[Safety and efficacy of different anastomotic techniques following proximal gastrectomy: a meta-analysis]

Objective: This meta-analysis compares the postoperative outcomes of the double-flap technique (DFT) versus esophagogastrostomy (EG), jejunal interposition (JI), double-tract reconstruction (DTR), and gastric tube anastomosis (GTA) following proximal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods: Prospective and retrospective studies published from database inception until June 2025 were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CNKI, and Wanfang databases. Studies reporting at least one predefined outcome with extractable data were included. Outcomes of interest consisted of incidence of gastroesophageal reflux, overall postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis, and digestive reconstruction time. Two investigators independently performed literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were evaluated with the Cochrane ROB 2.0 tool, retrospective cohort studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and single-arm studies with the JBI critical appraisal tool. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled using risk ratios (RRs), and continuous variables were summarized with standardized mean differences (SMDs), using fixed- or random-effects models based on I² statistics. Publication bias was assessed via funnel plots and Egger's test. Results: A total of 55 studies published between 2007 and 2025 were included, comprising 5 RCTs and 50 retrospective studies. Among 4,380 patients, 732 underwent EG, 454 GTA, 1,480 DTR, 468 JI, and 1,246 DFT. Quality assessment indicated that all except six retrospective cohort studies (rated as moderate quality) were of high quality or had low risk of bias. Among the five reconstruction methods, DFT showed the lowest incidence of gastroesophageal reflux (6.6%, 82/1,246) and overall postoperative complications (11.6%, 144/1,246). JI had the lowest rate of anastomotic leakage (1.3%, 6/468), followed by DFT (1.4%, 18/1,246), and DTR had the lowest rate of anastomotic stenosis (2.4%, 36/1,480), followed by DFT (7.5%, 94/1,246). DFT required the longest operative time for reconstruction ([141.2 ± 597.6] minutes), and DTR required the shortest ([50.1 ± 39.0] minutes). Compared to EG, DFT was associated with a significantly lower risk of gastroesophageal reflux (RR=0.13 ,95%CI: 0.03-0.55, P = 0.01), and no significant differences were observed in overall complications (RR=0.98, 95%CI: 0.55-1.74, P = 0.93), anastomotic leakage (RR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.04-18.43, P = 0.90), or anastomotic stenosis (RR = 0.75, 95%CI: 0.09-6.39, P = 0.79). Compared to JI, DFT showed no significant differences in gastroesophageal reflux (RR = 0.36, 95%CI: 0.10-1.25, P=0.11), overall complications (RR=2.06, 95%CI: 0.30-14.11, P=0.46), anastomotic leakage (RR=2.05, 95%CI: 0.26-16.18, P=0.49), or anastomotic stenosis (RR=0.83, 95%CI: 0.10-7.17, P=0.87). Similarly, compared to DTR, DFT had a lower risk of overall complications (RR=0.70, 95%CI: 0.50-0.98, P=0.04) but a longer reconstruction time (SMD: 2.55, 95%CI: 0.31-4.79, P=0.03). No significant differences were found in gastroesophageal reflux (RR = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.35-1.30, P=0.24), anastomotic leakage (RR=0.59, 95%CI: 0.16-2.17, P=0.43), or anastomotic stenosis (RR=2.44 , 95%CI: 0.44-13.64, P=0.31). Compared to GTA, DFT was associated with a significantly lower risk of gastroesophageal reflux (RR = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.33-0.88, P=0.01), but again there were no significant differences in overall complications (RR = 0.69, 95%CI: 0.41-1.16, P=0.16), anastomotic leakage (RR = 0.25, 95%CI: 0.03-2.14, P=0.21), or anastomotic stenosis (RR=0.65, 95%CI: 0.24-1.76, P=0.40). No significant publication bias was detected in the analysis (Egger's test P>0.05). Conclusions: Among the five common anastomotic methods after proximal gastrectomy, DFT demonstrates superior anti-reflux efficacy, outperforming EG and GTA in particular in preventing gastroesophageal reflux. DFT also exhibits a lower overall complication risk compared with DTR but maintains anastomotic safety comparable with that of the other techniques.