A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopy-assisted and open distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer

Validity and safety of laparoscopic gastrectomy with D1+ lymphadenectomy for very elderly advanced gastric cancer patients; retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear whether laparoscopic gastrectomy with optimal lymphadenectomy is appropriate for very elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer. This study aimed to assess the validity of laparoscopic gastrectomy with D1+ lymphadenectomy performed for advanced gastric cancer in patients aged 80 years or more.

METHODS

Included in this retrospective study were 122 patients who underwent curative laparoscopic gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer between 2013 and 2018. All patients over 80 years old underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy with D1+ lymphadenectomy. We divided patients by age between those who were very elderly (age ≥ 80 years; very elderly group [n = 57]) and those who were non-very elderly (age < 80 years; control group [n = 65]), and we compared patient and clinicopathological characteristics, intraoperative outcomes, and short- and long-term outcomes between the two groups. We also performed multivariate analyses to identify predictors of postoperative prognosis.

RESULTS

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of grade 2 or higher and mean Charlson comorbidity index score and body mass index were significantly different between the very elderly group and the control group. Adjuvant chemotherapy was used in relatively few very elderly group patients. Operation time, blood loss volume, and postoperative morbidity and mortality did not differ between the two groups. The overall survival and disease-specific survival rate of very elderly group patients with the Charlson comorbidity index score of <3 was not significantly different from that of the control group patients.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of advanced gastric cancer by laparoscopic gastrectomy with D1+ lymphadenectomy to be both safe and effective in the very elderly group patients with the Charlson comorbidity index score of <3.

Technical and oncological safety of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in elderly patients ≥ 80 years old

BACKGROUND

As the incidence of gastric cancer increases in elderly patients worldwide, laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for elderly patients with gastric cancer is also increasing. However, whether LG is an optimal surgical modality for elderly patients with gastric cancer remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the technical and oncological safety of LG for elderly patients ≥ 80 years old with gastric cancer.

METHODS

Patients who received curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer from 2003 to 2015 were enrolled in the study. They were divided into the LG in elderly patients aged over 80 years (LG-E) group, open gastrectomy (OG) in elderly patients (OG-E) group, and LG in non-elderly patients < 80 years (LG-NE) group. Patients' demographics and short- and long-term outcomes, such as postoperative complications and 5-year survival rate, were compared between the three groups, retrospectively.

RESULTS

The LG-E, OG-E, and LG-NE groups comprised 45, 43, and 329 patients, respectively. In the comparison between the LG-E and OG-E groups, the incidence of distal gastrectomy (DG) and the proportions of patients with pathological tumor stage T1, pathological N0, and final stage I were significantly higher in the LG-E versus OG-E group (89 vs. 56%, 76% vs. 16%, 82% vs. 37%, and 84% vs. 35%, p < 0.01, respectively). Blood loss and the incidence of overall postoperative complications in the LG-E group were significantly lower than those in the OG-E group (40 vs. 240 g, p < 0.01, and 29% vs. 53%, p < 0.05, respectively). Although the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was not significantly different between the two groups, the 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) rate was significantly higher in the LG-E group versus OG-E group (93% vs. 78%, p < 0.05). Overall comorbidities were significantly higher in the LG-E group versus LG-NE group, but there were no significant differences in short-term outcomes between the two groups. Further, although the 5-year OS rate was significantly lower in the LG-E group versus LG-NE group (67% vs. 87%, p < 0.01), there was no significant difference between the two groups in 5-year DSS rate.

CONCLUSION

LG is technically and oncologically safe for the treatment of gastric cancer in both elderly patients aged ≥ 80 years and the non-elderly and can be an optimal surgical modality for elderly patients with gastric cancer.

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.

Determining Hospital Volume Threshold for Safety of Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Contemporary Cutpoint Analysis

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend limiting minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) to high-volume centers. However, the definition of high-volume care remains unclear. We aimed to objectively define a minimum number of MIPD performed annually per hospital associated with improved outcomes in a contemporary patient cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients undergoing MIPD were included from the National Cancer Database (2010-2017). Multivariable modeling with restricted cubic splines was employed to identify an MIPD annual hospital volume threshold associated with lower 90-day mortality. Outcomes were compared between patients treated at low-volume (≤ model-identified cutoff) and high-volume (> cutoff) centers.

