A prospective randomized study comparing open vs laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy in early gastric cancer: early results

Robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery for gallbladder cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive oncological resections have become increasingly widespread in the surgical management of cancers. However, the role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gallbladder cancer (GBC) remains unclear. We aim to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of existing literature to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic and robotic surgery in the management of GBC compared to open surgery (OS) by comparing outcomes.

METHODS

A literature search of the PubMed/MEDLINE (2000 to December 2021) and EMBASE (2000 to December 2021) databases was conducted. The primary outcome studied was overall survival, and secondary outcomes studied were postoperative morbidity, severe complications, incidence of bile leak, length of hospital stay, operation time, R0 resection rate, local recurrence and lymph node yield.

RESULTS

Thirty-two full-text articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis with a total of 5883 patients undergoing either OS or MIS (laparoscopic or robotic) for GBC. 1- and 2-stage meta-analyses did not reveal any significant differences between OS, laparoscopic and robotic surgery in terms of overall survival, R0 resection, lymph node harvest, local recurrence and post-operative complications. Patients who underwent OS had significantly longer hospitalization stay and intra-operative blood loss compared to those who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery. Network meta-analysis did not reveal any significant differences between post-operative and survival outcomes of laparoscopic vs robotic surgery groups.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis suggests that both laparoscopic and robotic surgery are safe and effective approaches in the surgical management of GBC, with post-operative and survival outcomes comparable to OS. An MIS approach may also lead to shorter hospitalization stay, less intraoperative blood loss and post-operative complications compared to OS. There was no obvious benefit of either MIS approach (laparoscopic versus robotic) over the other.

Advances in Gastric Cancer Surgical Management

The goal of a gastric cancer operation is a microscopically negative resection margin and D2 lymphadenectomy. Minimally invasive techniques (laparoscopic and robotic) have been proven to be equivalent for oncologic care, yet with faster recovery. Endoscopic mucosal resection can be used for T1a N0 tumor resection. Better understanding of hereditary gastric cancer and molecular subtypes has led to specialized recommendations for MSI-high tumors and patients with pathogenic CDH1 mutations. In the future, surgical management will support minimally invasive approaches and personalized cancer care based on subtype.

Laparoscopic versus open abdominal lymph node dissection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open abdominal lymph node dissection using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

METHODS

The subjects of this retrospective analysis were 459 patients who underwent curative resection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) between May, 2005 and December, 2019, at our hospital. Patients were divided into two groups: the Laparoscopic (Lap group) and the Open (Open group). Post-PSM, 139 patients from each group were selected for the analysis to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between the groups.

RESULTS

The Lap group experienced fewer Clavien-Dindo (CD) Grade ≥ 2 complications (28.1% vs. 40.3%, P = 0.04) and lower rates of abdominal surgical site infections (SSI) (2.9% vs. 7.9%, P = 0.02) than the Open group. The number of lymph nodes harvested was similar in the Lap and Open groups (14.8 ± 7.5 vs. 15.7 ± 8.6, P = 0.34). There was no significant difference in 3-year overall survival rates (81.2% vs. 69.5%, P = 0.12) or relapse-free survival rates (61.1% vs. 58.2%, P = 0.54) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic abdominal lymph node dissection for ESCC can be performed safely and appears to be beneficial.

Gastric Cancer Surgery: Balancing Oncological Efficacy against Postoperative Morbidity and Function Detriment

Significant progress has been made in the surgical management of gastric cancer over the years, and previous discrepancies in surgical practice between different parts of the world have gradually lessened. A transition from the earlier period of progressively more extensive surgery to the current trend of a more tailored and evidence-based approach is clear. Prophylactic resection of adjacent anatomical structures or neighboring organs and extensive lymph node dissections that were once assumed to increase the chances of long-term survival are now performed selectively. Laparoscopic gastrectomy has been widely adopted and its indications have steadily expanded, from early cancers located in the distal part of the stomach, to locally advanced tumors where total gastrectomy is required. In parallel, function-preserving surgery has also evolved and now constitutes a valid option for early gastric cancer. Pylorus-preserving and proximal gastrectomy have improved the postoperative quality of life of patients, and sentinel node navigation surgery is being explored as the next step in the process of further refining the minimally invasive concept. Moreover, innovative techniques such as indocyanine green fluorescence imaging and robot-assisted gastrectomy are being introduced in clinical practice. These technologies hold promise for enhancing surgical precision, ultimately improving the oncological and functional outcomes.

[Technique and Study Results of Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer]

The aim of this paper was to describe the technique of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma and to present a review of current international studies on this topic.The first part describes and documents a standard laparoscopic gastrectomy for carcinoma. In the second part, after an EMBASE and PubMed search, a total of 123 quality-relevant randomised (RCT) and non-randomised (non-RCT) studies on laparoscopic gastrectomy are identified from a primary total of 3,042 hits by systematic narrowing. The study results are then summarised conclusively for the target criteria of feasibility, outcome, oncological quality, morbidity and mortality.Both, laparoscopic subtotal resection for distal gastric carcinomas and laparoscopic gastrectomy can now be performed safely and with few complications. In a recent literature review of a total of 15 RCTs with 5,576 patients (laparoscopic 2,793 vs. open 2,756), there were no significant differences in terms of feasibility, intraoperative outcome and oncological quality (R0 and lymph node harvest). Surgical morbidity and mortality were comparable. Patients after laparoscopic surgery showed a significantly faster early postoperative recovery with a lower overall morbidity. In contrast, the operating time was significantly longer - by a mean of 45 min - compared to the open technique. The advantages of the laparoscopic technique were equally evident in studies on early gastric carcinoma and advanced carcinomas (>T2).Laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma is safe to perform and shows better early postoperative recovery. Complication rates, morbidity and mortality as well as long-term oncological results are comparable with open surgery.

A nonrandomized controlled trial: long-term outcomes of LATG/LAPG for cStage I gastric cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG1401

BACKGROUND

A previous report confirmed the safety of laparoscopy-assisted total and proximal gastrectomies (LATG and LAPG) (JCOG1401). This report demonstrates the 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) after long-term follow-up to confirm the efficacy of these surgical methods as key secondary endpoints for cStage I gastric cancer.

METHODS

This study enrolled patients who had histologically proven gastric adenocarcinoma and were diagnosed with clinical T1N0, T1N(+), or T2N0 tumors according to the 14th edition of the Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma (3rd English edition).

RESULTS

Between April 2015 and February 2017, 246 patients were enrolled, although one patient was excluded because of misregistration. Meticulous follow-up was continued for > 5 years for each patient, and the data were analyzed in March 2022. The 5-year RFS was 90.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 85.5-93.2%), and the 5-year OS was 91.2% (95% CI 86.9-94.2%) in all enrolled patients. Grade 3 or 4 late postoperative complications were detected in 12.7% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This single-arm study showed that the long-term outcomes of LATG/LAPG for cStage I gastric cancer were acceptable, which is considered one of the standard treatments when performed by experienced surgeons. Trail registration UMIN000017155 ( http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/ ).

Indocyanine green fluorescence imaging-guided versus conventional laparoscopic lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: long-term outcomes of a phase 3 randomised clinical trial

Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging-guided lymphadenectomy has been demonstrated to be effective in increasing the number of lymph nodes (LNs) retrieved in laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC). Previously, we reported the primary outcomes and short-term secondary outcomes of a phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial (NCT03050879) investigating the use of ICG for image-guided lymphadenectomy in patients with potentially resectable GC. Patients were randomly (1:1 ratio) assigned to either the ICG or non-ICG group. The primary outcome was the number of LNs retrieved and has been reported. Here, we report the primary outcome and long-term secondary outcomes including three-year overall survival (OS), three-year disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence patterns. The per-protocol analysis set population is used for all analyses (258 patients, ICG [n = 129] vs. non-ICG group [n = 129]). The mean total LNs retrieved in the ICG group significantly exceeds that in the non-ICG group (50.5 ± 15.9 vs 42.0 ± 10.3, P < 0.001). Both OS and DFS in the ICG group are significantly better than that in the non-ICG group (log-rank P = 0.015; log-rank P = 0.012, respectively). There is a difference in the overall recurrence rates between the ICG and non-ICG groups (17.8% vs 31.0%). Compared with conventional lymphadenectomy, ICG guided laparoscopic lymphadenectomy is safe and effective in prolonging survival among patients with resectable GC.

Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is widely accepted as a minimally invasive approach for the treatment of early gastric cancer. However, its role in locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of LG vs open gastrectomy (OG) after NAT for the treatment of LAGC.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of LG vs OG after NAT for LAGC.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of 76 patients with LAGC who underwent NAT followed by LG (n = 38) or OG (n = 38) between 2021 and 2023. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), surgical complications, and quality of life (QOL).

RESULTS

The two groups had comparable baseline characteristics, with a median follow-up period of 24 mo. The 3-year OS rates in the LG and OG groups were 68.4% and 60.5%, respectively (P = 0.42). The 3-year DFS rates in the LG and OG groups were 57.9% and 50.0%, respectively (P = 0.51). The LG group had significantly less blood loss (P < 0.001), a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001), and a lower incidence of surgical site infection (P = 0.04) than the OG group. There were no significant differences in other surgical complications between the groups, including anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, or wound dehiscence. The LG group had significantly better QOL scores than the OG group regarding physical functioning, role functioning, global health status, fatigue, pain, appetite loss, and body image at 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

LG after NAT is a viable and safe alternative to OG for the treatment of LAGC, with similar survival outcomes and superior short-term recovery and QOL. LG patients had less blood loss, shorter hospitalizations, and a lower incidence of surgical site infections than OG patients. Moreover, the LG group had better QOL scores in multiple domains 6 mo postoperatively. Therefore, LG should be considered a valid option for patients with LAGC who undergo NAT, particularly for those who prioritize postoperative recovery and QOL.

Impact of Hospital Volume on Utilization of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gastric cancer is increasingly performed. The purpose of this study is to evaluate trends in utilization of laparoscopic and robotic techniques compared to open surgery as well as utilization based on hospital volume.

METHODS

We used the National Cancer Database to query patients who underwent gastrectomy from 2010 to 2017 for adenocarcinoma. Regression analyses were used to determine associations between MIS and clinical factors, the trend of MIS over time, and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 18,380 patients met inclusion criteria. The annual rates of MIS increased for all hospital volumes, though lower volume centers were less likely to undergo MIS. MIS was associated with a shorter length of stay compared to open, and robotic gastrectomy had a higher rate of obtaining at least 15 lymph nodes and lower rate of having a positive margin.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS utilization for resection of gastric cancer increased over time, with robotic surgery increasing at a higher rate than laparoscopic surgery. Importantly, this occurred without increased in mortality or sacrificing adequate oncologic outcomes.

Minimally Invasive and Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Optimal surgical management for gastric cancer remains controversial. We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes after open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG), and robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases was undertaken. An NMA was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-NMA guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using R and Shiny.

RESULTS

Twenty-two RCTs including 6890 patients were included. Overall, 49.6% of patients underwent LAG (3420/6890), 46.6% underwent OG (3212/6890), and 3.7% underwent RG (258/6890). At NMA, there was a no significant difference in recurrence rates following LAG (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-1.49) compared with OG. Similarly, overall survival (OS) outcomes were identical following OG and LAG (OS: OG, 87.0% [1652/1898] vs. LAG: OG, 87.0% [1650/1896]), with no differences in OS in meta-analysis (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77-1.52). Importantly, patients undergoing LAG experienced reduced intraoperative blood loss, surgical incisions, distance from proximal margins, postoperative hospital stays, and morbidity post-resection.

CONCLUSIONS

LAG was associated with non-inferior oncological and surgical outcomes compared with OG. Surgical outcomes following LAG and RG superseded OG, with similar outcomes observed for both LAG and RG. Given these findings, minimally invasive approaches should be considered for the resection of local gastric cancer, once surgeon and institutional expertise allows.

A national survey on the current status of minimally invasive gastric practice on behalf of GIRCG

Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer (GIRCG), during the 2013 annual Consensus Conference to gastric cancer, stated that laparoscopic or robotic approach should be limited only to early gastric cancer (EGC) and no further guidelines were currently available. However, accumulated evidences, mainly from eastern experiences, have supported the application of minimally invasive surgery also for locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The aim of our study is to give a snapshot of current surgical propensity of expert Italian upper gastrointestinal surgeons in performing minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of gastric cancer in order to answer to the question if clinical practice overcome the recommendation. Experts in the field among the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer (GIRCG) were invited to join a web 30-item survey through a formal e-mail from January 1st, 2020, to June 31st, 2020. Responses were collected from 46 participants out of 100 upper gastrointestinal surgeons. Percentage of surgeons choosing a minimally invasive approach to treat early and advanced gastric cancer was similar. Additionally analyzing data from the centers involved, we obtained that the percentage of minimally invasive total and partial gastrectomies in advanced cases augmented with the increase of surgical procedures performed per year (p = 0.02 and p = 0.04 respectively). It is reasonable to assume that there is a widening of indications given by the current national guideline into clinical practice. Propensity of expert Italian upper gastrointestinal surgeons was to perform minimally invasive surgery not only for early but also for advanced gastric cancer. Of interest volume activity correlated with the propensity of surgeons to select a minimally invasive approach.

Short-and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer has rapidly developed and become more popular in recent decades. Additional high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies comparing LG versus open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer (GC) have been published in recent years. An updated systematic review is warranted. The aim of our meta-analysis was to comprehensively evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of LG versus OG for GC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials databases were comprehensively searched to identify RCTs comparing LG versus OG for GC published between January 1994 and December 7, 2021. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane Collaboration and the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUORUM) guidelines. All RCTs comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of LG with those of OG were included. A random effects model was adopted with significant heterogeneity (I² > 50%), while a fixed effects model was employed in all other cases (I² ≤ 50%).

RESULTS

A total of 26 RCTs with 8301 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that the intraoperative complication rate was comparable between the LG group and the OG group (OR=1.14, 95% CI [0.76, 1.70], I²=0%, p=0.53). The LG group had fewer postoperative complications than the OG group (OR=0.65, 95% CI [0.57, 0.74], I²=26%, p<0.00001). However, the severe postoperative complication rate and perioperative mortality were comparable between the two groups (OR=0.83, 95% CI [0.67, 1.04], I²=10%, p=0.10; OR=1.11, 95% CI [0.59, 2.09], I²=0%, p=0.74, respectively). The number of lymph nodes retrieved by the LG group was less than that of the OG group (MD=-1.51, 95% CI [-2.29, -0.74], I²=0%, p<0.0001). The proximal resection margin distance in the LG group was shorter than that in the OG group (MD=-0.34, 95% CI [-0.57, -0.12], I²=23%, p=0.003), but the distal resection margin distance in the two groups was comparable (MD=-0.21, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.04], I²=0%, p=0.10). The time to first ambulation was shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=-0.14, 95% CI [-.26, -0.01], I²=40%, p=0.03). The time to first flatus was also shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=-0.15, 95% CI [-0.23, -0.07], I²=4%, p=0.0001). However, the first time on a liquid diet was comparable between the two groups (MD=-0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.04], I²=88%, p=0.09). Furthermore, the postoperative length of stay was shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=-1.26, 95% CI [-1.99, -0.53], I²=90%, p=0.0007). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was comparable between the two groups (HR=0.97, 95% CI [0.80, 1.17], I²=0%, p=0.73), and the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was also similar between the LG group and OG group (HR=1.08, 95% CI [0.77, 1.52], I²=0%, p=0.64).

CONCLUSION

LG is a technically safe and feasible alternative to OG with the advantages of a fewer postoperative complication rate, faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, and greater cosmetic benefit for patients with GC. Meanwhile, LG has comparable long-term outcomes to OG for GC.

The Role of Surgery in the Management of Gastric Cancer: State of the Art

Surgery still represents the mainstay of treatment of all stages of gastric cancer (GC). Surgical resections represent potentially curative options in the case of early GC with a low risk of node metastasis. Sentinel lymph node biopsy and indocyanine green fluorescence are novel techniques which may improve the employment of stomach-sparing procedures, ameliorating quality of life without compromising oncological radicality. Nonetheless, the diffusion of these techniques is limited in Western countries. Conversely, radical gastrectomy with extensive lymphadenectomy and multimodal treatment represents a valid option in the case of advanced GC. Differences between Eastern and Western recommendations still exist, and the optimal multimodal strategy is still a matter of investigation. Recent chemotherapy protocols have made surgery available for patients with oligometastatic disease. In this context, intraperitoneal administration of chemotherapy via HIPEC or PIPAC has emerged as an alternative weapon for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. In conclusion, the surgical management of GC is still evolving together with the multimodal strategy. It is mandatory for surgeons to be conscious of the current evolution of the surgical management of GC in the era of multidisciplinary and tailored medicine.

