Modified Kamikawa anastomosis after proximal gastrectomy: A narrative review

doi:10.4240/wjgs.121953

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 18, Issue 9

This Article

(3)

(0)

(28)

Peer-Review Report of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

ISSN

1948-9366

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Minireviews

Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. No commercial re-use. See permissions. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.

World J Gastrointest Surg. Sep 27, 2026; 18(9): 121953
Published online Sep 27, 2026. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.121953

Table 1 Summary of surgical outcomes reported for Kamikawa and modified Kamikawa anastomosis after proximal gastrectomy

Ref.	Study design	Operative time (minute)	Digestive tract reconstruction time (minute)	Blood loss (milliliters)	Anastomotic leakage	Anastomotic stenosis
Liu et al[17]	Systematic review/meta-analysis of Kamikawa anastomosis	317.8 (95%CI: 274.1-361.4; I² = 99.4%)	93.1 (95%CI: 83.7-102.4; I² = 69.8%)	55.9 (95%CI: 43.9-67.9; I² = 99.3%)	1.8%	7.2%
Kuroda et al[26]	Multicenter retrospective study: Double-flap technique study	298 (247.5-370.5)	Not reported	240 (100-392.5)	1.5%	5.5%
Wu et al[19]	Retrospective case series: Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with MKA	203.5 (150-224)	87.5 (73-111)	20.5 ± 0.7	None	None
Wu et al[11]	Retrospective cohort study: MKA vs TG with Roux-en-Y reconstruction	195.9 ± 25.0 vs 228.3 ± 59.8	93.0 (74.0-111.0) vs 39.7 (35.1-46.2)	22.0 (16.0-27.0) vs 23.0 (11.0-48.0)	Both none	One case vs none
Wu et al[20]	Retrospective analysis: MKA vs DTR	210.0 (150.0-240.0) vs 186.5 (167.0-226.0)	89.0 (78.0-116.0) vs 80.0 (73.0-97.0)	21.0 ± 3.8 vs 22.9 ± 4.7	Both none	Both none
Hu et al[29]	Retrospective analysis: Robotic vs laparoscopic double-flap technique	457 (270-751) vs 394 (266-780)	Not reported	45 (0-520) vs 70 (10-780)	0% vs 2.8%	26.6% vs 11.9%
Muraoka et al[22]	Retrospective case series: Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with Kamikawa anastomosis	356 (279-480)	Not reported	30 (1-850)	4.2%	8.3%
Kano et al[27]	Retrospective analysis: Laparoscopic PG with DFT vs laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy	404 (339-446) vs 289 (233-325)	Not reported	68 (29-120) vs 30 (20-70)	Both none	8% vs 2.7%
Shibasaki et al[28]	Single-arm retrospective cohort study: Robotic DFT	406 (324-613)	104 (76-186)	31 (5-130)	None	25%

CI: Confidence interval; MKA: Modified Kamikawa anastomosis; TG: Total gastrectomy; DTR: Double-tract reconstruction; PG: Proximal gastrectomy; DFT: Double-flap technique.

Full Size Table

Citation: Du ZR, Yan CW, Chen ZJ, Zong L. Modified Kamikawa anastomosis after proximal gastrectomy: A narrative review. World J Gastrointest Surg 2026; 18(9): 121953
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v18/i9/121953.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.121953

Du ZR, Yan CW, Chen ZJ, Zong L. Modified Kamikawa anastomosis after proximal gastrectomy: A narrative review. World J Gastrointest Surg 2026; 18(9): 121953 [DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.121953]

All content on this site: Copyright © 1993-2026 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, its licensors, and contributors. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. For all open access content, the relevant licensing terms apply.