RESULTS

Among 3079 patients, 141 (5%) died within 90 days. Median hospital volume was 6 (range 1-73) cases/year. After adjustment, increasing hospital volume was associated with decreasing 90-day mortality for up to 19 (95% CI 16-25) cases/year, indicating a threshold of 20 cases/year. Most cases (82%) were done at low-volume (< 20 cases/year) centers. With adjustment, MIPD at low-volume centers was associated with increased 90-day mortality (OR 2.7; p = 0.002). Length of stay, positive surgical margins, 30-day readmission, and overall survival were similar. On analysis of the most recent two years (n = 1031), patients at low-volume centers (78.2%) were younger and had less advanced tumors but had longer length of stay (8 versus 7 days; p < 0.001) and increased 90-day mortality (7% versus 2%; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

The cutpoint analysis identified a threshold of at least 20 MIPD cases/year associated with lower postoperative mortality. This threshold should inform national guidelines and institution-level protocols aimed at facilitating the safe implementation of this complex procedure.

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.

Circular versus linear stapling oesophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess which anastomosis technique is the most appropriate after laparoscopic total gastrectomy, a systematic review with meta-analysis has been performed to evaluate safety and efficacy of the linear versus circular stapler performing the oesophagojejunostomy.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using the string: total AND gastrectomy AND (circular OR linear OR stapler). Extracted data were patients' number, gender, age, BMI, ASA Score, tumor stage. Outcomes were leakages, stenoses and bleedings, number of overall anastomotic complications, mortality, operative time, time to first flatus and diet resumption and length of stay of each group. A meta-analysis among the included studies was performed. A subgroup analysis, including the studies in which the Authors considered a single technique to perform each type of anastomosis (LS and CS), was performed. Meta-regression analyses were performed to assess if one or more demographic and clinical variables significantly impacted on the obtained results.

RESULTS

12 articles were included in the final analysis. A significant difference was observed in terms of "overall anastomotic complications" in favour of linear stapling (RD = 0.06, p = 0.01). No significant differences were observed in terms of postoperative complications anastomosis-related, even if a trend towards advantages of linear stapling have been found (stenosis: RD = 0.04, p = 0.06; bleeding: RD = 0.02, p = 0.05). However, all the study was retrospective and there was high heterogeneity among the studies.

CONCLUSION

Linear stapler seems to be related with lesser number of complication if compared with circular stapler. However, further high-quality studies are needed to obtain definitive conclusions.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

An umbrella review was performed to summarize literature data and to investigate benefits and harm of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared to laparoscopic (LG) approach. To overcome the intrinsic limitations of laparoscopy, the robotic approach is claimed to facilitate lymph-node dissection and complex reconstruction after gastrectomy, to assure oncologic safety also in advanced gastric cancer. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases for all meta-analyses published up to December 2019. The search strategy was previously published in a protocol. We selected fourteen meta-analyses comparing outcomes between LG and RG with curative intent in patients with diagnosis of resectable gastric cancer. We highlight that RG has a longer operation time, inferior blood loss, reduction in hospital stay and a more rapid recovery of bowel function. In meta-analyses with statistical significance the number of nodes removed in RG is higher than LG and the distal margin of resection is higher. There is no difference in terms of total complication rate, mortality, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis, intestinal obstruction and in conversion rate to open technique. The safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy are not clearly supported by strong evidence, suggesting that the outcomes reported for each surgical technique need to be interpreted with caution, in particular for the meta-analyses in which the heterogeneity is large. Certainly, robotic gastrectomy is associated with shorter time to oral intake, lesser intraoperative bleeding and longer operation time with an acceptable level of evidence. On the other hand, the data regarding other outcomes are insufficient as well as non-significant, from an evidence point of view, to draw any robust conclusion.

Advantageous Short-Term Outcomes of Esophagojejunostomy Using a Linear Stapler Following Open Total Gastrectomy Compared with a Circular Stapler

BACKGROUND

Esophagojejunostomy is one of the most important surgical procedures in total gastrectomy. In the past, esophagojejunostomy was exclusively performed using a circular stapler in open total gastrectomy (OTG). With the increasing frequency of its use in laparoscopic gastrectomy, esophagojejunostomy using a linear stapler has been performed in OTG. However, it is still unclear whether the use of a linear stapler in esophagojejunostomy following OTG has any advantages compared with the conventional use of a circular stapler.

METHODS

A total of 298 patients who underwent OTG for gastric cancer between 2014 and 2019 were enrolled in this study. Patients were categorized into circular and linear groups (group C and group L) according to the stapler type used for the esophagojejunostomy. After propensity score matching, 136 patients (68 each in groups C and L) were selected to compare the surgical outcomes including incidence of esophagojejunostomy-related complications and postoperative nutritional status.

