric outlet obstruction: A retrospective clinical and numerical simulation study |
title_full | Gastric emptying performance of stomach-partitioning gastrojejunostomy versus conventional gastrojejunostomy for treating gastric outlet obstruction: A retrospective clinical and numerical simulation study |
title_fullStr | Gastric emptying performance of stomach-partitioning gastrojejunostomy versus conventional gastrojejunostomy for treating gastric outlet obstruction: A retrospective clinical and numerical simulation study |
title_full_unstemmed | Gastric emptying performance of stomach-partitioning gastrojejunostomy versus conventional gastrojejunostomy for treating gastric outlet obstruction: A retrospective clinical and numerical simulation study |
title_short | Gastric emptying performance of stomach-partitioning gastrojejunostomy versus conventional gastrojejunostomy for treating gastric outlet obstruction: A retrospective clinical and numerical simulation study |
title_sort | gastric emptying performance of stomach-partitioning gastrojejunostomy versus conventional gastrojejunostomy for treating gastric outlet obstruction: a retrospective clinical and numerical simulation study |
topic | Bioengineering and Biotechnology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9982392/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36873355 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1109295 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhanghaiqiao gastricemptyingperformanceofstomachpartitioninggastrojejunostomyversusconventionalgastrojejunostomyfortreatinggastricoutletobstructionaretrospectiveclinicalandnumericalsimulationstudy AT xufengyan gastricemptyingperformanceofstomachpartitioninggastrojejunostomyversusconventionalgastrojejunostomyfortreatinggastricoutletobstructionaretrospectiveclinicalandnumericalsimulationstudy AT zhengzhi gastricemptyingperformanceofstomachpartitioninggastrojejunostomyversusconventionalgastrojejunostomyfortreatinggastricoutletobstructionaretrospectiveclinicalandnumericalsimulationstudy AT liuxiaoye gastricemptyingperformanceofstomachpartitioninggastrojejunostomyversusconventionalgastrojejunostomyfortreatinggastricoutletobstructionaretrospectiveclinicalandnumericalsimulationstudy AT yinjie gastricemptyingperformanceofstomachpartitioninggastrojejunostomyversusconventionalgastrojejunostomyfortreatinggastricoutletobstructionaretrospectiveclinicalandnumericalsimulationstudy AT fanzhenmin gastricemptyingperformanceofstomachpartitioninggastrojejunostomyversusconventionalgastrojejunostomyfortreatinggastricoutletobstructionaretrospectiveclinicalandnumericalsimulationstudy AT zhangjun gastricemptyingperformanceofstomachpartitioninggastrojejunostomyversusconventionalgastrojejunostomyfortreatinggastricoutletobstructionaretrospectiveclinicalandnumericalsimulationstudy |