Minimally invasivE versus open total GAstrectomy (MEGA): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (DRKS00025765)

INTRODUCTION

The only curative treatment for most gastric cancer is radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy (LAD). Minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MIG) aims to reduce postoperative morbidity, but its use has not yet been widely established in Western countries. Minimally invasivE versus open total GAstrectomy is the first Western multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to compare postoperative morbidity following MIG vs open total gastrectomy (OG).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This superiority multicentre RCT compares MIG (intervention) to OG (control) for oncological total gastrectomy with D2 or D2+LAD. Recruitment is expected to last for 2 years. Inclusion criteria comprise age between 18 and 84 years and planned total gastrectomy after initial diagnosis of gastric carcinoma. Exclusion criteria include Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status >2, tumours requiring extended gastrectomy or less than total gastrectomy, previous abdominal surgery or extensive adhesions seriously complicating MIG, other active oncological disease, advanced stages (T4 or M1), emergency setting and pregnancy.The sample size was calculated at 80 participants per group. The primary endpoint is 30-day postoperative morbidity as measured by the Comprehensive Complications Index. Secondary endpoints include postoperative morbidity and mortality, adherence to a fast-track protocol and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) scores (QoR-15, EUROQOL EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D), EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-STO22, activities of daily living and Body Image Scale). Oncological endpoints include rate of R0 resection, lymph node yield, disease-free survival and overall survival at 60-month follow-up.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been received by the independent Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty, University of Heidelberg (S-816/2021) and will be received from each responsible ethics committee for each individual participating centre prior to recruitment. Results will be published open access.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00025765.

Fifty years of progress in gastric cancer

As with every human malignancy, the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of patients with gastric cancer have undergone enormous evidence-based change over the last 50 years, largely as a result of increasingly rapid developments in technology and science. Some of the changes in clinical practice have derived from prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs), whereas others have come from study of meticulously maintained prospective databases, which define the disease's natural history over time, and occasionally from in-depth analysis of a single patient with an unexpectedly good or poor outcome. Herein we summarize the more important changes in gastric cancer management and the data supporting those changes.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been widely used for advanced gastric cancer (GC), and its resection extent is not limited to distal gastrectomy. However, the superiority of this minimally invasive approach remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the benefits and risks of LG on the short- and long-term outcomes compared with open gastrectomy (OG) for GC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LG and OG for treatment of GC. The primary outcomes were adverse events, recurrence, mortality, and the quality of life. The secondary outcomes included operation-relevant outcomes and postoperative recovery outcomes. We employed random-effects meta-analyses to pool results with Hartung-Knapp adjustment. The prediction interval (PI) was used to quantify the between-study heterogeneity. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the potential sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies involving 7643 patients were included. Most studies (22 out of 28) reported results from experienced surgeons. Compared to OG, LG was found to have the advantages of less blood loss, fewer postoperative complications, and faster recovery, but at the expense of lesser proximal resection margin length, longer operation time, and fewer retrieved lymph nodes. There were no significant differences for anastomosis-related complications, recurrence and survival and other outcomes between LG and OG. Significant between-study heterogeneity was observed. Body mass index (BMI) and age were two major sources of heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

For experienced surgeons, LG is an alternative approach to OG for patients with GC. Patients with lower BMI and older age may benefit most from LG. Future studies are needed to confirm our findings in low-volume hospitals and for less-experienced surgeons. Future trials focusing on patient-important outcomes are warranted for clinical decision-making.

Laparoscopic vs. Open Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Case-Control Study

Introduction: Minimally invasive surgery has been increasingly used in the treatment of gastric cancer. While laparoscopic gastrectomy has become standard therapy for early-stage gastric cancer, especially in Asian countries, the use of minimally invasive techniques has not attained the same widespread acceptance for the treatment of more advanced tumours, principally due to existing concerns about its feasibility and oncological adequacy. We aimed to examine the safety and oncological effectiveness of laparoscopic technique with radical intent for the treatment of patients with locally advanced gastric cancer by comparing short-term surgical and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy at two Western regional institutions. Methods: The trial was designed as a retrospective comparative matched case-control study for postoperative pathological diagnoses of locally advanced gastric carcinoma. Between January 2015 and September 2021, 120 consecutive patients who underwent curative-intent laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection were retrospectively recruited and compared with 120 patients who received open gastrectomy. In order to obtain a comparison that was as homogeneous as possible, the equal control group of pairing (1:1) patients submitted to open gastrectomy who matched those of the laparoscopic group was statistically generated by using a propensity matched score method. The following potential confounder factors were aligned: age, gender, Body Mass Index (BMI), comorbidity, ASA, adjuvant therapy, tumour location, type of gastrectomy, and pT stage. Patient demographics, operative findings, pathologic characteristics, and short-term outcomes were analyzed. Results: In the case-control study, the two groups were clearly comparable with respect to matched variables, as was expected given the intentional primary selective criteria. No statistically significant differences were revealed in overall complications (16.7% vs. 20.8%, p = 0.489), rate of reoperation (3.3% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.714), and mortality (4.2% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.987) within 30 days. Pulmonary infection and wound complications were observed more frequently in the OG group (0.8% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.01, for each of these two categories). Anastomotic and duodenal stump leakage occurred in 5.8% of the patients after laparoscopic gastrectomy and in 3.3% after open procedure (p = 0.072). The laparoscopic approach was associated with a significantly longer operative time (212 vs. 192 min, p < 0.05) but shorter postoperative length of stay (9.1 vs. 11.6 days, p < 0.001). The mean number of resected lymph nodes after D2 dissection (31.4 vs. 33.3, p = 0.134) and clearance of surgical margins (97.5% vs. 95.8%, p = 0.432) were equivalent between the groups. Conclusion: Laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 nodal dissection appears to be safe and feasible in terms of perioperative morbidity for locally advanced gastric cancer, with comparable oncological equivalency with respect to traditional open surgery.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: has the time come for considered it a standard procedure?

Radical gastrectomy with an adequate lymphadenectomy is the main procedure which makes it possible to cure patients with resectable gastric cancer. A number of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis provide phase III evidence that laparoscopic gastrectomy is technically safe and that it yields better short-term outcomes than conventional open gastrectomy for early-stage gastric cancer. At present, laparoscopic gastrectomy is considered a standard procedure for early-stage gastric cancer, especially in Asian countries. On the other hand, the use of minimally invasive techniques is still controversial for the treatment of more advanced tumours, principally due to existing concerns about its oncological adequacy and capacity to carry out an adequately extended lymphadenectomy. Additional high-quality studies comparing laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer have been recently published, in particular concerning the latest results obtained by laparoscopic approach to advanced gastric cancer. It seems very useful to update the review of literature in light of these new evidences for this subject and draw some considerations.

Enhanced recovery after surgery: operation-related factors

Background: The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program, which has been recently introduced in the field of perioperative care, represents a multimodal strategy to attenuate the loss, and improve the restoration, of functional capacity after surgery. This program aims to reduce morbidity and enhance recovery by reducing surgical stress, optimizing pain control, and facilitating early resumption of an oral diet and early mobilization. Considering this perspective, protocols for enhanced recovery should include comprehensive and evidence-based guidelines for best perioperative care. Appropriate protocol implementation may reduce complication rates and enhance functional recovery and thereby reduce the duration of hospitalization.Current Concepts: In major abdominal surgeries, the recommended ERAS protocols involve common items such as preoperative counseling, preoperative optimization, prehabilitation, preoperative nutrition, fasting and carbohydrate loading, bowel preparation, thromboprophylaxis, antimicrobial prophylaxis, surgical access, drainage, nasogastric intubation, urinary drainage, early mobilization and prevention of postoperative ileus, postoperative glycemic control, and postoperative nutritional care. These items have been briefly reviewed with the relevant evidence.Discussion and Conclusion: ERAS is a comprehensive and evidence-based guideline for optimal perioperative care. Although a number of ERAS items still require high-level evidence through well-designed randomized controlled trials, the ERAS guidelines can serve as adequate recommendations for our practice. Thus, these items can be introduced and adopted with evidence. In addition, it is important to remove items that are not supported by evidence from routine procedures.