RESULTS

The median operation time was significantly longer in group L than in group C (261.5 min versus 325.5 min; P < 0.001). The incidence of esophagojejunostomy-related complications did not differ between the two groups (5.9% versus 2.9%; P = 0.68); however, no anastomotic stricture and bleeding occurred in group L. Bodyweight loss was significantly lower in group L than in group C at 6 months (15.9% versus 12.6%; P = 0.007) after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophagojejunostomy using a linear stapler following OTG is equally safe and possibly advantageous in anastomotic stricture, bleeding and nutritional status compared with the use of a circular stapler.

Is Laparoscopic Gastrectomy More Advantageous for Elderly Patients Than for Young Patients with Resectable Advanced Gastric Cancer?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is now practiced widely, but it is unclear whether LG is the appropriate approach for elderly patients with resectable advanced gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to examine whether LG is more or less advantageous for elderly patients than for young patients.

METHODS

We collected data on 571 consecutive patients who underwent gastrectomy for pT2-4 gastric cancer between January 2001 and December 2015. After adjustment with one-to-one propensity score matching, short-term and long-term outcomes were compared between the LG and open gastrectomy (OG) groups among young (age < 70 years) and elderly (age ≥ 70 years) patients.

RESULTS

The LG group had a significantly longer operative time (P < 0.001) and less blood loss (P < 0.001) than the OG group among young and elderly patients. There were no significant differences regarding complications. Although disease-specific survival was similar between the LG and OG groups among young and elderly patients, LG was associated with more favorable overall survival than OG only among elderly patients (hazard ratio 0.67; 95% confidence interval 0.35-1.26). Death from respiratory diseases occurred more frequently in the OG group (10.9%) than in the LG group (0%) for elderly patients (P = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

LG for resectable advanced gastric cancer was not inferior to OG in terms of both short-term and long-term outcomes regardless of patient age. In elderly patients, LG may improve overall survival by reducing mortality from respiratory diseases.

Long-Term Results and Current Problems in Laparoscopic Gastrectomy: Single-Center Experience

Introduction: The study aims to evaluate the long-term results of patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in Ankara University Medical Faculty, Surgical Oncology Clinic, within 5 years. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer at the Surgical Oncology Clinic of Ankara University Medical Faculty between January 2014 and September 2019. One hundred forty-six patients were included in the study. Results: Fifty-one (34.9%) of the patients were female; 95 (65.1%) were male. The mean ± standard deviation and median (minimum-maximum) values of the patients were 60.92 ± 14.13 and 64.00 (22.00-93.00), respectively (Table 1). Eighty-seven (59.6%) cases were located in the antrum, 29 (19.9%) were in the cardia region, and 30 (20.5%) were in the corpus region. Overall, 106 (72.6%) of 146 patients were alive, while 40 (27.4%) were ex. The mean survival was 21.8 months (0-69). Postoperative mortality was seen in 9 patients (6.2%) and our disease-free survival rate was 70.5%. Recurrence occurred in 14 (9.6%) of all patients. [Table: see text] Conclusion: In conclusion, although laparoscopic gastrectomy is a reliable and feasible method for gastric cancer, the standardization of laparoscopic surgery is required in clinics.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: protocol for umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery has been adopted in some parts of the world as an innovative approach to the resection of gastric cancers. However, in the modern era of surgical oncology, to overcome intrinsic limitations of the traditional laparoscopy, the robotic approach is advocated as able to facilitate the lymph node dissection and complex reconstruction after gastrectomy, to assure oncologic safety also in advanced gastric cancer patients. Previous meta-analyses highlighted a lower complication rate as well as bleeding in the robotic approach group when compared with the laparoscopic one. This potential benefit must be balanced against an increased time of intervention. The aim of this umbrella review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature for surgeons and policymakers in order to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared with the laparoscopic approach for gastric cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases for all articles published up to May 2019 and reference list of relevant publications for systematic review and meta-analyses comparing the outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer. Studies will be selected by two independent reviewers based on prespecified eligibility criteria and the quality will be assessed according to AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) checklist. All information will be collected using piloted and standardised data-extraction forms in DistillerSR developed following the Joanna Briggs Institute's recommended extraction items.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This umbrella review will inform clinical and policy decisions regarding the benefits and harms of RG for treating gastric cancer. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and the popular press. Formal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019139906.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: are the best times coming?