Laparoscopic vs Open Gastrectomy: an Updated Meta-analysis of Randomized Control Trials for Short-Term Outcomes

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database were searched for randomized control trials comparing outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomies with those patients undergoing open gastrectomies. The primary outcome was 30-day morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes studied included length of stay, blood loss, d2 gastrectomies, lymph node retrieval, operative time, wound complications, and intraabdominal complications. Systemic review and meta-analysis were done according to MOOSE and PRISMA guidelines. Eleven RCTs consisting of 4614 patients were included in the study. A total of 2452 patients were there in laparoscopic gastrectomy group while 2162 patients were included in open gastrectomy group. Morbidity was significantly low in laparoscopic group (p = 0.003). There was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups (P = 0.75). There were fewer wound complications in laparoscopic group and no difference intra-abdominal complications in both groups. Blood loss was significantly lesser in laparoscopic group (p < 0.001). Hospital stay was similar in both groups (p = 0.30). Operative time was significantly higher in laparoscopic group (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic group patients had a lesser number of lymph node retrieval compared to open group (p = 0.002). Laparoscopic group also contained similar advanced staged gastric cancer than open gastrectomies (p = 0.64). Laparoscopic gastrectomies were associated with lesser wound-related complications without decreasing hospital stay with a smaller number of lymph nodes retrieval.

Needle device-assisted single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy can be difficult because of complex instrumentation and a limited working angle. We standardized a needle device-assisted single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy (NA-SILG) procedure for early gastric cancer in 2013. Herein, we present our technique and evaluate it in comparison to the conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy CLG) technique.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 149 patients who underwent a NA-SILG or distal (CLG) for early gastric cancer between January 2013 and August 2016. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching between the two groups.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients who underwent a NA-SILG and 131 who underwent a CLG were included. Almost all patients were in clinical stage IA. Operative times were 216 ± 29.7 minutes and 220 ± 51.7 minutes for the NA-SILG and CLG groups, respectively; the median intraoperative bleeding amounts were 5 mL and 10 mL for the NA-SILG and CLG groups, respectively. The median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 41.5 and 57 for the NA-SILG and CLG groups, respectively. The number of patients needing analgesics was significantly lower in the NA-SILG group (P = .003) than in the CLG group. Neither group had postoperative complications more severe than Clavien-Dindo classification III.

CONCLUSION

Needle device-assisted SILG is safe and feasible for early gastric cancer treatment in slim figure patients. It has short and long-term outcomes comparable to the CLG but is less invasive and results in less postoperative pain.

Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes

The use of the robotic platform for gastrointestinal surgery was introduced nearly 20 years ago. However, significant growth and advancement has occurred primarily in the last decade. This is due to several advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery allowing for more complex dissections and reconstructions. Several randomized controlled trials and retrospective reviews have demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery with improved short-term outcomes. Unfortunately, there are currently no universally accepted or implemented training programs for robotic surgery and robotic surgery experience varies greatly. Additionally, several limitations to the robotic platform exist resulting in a distinct learning curve associated with various procedures. Therefore, implementation of robotic surgery requires a multidisciplinary team approach with commitment and investment from clinical faculty, operating room staff and hospital administrators. Additionally, there is a need for wider distribution of educational modules to train more surgeons and reduce the associated learning curve. This article will focus on the implementation of the robotic platform for surgery of the pancreas, stomach, liver, colon and rectum with an emphasis on the associated learning curve, educational platforms to develop proficiency and perioperative outcomes.

Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, and robotic distal gastrectomy for early and locally advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of early and locally advanced gastric cancer remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive evaluation of major surgical approaches for operable distal gastric cancer.

METHODS

Systematic review and network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were performed to compare open distal gastrectomy, laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy, and robotic distal gastrectomy. Risk ratio, weighted mean difference, and 95% credible intervals were used as pooled effect size measures.

RESULTS

Seventeen randomized controlled trials (5,909 patients) were included. Overall, 2,776 (46.8%) underwent open distal gastrectomy, 2,964 (50.1%) laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy, and 141 (3.1%) robotic distal gastrectomy. Among these 3 groups, there were no significant differences in 30-day mortality, anastomotic leak, and overall complications. Compared to open distal gastrectomy, laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy was associated with significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss, early postoperative pain, time to first flatus, and hospital length of stay. Similarly, robotic distal gastrectomy was associated with significantly reduced blood loss and time to first flatus compared to open distal gastrectomy. No differences were found in the total number of harvested lymph nodes, tumor-free resection margins, 5-year overall, and disease-free survival. The subgroup analysis in locally advanced gastric cancer showed trends toward reduced blood loss, time to first flatus, and hospital length of stay with minimally invasive approaches but similar overall and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy and robotic distal gastrectomy performed by well-trained experienced surgeons, even in the setting of locally advanced gastric cancer, seem associated with improved short-term outcomes with similar overall and disease-free survival compared with open distal gastrectomy.

Laparoscopic Gastrectomy with D2 Lymphadenectomy for pT1a Adenocarcinoma: Case Report and Literature Review

Gastric cancer is one of the most common malignancies, associated with a high mortality and morbidity rate, especially in the elderly, the fourth leading cause of cancer mortality in Europe. Although the rate of diagnosis has declined in recent years, the prognosis of the disease and the mortality rate is still quite high. Laparoscopic surgery, accompanied by lymphadenectomy, is a curative method of treatment, used more and more frequently, especially in Eastern countries, both in the incipient disease and in advanced stages of the disease, which has many advantages over classical surgery.

We report the case of an 86-year-old man, who presented for marked physical asthenia, weight loss and severe anemia, in whom we performed laparoscopic distal radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy and Roux-en-Y reconstruction. Histopathological examination established the diagnosis of low-grade / well-differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma G1 (WHO) / intestinal carcinoma (Lauren), with invasion in the lamina propria, developed on an intestinal-type adenoma. 21 lymph nodes were taken without tumor invasion.

This case highlights the complexity of laparoscopic intervention, with the proven advantages for the patient, like reduced surgical trauma and pain, with the decrease of postoperative complications, but also the difficulty of the surgical technique which requires advanced laparoscopic skills. Thus, in addition to its proven efficacy in cases of early gastric cancer, the technique can be extended to advanced malignancies, without affecting the oncological safety limit.

Long-term oncologic result of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

Background

Laparoscopic gastrectomy is an acceptable procedure for early-stage gastric cancer; however, most patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage and older age in Taiwan. The feasibility and safety of applying laparoscopic gastrectomy in daily practice remain unclear. This study aimed to examine the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open procedures.

Methods

From 2007 to 2015, 192 patients who underwent open gastrectomy and 189 patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer at a single center were included. Propensity score matching analysis was used to adjust selection biases associated with age, preoperative hemoglobin, the extent of resection, tumor size, and stage of the disease. The demographics, perioperative parameters, short-term postoperative results, and 5-year survival data were analyzed.

Results

Open gastrectomy was more frequently performed in the elderly, larger tumor size, advanced stage of the disease, and disease requiring total gastrectomy or combined organ resection. After propensity score matching, 108 patients with laparoscopic gastrectomy were compared to 108 patients with open gastrectomy. The morbidity rates were not different in both groups (25.9%), while hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (16.0 vs. 18.8 days, p = 0.04). The 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival were superior in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.03 and p = 0.01, respectively); however, the survival differences were not significant in the subgroup analysis by stage. Laparoscopic gastrectomy had fewer recurrences than open gastrectomy. The pattern of recurrence was not different between the groups.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic gastrectomy can be safely applied in both early and locally advanced gastric cancer without compromising oncologic outcomes.

Trial registration

Retrospective registration.

[Evidence in minimally invasive oncological gastric surgery]

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to systematically review the current evidence on laparoscopic and robotic distal and total gastrectomy in comparison to open surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search of EMBASE and PubMed was conducted and 197 randomized (RCT) and non-randomized (non-RCT) studies were identified. An evaluation of early gastric cancer (EGC) and advanced (AGC) gastric cancer was carried out.