Background

The introduction of laparoscopic technology has greatly promoted the development of surgery, and the trend of minimally invasive surgery is becoming more and more obvious. However, there is no consensus as to whether laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) should be performed routinely.

Main body

We summarized the development of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in recent years by comparing with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and evaluated its feasibility, perioperative, and long-term outcomes including operation time, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and overall survival. Then, several relevant issues and challenges were discussed in depth.

Conclusion

The perioperative and long-term outcomes of LPD are no worse and even better in length of hospital stay and estimated blood loss than OPD and RPD except for a few reports. Though with strict control of indications, standardized training, and learning, ensuring safety and reducing cost are still and will always the keys to the healthy development of LPD; the best times for it are coming.

Clockwise, Modularized Lymphadenectomy in Laparoscopic Gastric Cancer Surgery: a New Laparoscopic Surgery Model

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study is to present the clockwise, modularized lymphadenectomy model of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients, which is based on our clinical practice experience in laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery.

METHODS

From Jan 2015 to July 2017, 116 patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy were retrospectively collected and analyzed. According to the different resection models, patients were divided into two groups: traditional laparoscopic lymphadenectomy group (63 patients) and clockwise, modularized lymphadenectomy group (53 patients). Operation-related parameters were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The clockwise, modularized lymphadenectomy group had less dissection time (119.8 ± 19.1 min vs. 135.3 ± 23.8 min, p < 0.001) and less intraoperative blood loss (81.7 ± 42.9 ml vs. 91.4 ± 28.7 ml, p = 0.016) compared with the traditional laparoscopic lymphadenectomy group. Meanwhile, the clockwise, modularized lymphadenectomy group had more numbers of examined lymph nodes (40.5 ± 14.3 vs. 33.9 ± 11.0, p = 0.007) than the traditional laparoscopic lymphadenectomy group. Besides, there was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative complication rates between the two groups. The clockwise, modularized lymphadenectomy group had shorter postoperative hospital stay than the traditional laparoscopic lymphadenectomy group (8.7 ± 3.2 days vs. 10.4 ± 3.9 days, respectively, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Through the adoption of the fixed sequence of lymphadenectomy, requirements and standard of lymphadenectomy of each lymph node station, and specific surgical skills for intraoperative exposure by the clockwise and modularized lymphadenectomy model, we can optimize and facilitate the laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery.

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis after laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. A systematic review with meta-analysis

AIM

To perform a systematic review and meta-analyses of studies comparing the totally laparoscopic procedures with intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) to laparoscopic-assisted surgery with extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) in gastric resections.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search in the electronic databases. Outcomes analysed were: intraoperative (operative time and intraoperative blood loss), oncologic (harvested nodes, distance of the tumour from proximal and distal margin), postoperative complications (gastric stasis, intraluminal and extraluminal bleeding, leakage and wound infection) recovery (time to first flatus, time to first oral intake and hospital stay). We performed meta-regression analyses after implementing a regression model with the analysed outcomes as dependent variables (y) and the demographic and pathologic covariates as independent variables (x).

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies (20 on distal gastrectomy and 6 on total gastrectomy) were included in the final analysis. Regarding distal gastrectomy, there was no statistical difference between the two groups in the above-mentioned outcomes, except for intraoperative blood loss (less in IA group, P=0.003), number of harvested nodes (better in the IA group, P=0.022) and length of hospital stay (shorter in the IA group, P=0.037). Regarding total gastrectomy, there was no statistical difference for all outcomes, except for the distal margin (further in the EA group, P=0.040). Meta-regression analysis showed that a lot of variables influenced results in distal gastric resections, but not in total gastric resections.

CONCLUSION

We can state laparoscopic gastric resections with IA are safe and feasible when performed by expert surgeons. However, new well-designed studies comparing the two techniques are needed to confirm the benefits of laparoscopic IA.

Current status of laparoscopic total gastrectomy

In this article, the current state of laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) was reviewed, focusing on lymph node dissection and reconstruction. Lymph node dissection in LTG is technically similar to that in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer; however, LTG for advanced gastric cancer requires extended lymph node dissections including splenic hilar lymph nodes. Although a recent randomized controlled trial clearly indicated no survival benefit in prophylactic splenectomy for lymph node dissection at the splenic hilum, some patients may receive prognostic benefit from adequate splenic hilar lymph node dissection. Considering reconstruction, there are two major esophagojejunostomy (EJS) techniques, using a circular stapler (CS) or using a linear stapler (LS). A few studies have shown that the LS method has fewer complications; however, almost all studies have reported that morbidity (such as anastomotic leakage and stricture) is not significantly different for the two methods. As for CS, we grouped various studies addressing complications in LTG into categories according to the insertion procedure of the anvil and the insertion site in the abdominal wall for the CS. We compared the rate of complications, particularly for leakage and stricture. The rate of anastomotic leakage and stricture was the lowest when inserting the CS from the upper left abdomen and was significantly the highest when inserting the CS from the midline umbilical. Scrupulous attention to EJS techniques is required by surgeons with a clear understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of each anastomotic device and approach.