RESULTS

For EGC and laparoscopic distal resection (LDG) and total gastrectomy (LTG) a total of 10 RCT and 6 non-RCT, including 4329 patients (laparoscopic 2010 vs. open 2319) were identified. At a high evidence level (1+, 1++) there was no significant difference in terms of feasibility, intraoperative outcome and oncological quality, mortality and long-term oncological outcome compared to open gastrectomy (OG). After LDG and LTG patients showed a significantly faster early postoperative recovery and lower total morbidity. In contrast, the operation times were significant longer compared to ODG and OTG. For distal AGC and LDG in 6 RCT, including 2806 patients (LDG 1410 vs. ODG 1369) comparable results could be found also with a high evidence level (1++). The evidence for LTG in cases of AGC was lower (2-, 2+). Currently ,only 6 non-RCT with a total of 1090 patients (LTG 539 vs. OTG 551) are available, which showed comparable results to LDG but further high-quality RCTs are necessary. Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is currently being evaluated. According to the first studies RG for EGC seems to be equivalent to LDG; however, the evidence is currently low (3 to 2-).

Effects of a high body mass index on the short-term outcomes and prognosis after radical gastrectomy

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the effects of a high body mass index (BMI) on the outcomes of radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1729 patients with stage I to III gastric cancer who received open radical gastrectomy from February 2003 to August 2011. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to their BMI: a low BMI group (BMI < 18.5 kg/m²), normal BMI group (18.5 ≤ BMI < 25 kg/m²), and high BMI group (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²).

RESULTS

A total of 871 patients were included in the final analysis, of which the median BMI was 22.7 kg/m² (range 13.6-44.9 kg/m²). A high BMI increased the risk of postoperative intestinal fistula but not the risk of a reduced number of examined lymph nodes or hospital death. Furthermore, a high BMI did not negatively affect the overall survival (OS) of gastric cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A high BMI increased the operative morbidity after radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. However, a high BMI did not negatively affect the quality of lymphadenectomy or the OS of gastric cancer patients in experienced high-volume centers. A careful approach during operation and meticulous perioperative management are required for gastric cancer patients with a high BMI.

Advances in the surgical management of gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer

Since Theodore Billroth and Cesar Roux perfected the methods of post-gastrectomy reconstruction in the late 19^th century, surgical management of gastric and gastroesophageal cancer has made incremental progress. The majority of patients with localized disease are treated with perioperative combination chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Staging laparoscopy before initiation of treatment or before surgical resection has improved staging accuracy and can drastically inform treatment decisions. The longstanding and contentious debate on the optimal extent of lymph node dissection for gastric cancer appears to have settled in favor of D2 dissection with the recently published 15-year follow-up of the Dutch randomized trial. Minimally invasive gastric and gastroesophageal resections are performed routinely in most centers affording faster recovery and equivalent oncologic outcomes. Pylorus-preserving distal (central) gastrectomy has emerged as a less invasive, function-preserving option for T1N0 middle-third gastric cancers, while randomized data on its oncologic adequacy are pending. Multi-visceral resections and cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy has been utilized selectively for patients with locally advanced tumors who have demonstrated disease control on preoperative chemotherapy. This review summarizes the current standard of surgical care for gastroesophageal junction and gastric cancer as well as highlights recent and upcoming advances to the field.

Long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy for grossly early gastric cancer-mimicking advanced gastric cancer: Propensity score matching analysis

Laparoscopic gastrectomy became an option in the treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC) in clinical practice. However, whether laparoscopic surgery for grossly EGC-mimicking advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients is oncologically safe long-term is still controversial.We retrospectively analyzed 472 patients with AGC who were diagnosed as clinical EGC. Patients received laparoscopic or open gastrectomy with standard lymph node (LN) dissection from January 2007 to February 2015. We used a 1:3 propensity score matching method for the analysis. The matching factors were age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and pathologic stage. After the matching process, we evaluated the 5-year overall survival and the cumulative incidence curve of recurrence.All of the analyzed patients were pathologically diagnosed with AGC after surgery (grossly EGC-mimicking AGC). The median (range) duration of follow-up was 58.0 (0-132) months. After propensity score matching, 31.5% of patients in the laparoscopy group had D1+ LN dissection and 99.2% of patients in the open group had D2 LN dissection. The 5-year overall survival rate between the laparoscopy (n = 92) and open groups (n = 244) were not significantly different (95.3% versus 91.4%, P = .224). There was no significant difference between the cumulative recurrence incidence curves of the matched groups (P = .319).Laparoscopic surgery for grossly EGC-mimicking AGC might be safe in terms of long-term survival outcome. After confirming grossly EGC-mimicking AGC in the final pathology report, no additional surgery might be required.

Current perspectives on the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted surgery for gastric cancer

INTRODUCTION

Robotic gastrectomy is performed worldwide as part of the treatment for gastric cancer and is associated with good clinical outcome. This review aims to describe the current issues, debates, and future directions associated with the use of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

AREA COVERED

Here, we review the current evidence surrounding the safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy, including our institutional experience. Current issues associated with robotic gastrectomy, including feasibility, perioperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes, are described.

EXPERT OPINION

Sophisticated movements, articulating instruments, and the rapid introduction of fast-developing novel technology make robotic gastrectomy use more frequent. However, the need for well-designed prospective randomized trials is warranted.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To date, robotic surgery has been widely used worldwide. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) in gastric cancer patients to determine whether RG can replace laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was applied to perform the study. Pubmed, Cochrane Library, WanFang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP databases were comprehensively searched for studies published before May 2020 that compared RG with LG. Next, two independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The quality of the literature was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and the data analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Random effects or fixed effects models were applied according to heterogeneity.

Results

A total of 19 studies including 7275 patients were included in the meta-analyses, of which 4598 patients were in the LG group and 2677 in the RG group. Compared with LG, RG was associated with longer operative time (WMD = −32.96, 95% CI −42.08 ~ −23.84, P < 0.001), less blood loss (WMD = 28.66, 95% CI 18.59 ~ 38.73, P < 0.001), and shorter time to first flatus (WMD = 0.16 95% CI 0.06 ~ 0.27, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference between RG and LG in terms of the hospital stay (WMD = 0.23, 95% CI −0.53 ~ 0.98, P = 0.560), overall postoperative complication (OR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 ~ 1.25, P = 0.430), mortality (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 ~ 1.90, P = 0.450), the number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = −0.96, 95% CI −2.12 ~ 0.20, P = 0.100), proximal resection margin (WMD = −0.10, 95% CI −0.29 ~ 0.09, P = 0.300), and distal resection margin (WMD = 0.15, 95% CI −0.21 ~ 0.52, P = 0.410). No significant differences were found between the two treatments in overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 ~ 1.18, P = 0.640), recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 ~ 1.21, P = 0.530), and recurrence rate (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 ~ 1.21, P = 0.500).

Conclusions

The results of this study suggested that RG is as acceptable as LG in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. RG can be performed as effectively and safely as LG. Moreover, more randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques with rigorous study designs are still essential to evaluate the value of the robotic surgery for gastric cancer.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s12957-020-02080-7.

Safety and Efficacy of Indocyanine Green Tracer-Guided Lymph Node Dissection During Laparoscopic Radical Gastrectomy in Patients With Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The application of indocyanine green (ICG) imaging in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy is in the preliminary stages of clinical practice, and its safety and efficacy remain controversial.

Objective

To investigate the safety and efficacy of ICG near-infrared tracer-guided imaging during laparoscopic D2 lymphadenectomy in patients with gastric cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Patients with potentially resectable gastric adenocarcinoma (clinical tumor stage cT1-cT4a, N0/+, M0) were enrolled in a prospective randomized clinical trial at a tertiary referral teaching hospital between November 2018 and July 2019. Patients were randomly assigned to the ICG group or the non-ICG group. The number of retrieved lymph nodes, rate of lymph node noncompliance, and postoperative recovery data were compared between the groups in a modified intention-to-treat analysis. Statistical analysis was performed from August to September 2019.

Interventions

The ICG group underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy using near-infrared imaging after receiving an endoscopic peritumoral injection of ICG to the submucosa 1 day before surgery.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Total number of retrieved lymph nodes.

Results

Of 266 participants randomized, 133 underwent ICG tracer-guided laparoscopic gastrectomy, and 133 underwent conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy. After postsurgical exclusions, 258 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, which comprised 129 patients (86 men and 43 women; mean [SD] age, 57.8 [10.7] years) in the ICG group and 129 patients (87 men and 42 women; mean [SD] age, 60.1 [9.1] years) in the non-ICG group. The mean number of lymph nodes retrieved in the ICG group was significantly more than the mean number retrieved in the non-ICG group (mean [SD], 50.5 [15.9] lymph nodes vs 42.0 [10.3] lymph nodes, respectively; P < .001). Significantly more perigastric and extraperigastric lymph nodes were retrieved in the ICG group than in the non-ICG group. In addition, the mean total number of lymph nodes retrieved in the ICG group within the scope of D2 lymphadenectomy was also significantly greater than the mean number retrieved in the non-ICG group (mean [SD], 49.6 [15.0] lymph nodes vs 41.7 [10.2] lymph nodes, respectively; P < .001). The lymph node noncompliance rate of the ICG group (41 of 129 patients [31.8%]) was lower than that of the non-ICG group (74 of 129 patients [57.4%]; P < .001). The postoperative recovery process was comparable, and no significant difference was found between the ICG and non-ICG groups in the incidence (20 of 129 patients [15.5%] vs 21 of 129 [16.3%], respectively; P = .86) or severity of complications within 30 days after surgery.

Conclusions and Relevance

Indocyanine green can noticeably improve the number of lymph node dissections and reduce lymph node noncompliance without increased complications in patients undergoing D2 lymphadenectomy. Indocyanine green fluorescence imaging can be performed for routine lymphatic mapping during laparoscopic gastrectomy, especially total gastrectomy.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03050879.

Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for gastric cancer: big data analysis based on nationwide administrative claims data

Purpose

Accumulated evidence indicates laparoscopic surgery (LS) has the advantages of less wound pain, less blood loss, shorter hospitalization, and faster functional recovery than open surgery (OS). Previous studies have analyzed the advantages of LS based on hospital data. This study is the first to compare surgical outcomes and health economic data using nationwide administrative claims datasets for gastric cancer.

Methods

The claims datasets of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service for patients that underwent gastrectomy from May 2012 to April 2017 were analyzed. A total of 76,445 cases (LS, 42,395 and OS, 34,050) were included. Postoperative complications and medical costs were included in the analysis.

Results

We analyzed 76,445 cases of gastrectomy. Analysis showed LS was associated with fewer surgical wound infections (2,114 [6.21%] vs. 1,057 [2.49%], P < 0.001), minor abdominal infections and abscesses (826 [2.43%] vs. 390 [0.92%], P < 0.001), cases of surgery-related peritonitis (50 [0.15%] vs. 31 [0.07%], P = 0.0019), repair surgeries (28 [0.08%] vs. 3 [0.01%], P < 0.001), reoperations (504 [1.48%] vs. 343 [0.81%], P < 0.001), less antibiotic use (1,717 [5.04%] vs. 1,268 [2.99%], P < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (13.61 days vs. 9.97 days, P < 0.001). However, average medical cost was 510,734 Korean Won (444 US dollar) higher for LS than OS.

Conclusion

The study confirms the clinical benefits of LS over OS for gastrectomy in terms of fewer postoperative complications and shorter hospital stays. However, the average medical cost of LS was higher than that of OS.

Initial experience of single-incision plus one port left-side approach totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Single incision plus one port left-side approach (SILS+1/L) totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) is an emerging technique for the treatment of gastric cancer. Reduced port laparoscopic gastrectomy has a number of potential advantages for patients compared with conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy: relieving postoperative pain, shortening hospital stay and offering a better cosmetic outcome. Nevertheless, there are no previous reports on the use of SILS+1/L TLDG with uncut Roux-en-Y (uncut R-Y) reconstruction.

AIM

To investigate the initial feasibility of SILS+1/L TLDG with uncut Roux-en-Y digestive tract reconstruction (uncut R-Y reconstruction) to treat distal gastric cancer.

METHODS

A total of 21 patients who underwent SILS+1/L TLDG with uncut R-Y reconstruction for gastric cancer were enrolled. All patients were treated at The Second Hospital of Shandong University. Reconstructions were performed intracorporeally with 60 mm endoscopic linear stapler and 45 mm no-knife stapler. The clinicopathological characteristics, surgical details, postoperative short-term outcomes, postoperative follow-up upper gastrointestinal radiography findings and endoscopy results were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

All SILS+1/L operations were performed by SILS+1/L TLDG successfully. The patient population included 13 men and 8 women with a mean age of 48.2 years (ranged from 40 years to 70 years) and median body mass index of 22.8 kg/m². There were no conversions to open laparotomy, and no other port was placed. The mean operation time was 146 min (ranged 130-180 min), and the estimated mean blood loss was 54 mL (ranged 20-110 mL). The mean duration to flatus and discharge was 2.3 (ranged 1-3.5) and 7.3 (ranged 6-9) d, respectively. The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was 42 (ranged 30-47). Two patients experienced mild postoperative complications, including surgical site infection (wound at the navel incision) and mild postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade A). Follow-up upper gastrointestinal radiography and endoscopy were carried out at 3 mo postoperatively. No patients experienced moderate or severe food stasis, alkaline gastritis or bile reflux during the follow-up period. No recanalization of the biliopancreatic limb was found.

CONCLUSION

SILS+1/L TLDG with uncut R-Y reconstruction could be safely performed as a reduced port surgery.

Delta-shaped gastroduodenostomy after totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparative study of original and modified methods

BACKGROUND

Delta-shaped anastomosis (DA) has been widely accepted as a standard procedure for intracorporeal Billroth-I reconstruction after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy. We introduced DA in 2010 at our hospital and later developed a modified DA method in which a stapled corner of the duodenal stump was removed simultaneously with closure of an entry hole to reduce postoperative complications.

METHODS

The clinical data of 507 patients undergoing laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with DA from October 2010 through December 2018 were retrospectively collected from our in-house database. On the basis of the reviewed data, patients were divided into two groups: the original DA group (org-DA, n = 392) and the modified DA group (mod-DA, n = 115). Surgical outcomes, postoperative nutritional parameters, and endoscopic findings 1 year after surgery were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Anastomotic stricture occurred in three patients (0.8%) in the org-DA group and one patient (0.9%) in the mod-DA group (P = 0.911). Anastomotic leakage was recorded in five patients (1.3%) in the org-DA group and none of the patients (0%) in the mod-DA group (P = 0.593). One year after surgery, the change in body weight in the org-DA group/mod-DA group was - 8.1%/- 7.0% (P = 0.285), and the change in hemoglobin level was - 5.0%/- 3.9% (P = 0.012). Endoscopic examination at the 1-year follow-up in the mod-DA group showed smaller amounts of food residue (P = 0.008) as well as less residual gastritis (P < 0.001) than in the org-DA group.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified DA method can be performed safely with a complication rate comparable with the original DA method. Furthermore, better postoperative function is expected because of its more natural anatomy and physiology resulting from the modified method.

Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma: cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (LSG) for cancer is associated with good perioperative outcomes and superior quality of life compared with the open approach, albeit at higher cost. An economic evaluation was conducted to compare the two approaches.

Methods

A cost–effectiveness analysis between LSG and open subtotal gastrectomy (OSG) for gastric cancer was performed using a decision‐tree cohort model with a healthcare system perspective and a 12‐month time horizon. Model inputs were informed by a meta‐analysis of relevant literature, with costs represented in 2016 Canadian dollars (CAD) and outcomes measured in quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs). A secondary analysis was conducted using inputs extracted solely from European and North American studies. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

In the base‐case model, costs of LSG were $935 (€565) greater than those of OSG, with an incremental gain of 0·050 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of $18 846 (€11 398) per additional QALY gained from LSG. In the DSA, results were most sensitive to changes in postoperative utility, operating theatre and equipment costs, as well as duration of surgery and hospital stay. PSA showed that the likelihood of LSG being cost‐effective at willingness‐to‐pay thresholds of $50 000 (€30 240) per QALY and $100 000 (€60 480) per QALY was 64 and 68 per cent respectively. Secondary analysis using European and North American clinical inputs resulted in LSG being dominant (cheaper and more effective) over OSG, largely due to reduced length of stay after LSG.

Conclusion

In this decision analysis model, LSG was cost‐effective compared with OSG for gastric cancer.

Billroth-I Reconstruction with Overlap Anastomosis Using an EndoWrist Linear Stapler After Robotic Distal Gastrectomy

Introduction: Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) is now thought to be less invasive than conventional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) for gastric cancer. Although the delta-shaped anastomosis is an established, widely performed procedure for intracorporeal Billroth-I (B-I) gastroduodenostomy after LDG, it has some difficulties and is performed in the ischemic region of the duodenum. We therefore developed a novel overlap B-I gastroduodenostomy after RDG. Materials and Methods: We started using the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) for RDG in May 2017. The robotic overlap B-I reconstruction was performed via side-to-side anastomosis, as follows: Two small incisions were made, one on the greater curvature of the remnant stomach, 5 cm from the edge of the remnant gastric stump, and one on the superior edge of the anterior wall of the duodenal stump. A 45-mm EndoWrist linear stapler device (EWLS) loaded with a blue cartridge was inserted through the incision. After the remnant stomach and duodenum were attached to the V-shaped form by the EWLS, the incisions were closed by the EWLS. Results: Seven patients underwent RDG followed by a robotic overlap B-I procedure up to March 2019. Short-term outcomes were determined from medical records and operative videos. No intraoperative complications or conversions to open or conventional laparoscopic surgery occurred. The mean time for the anastomosis was 37 (range 29-45 minutes) minutes. No postoperative complications occurred following the robotic overlap B-I procedure. Discussion: RDG followed by an overlap B-I gastroduodenostomy might be feasible and safe. However, long-term follow-up is required to identify additional benefits.

Lymph Node Noncompliance Affects the Long-Term Prognosis of Patients with Gastric Cancer after Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Our study investigated the effect of lymph node (LN) noncompliance on the long-term prognosis of patients after laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) and explored the risk factors of LN noncompliance.

METHODS

The clinicopathological data of gastric cancer (GC) patients who underwent LTG with D2 lymphadenectomy from June 2007 to December 2013 were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. The effects of LN noncompliance on the long-term prognosis of patients with GC after LTG were explored.

RESULTS

The overall LN noncompliance rate was 51.9%. The survival rate of patients after LTG with LN compliance was significantly superior to that of patients with LN noncompliance (p = 0.013). The stratified analysis of TNM stage indicated that there was no difference between the OS of stage I patients with LN compliance and those with LN noncompliance; OS of stage II/III patients with LN compliance was significantly better than that of those with LN noncompliance. Cox regression analyses showed that LN noncompliance was an independent risk factor for OS. Logistic regression analysis showed that high BMI (≥ 25 kg/m²) was an independent risk factor for preoperative prediction of LN noncompliance in cStage II/III patients. Patients with a high BMI were more likely to have LN noncompliance during surgery, especially during the dissections of #6, #8a, and #12a LN stations.

CONCLUSIONS

LN noncompliance was an independent risk factor for poor prognosis in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) after LTG. Patients with high BMI were more likely to have LN noncompliance, especially during the dissections of #6, #8a, and #12a LN stations. LN tracing was recommended for these patients to reduce the rate of LN noncompliance.

Effect of Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy vs Open Distal Gastrectomy on Long-term Survival Among Patients With Stage I Gastric Cancer: The KLASS-01 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is gaining popularity over open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer because of better early postoperative outcomes. However, to our knowledge, no studies have proved whether laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is oncologically equivalent to open distal gastrectomy.

Objective

To examine whether the long-term survival among patients with stage I gastric cancer undergoing laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is noninferior to that among patients undergoing open distal gastrectomy.

Design

The Korean Laparoendoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery Study (KLASS) group, which includes 15 surgeons from 13 institutes, conducted a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, noninferiority, prospective randomized clinical trial (KLASS-01) of patients with histologically proven, preoperative clinical stage I gastric adenocarcinoma from January 5, 2006, to August 23, 2010. Survival and recurrence status of the patients was determined in December 2016.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (n = 705) or open distal gastrectomy (n = 711). Of these patients, 85 received a surgical approach opposite the one to which they were randomized (63 randomized to the open surgery group and 22 to the laparoscopic group).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Difference in 5-year overall survival between the laparoscopic and open distal gastrectomy groups. The noninferiority margin was prespecified as -5% (corresponding hazard ratio of 1.54), with an assumed survival of 90% after 5 years in the open surgery group.

Results

Among the 1416 patients (mean [SD] age, 57.3 [11.1] years; 940 [66.4%] male) included in the study, the 5-year overall survival rates were 94.2% in the laparoscopic group and 93.3% in the open surgery group (log-rank P = .64). Intention-to-treat analysis confirmed the noninferiority of the laparoscopic approach compared with the open approach (difference, 0.9 percentage points; 1-sided 97.5% CI, -1.6 to infinity). The 5-year cancer-specific survival rates were similar between the 2 groups (97.1% in the laparoscopic group and 97.2% in the open surgery group, log-rank P = .91; difference, -0.03 percentage points; 1-sided 97.5% CI, -1.8 to infinity). Per-protocol analysis results were consistent with the intention-to-treat results for overall and cancer-specific survival rates.

Conclusions and Relevance

The KLASS-01 trial revealed similar overall and cancer-specific survival rates between patients receiving laparoscopic and open distal gastrectomy. Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is an oncologically safe alternative to open surgery for stage I gastric cancer.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00452751.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Background

Compared with open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer has achieved rapid development and popularities in the past decades. However, lack of comprehensive analysis in long-term oncological outcomes such as recurrence and mortality hinder its full support as a valid procedure. Therefore, there are still debates on whether one of these options is superior.

Aim

To evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients

Methods

Two authors independently extracted study data. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for binary outcomes, mean difference (MD) or the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes, and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. Review Manager 5.3 and STATA software were used for the meta-analysis.

Results

Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 5204 participants were included in this meta-analysis. There were no differences in the primary outcomes including the number of lymph nodes harvested during operation, severe complications, short-term and long-term recurrence, and mortality. As for secondary outcomes, compared with the OG group, longer operative time was required for patients in the LG group (MD = 58.80 min, 95% CI = [45.80, 71.81], P < 0.001), but there were less intraoperative blood loss (MD = − 54.93 ml, 95% CI = [− 81.60, − 28.26], P < 0.001), less analgesic administration (frequency: MD = − 1.73, 95% CI = [− 2.21, − 1.24], P < 0.001; duration: MD = − 1.26 days, 95% CI = [− 1.40, − 1.12], P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (MD = − 1.37 days, 95% CI = [− 2.05, − 0.70], P < 0.001), shorter time to first flatus (MD = − 0.58 days, 95% CI = [− 0.79, − 0.37], P < 0.001), ambulation (MD = − 0.50 days, 95% CI = [− 0.90, − 0.09], P = 0.02) and oral intake (MD = − 0.64 days, 95% CI = [− 1.24, − 0.03], P < 0.04), and less total complications (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = [0.71, 0.93], P = 0.003) in the OG group. There was no difference in blood transfusions (number, quantity) between these two groups. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and the adjustment of Duval’s trim and fill methods for publication bias did not change the conclusions.

Conclusion

LG was comparable to OG in the primary outcomes and had some advantages in secondary outcomes for gastric cancer patients. LG is superior to OG for gastric cancer patients.

Does three-dimensional surgery affect recurrence patterns in patients with gastric cancer after laparoscopic R0 gastrectomy? Results from a 3-year follow-up phase III trial

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies have shown that the short-term efficacy of three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic radical gastrectomy (LG) is comparable to that of two-dimensional (2D)-LG. Whether 3D-LG affects the recurrence patterns of gastric cancer (GC) patients has not been investigated.

METHODS

From January 2015 to April 2016, a total of 419 patients were recruited for a phase III clinical trial (NCT02327481), which compared the short-term outcomes between the 2D and 3D groups. The long-term efficacy including recurrence patterns was compared between the 2D and 3D groups in this retrospective study. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine whether 3D-LG affects the recurrence patterns.

RESULTS

Ultimately, 401 patients were analyzed (197 in the 2D-LG group and 204 in the 3D-LG group), and no differences were observed in the clinicopathological data between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the recurrence types, first recurrence time or recurrence-free survival (RFS) (all p > 0.05). According to the 7th American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system, both groups were stratified into pathological stages I, II, and III. The stratified analysis showed no significant differences in RFS or overall survival (OS) among patients in each subgroup (all p > 0.05). The multivariate analysis of RFS showed that tumor diameter, pTNM stage, lymphovascular invasion, and adjuvant chemotherapy were independent factors (all p < 0.05). The multivariate analysis of post-recurrence survival (PRS) showed that adjuvant chemotherapy was an independent protective factor (p = 0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

3D-LG for GC did not differ significantly from 2D-LG in the effects on 3-year recurrence patterns, RFS and OS, which provides more tumor-related evidence for 3D technology. And due to the technological similarity, it may have certain reference value for robotic-assisted gastrectomy. Further multicenter, large-scale clinical trials are warranted.

Laparoscopic total gastrectomy for upper-middle advanced gastric cancer: analysis based on lymph node noncompliance

BACKGROUND

Increasing number of clinical studies have shown that laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) with D2 lymph node (LN) dissection is an effective method for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC). However, reports on the technical feasibility and oncology efficacy of laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) in the treatment of AGC are rare.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the clinicopathologic data of 1313 patients with clinical stage of cT2-4aN0-3M0 undergoing laparoscopic radical gastrectomy with D2 LN dissection from June 2007 to December 2013 was performed. Noncompliance was defined as patients with more than one LN station absence as described in the protocol for D2 lymphadenectomy in the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (JGCA). According to the literature, it was subdivided into LN compliance group (all LN stations were detected), minor LN noncompliance group (1-2 LN stations were not detected), major LN noncompliance group (more than 2 LN stations were not detected). Based on the LN noncompliance, the surgical indications of LTG were analyzed with LDG as control.

RESULTS

Among the 1313 patients, 197 (39.20%) patients and 321(39.71%) patients in the LDG group and the LTG group had minor LN noncompliance, 59(11.70%) patients and 163(20.10%) patients had major LN noncompliance. The difference in the extent of LN noncompliance between the two groups was statistically significant (p < 0.001). COX proportional hazards regression analysis elucidated that the LN noncompliance was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (OS). BMI ≥ 25 kg/m² and the history of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) were independent risk factors for major LN noncompliance in LTG group (p < 0.05), with which patients were defined as a LN noncompliance high-risk group. With the exception of LN noncompliance high-risk group, the difference in the extent of LN noncompliance between LTG group and LDG group was still statistically significant (p = 0.008). Tumor diameter > 60 mm is a preoperative risk factor for station #5 LN noncompliance, and no preoperative risk factors for station #6 LN noncompliance were found, with which patients were defined as LN noncompliance middle-risk group.

CONCLUSION

LN noncompliance is an independent prognostic factor for poor prognosis in patients after LTG. Based on this finding, patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m², history of PAS and tumor diameter > 60 mm in the advanced stage of upper-middle gastric cancer represent high/middle-risk groups with LN noncompliance in LTG surgery, which should be carefully selected.

Laparoscopic Gastrectomy Using Instruments with a Minimal Diameter for Early Gastric Cancer: A Feasible Alternative to Conventional Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Experienced Surgeons

Background: The application of laparoscopic surgery using instruments that are 3 mm or less in diameter for patients with early gastric cancer (EGC) has not yet been established. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic gastrectomy using instruments with minimal diameter. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 41 patients who underwent laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy with D1-positive lymph node dissection for EGC. Among them, 17 patients underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy using instruments with a minimal diameter (experimental group), while 24 patients underwent conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (control group). In the experimental group, we used two 3-mm trocars, one 5-mm trocar, and the GelPOINT^® Advanced Access Platform. We compared operative outcomes between the two groups and assessed the learning curve of laparoscopic gastrectomy using instruments with minimal diameter. Results: The operative outcomes were similar between the two groups. The preoperative-to-postoperative day 2 ratio of neutrophil count in the experimental group was significantly lower than in the control group (2.07 versus 2.65; P = .038). Morbidity was not observed in the experimental group and 3 patients experienced complications in the control group, although it was not significantly different (P = .252). The operation time according to the accumulation of cases was stable without any significant change in the experimental group. Conclusions: Laparoscopic gastrectomy using instruments with minimal diameter is technically feasible and safe for EGC and could also be a good alternative to conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy to minimize the impact of surgical invasiveness when performed by experienced surgeons.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastrectomy for Cancer: A Western Center Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for cancer has been introduced in institutions worldwide in an effort to minimize surgical trauma, while aiming to provide comparable oncological outcomes to conventional open gastrectomy (OG). The aim of this study was to present our results during the period of implementation of the laparoscopic technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 2012, LG for the treatment of gastric cancer was introduced at our institution. The results presented are based on a retrospective analysis of data from a cohort of all patients treated with curative intent over the period 2010-2018.

RESULTS

During the study period, 206 patients underwent surgery for gastric cancer: 129 patients (62.6%) had an OG and 77 patients (37.4%) an LG. The conversion rate due to technical reasons was 2.6%. LG was associated with significantly less intraoperative blood loss [mean (mL), OG 544 versus LG 176] and shorter hospital stay than OG [mean (d), OG 12 versus LG 8], fewer severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIb) [OG 29 (22.5%) versus LG 9 (11.7%), P = 0.081], significantly lower anastomotic leak rate [OG 18 (14.0%) versus LG 1 (1.3%)] and no 90-day mortality. The percentage of R0 resections was similar between the two groups (OG 82.2% versus LG 85.7%, P = 0.507), while the mean number of resected lymph nodes was significantly higher in the laparoscopic group [OG 34 versus LG 39, P = 0.030].

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that similar and, in some aspects, better short-term outcomes can be achieved with LG with maintained oncological quality.

Recent Status of Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy in Korea: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study (Pre-study Survey of KLASS-07 Trial)

Purpose: To analyze the surgical trend and brief postoperative results of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) in Korea on the basis of a multicenter cohort.

Materials and Methods: Data of 812 patients who underwent LDG between January and December 2016 were collected from 14 surgeons at 7 institutions. Patients were divided into laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) group and totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) group. Perioperative and clinicopathologic outcomes were compared retrospectively.

Results: Among the patients [n = 222 (27.3%) LADG; n = 590 (72.7%) TLDG], there are no significant differences in patient's demographics (sex, age, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score). Billroth-I anastomosis (84.7%) was most performed in the LADG group, but Billroth-II anastomosis (59.0%) in the TLDG group (p < 0.001). The mean operative time was longer in the TLDG group (197.3 ± 44.4 min vs. 222.0 ± 60.2 min, p < 0.001), and there was no statistical difference in the hospital stay between the two groups (9.6 ± 4.8 days vs. 8.9 ± 7.1 days, p = 0.149). There were no significant differences in morbidity and mortality between the two groups. The length of proximal margin was longer in the TLDG group (4.3 ± 3.1 cm vs. 6.0 ± 3.4 cm, p < 0.001), but the distal margin was longer in the LADG group (6.5 ± 3.7 cm vs. 5.5 ± 3.1 cm, p < 0.001). The distribution of operations among each institution was shown very heterogeneously.

Conclusion: There was no significant difference related to surgical outcome between LADG and TLDG in pre-study survey prior to KLASS-07 trial. Therefore, to obtain more reliable data, well designed prospective randomized controlled study is needed.

C-reactive protein elevation ratio as an early predictor of postoperative severe complications after laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective study

Background

In gastrectomy, postoperative elevation of C-reactive protein (CRP) is thought to be useful for predicting complications. Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is less invasive than laparotomy and the elevation of CRP is also mild. Postoperative complications such as anastomotic leakage not only increase the severity of the condition, but also carry a poor prognosis when treatment is delayed. Early treatment is therefore necessary.

Method

This retrospective study examined the relationship between occurrence of complications and the ratio of CRP levels on postoperative days 1 and 3 (CRP ratio) for 449 gastric cancer patients who underwent LG in the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery at Osaka City University Hospital between 2006 and 2016.

Results

We observed that factors associated with postoperative complications were preoperative renal failure and CRP ratio. No significant associations with surgical procedure, operation time, bleeding volume, age, obesity, measured CRP concentration, or white blood cell count were evident. The optimal cut-off for CRP ratio to predict postoperative complications from the receiver operating characteristic curve was 2.13.

Conclusion

Our results suggested that the risk of severe postoperative complications after LG could be predicted using the CRP ratio.