Optical trocar access for initial trocar placement in laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery: A propensity score-matching analysis

INTRODUCTION

Optical trocar access is a technique to place the initial trocar in laparoscopic surgery. With optical trocar access, each tissue layer can be visualized before insertion, which can help prevent organ injury, and air leaks at the trocar site can be minimized even in obese patients. The aim of this study was to compare the time needed for trocar insertion using optical trocar access and an open method in patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery.

METHODS

We reviewed our prospectively collected database and identified 384 patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery involving initial trocar insertion near the umbilicus by either the optical trocar access or the open method. Before the two methods were compared, propensity score matching was used to adjust for essential variables between the optical trocar access and open groups.

RESULTS

Patients categorized in the optical trocar access and open groups were matched one-to-one by propensity score matching, and 137 pairs of patients were generated. The time needed for trocar insertion was significantly shorter in the optical trocar access group than in the open group (36.6 vs 209.8 s, P < 0.01). The multivariable analysis identified an inexperienced surgeon as the only independent risk factor for prolonged time for initial trocar insertion using the optical trocar access.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicated that optical trocar access may be recommended for inserting the initial trocar in laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery.

Feasibility of laparoscopic gastrectomy for patients with Siewert-type II/III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: A propensity score matching analysis

Background/Aim

The feasibility of using laparoscopic gastrectomy for the treatment of Siewert-type II/III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) has not been addressed. This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the short- and long-term effects on laparoscopic versus open surgery using (propensity score matching) PSM for Siewert-type II/III AEG.

Methods

We retrospectively collected data from the patients with Siewert-type II/III AEG who were treated in our cancer center between January 2013 and December 2015. Patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy and open gastrectomy were matched via PSM. The cumulative 2-year Overall survival (OS) rate of patients in the two cohorts was estimated by Kaplan-Meier plots. Multi-variable analysis using a Cox regression model was conducted to identify independent risk factors.

Results

A total of 963 patients with Siewert-type II/III AEG were included, of which 132 cases were in the laparoscopic gastrectomy group, and 831 cases were in the open gastrectomy group. After regrouping with PSM, 132 patients in the laparoscopic gastrectomy group were balanced with 264 similar patients in the open gastrectomy group. As expected, the laparoscopic gastrectomy group had significantly longer operation times, but less blood loss. Furthermore, the two groups showed similar results for post-operative complications, duration of hospital stay and 2-year OS rate. Combined organ resection was an independent risk factor for 2-year OS rate.

Conclusion

This study suggests that laparoscopic gastrectomy may serve as a safe and feasible treatment for Siewert-type II/III AEG and achieve similar oncologic outcomes as open gastrectomy.

Laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: where are we now and where are we going?

INTRODUCTION

Minimally-invasive surgery is gaining increasing popularity for the management of gastric cancer (GC). Areas covered: The authors hereby comprehensively and systematically reviewed the randomized and/or prospective evidence on laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for GC. For early GC located in the distal stomach, various randomized trials have demonstrated the superiority/non-inferiority of LG especially in reducing surgical trauma and enhancing postoperative recovery without compromising surgical safety and oncologic efficacy. For advanced GC, while multicenter large-scale randomized evidence has demonstrated the safety and feasibility of LG by experienced hands, the long-term survival which is to be clarified by several ongoing trials are crucial to determine whether a more widespread application is acceptable. Randomized evidence regarding the application of laparoscopic total or proximal gastrectomy, which is technically challenging, is scarce. Various attempts in modification of the traditional laparoscopic approach to further reduce the trauma have been evaluated, such as single-incision and totally LG. LG is becoming increasingly individualized and precise. Expert commentary: The current randomized and/or prospective evidence supports the non-inferiority of laparoscopic surgery especially for the management of early GC located in the distal stomach, while the definitive efficacy of the laparoscopic approach for more surgically challenging situations remains largely explorative and investigative.

Reevaluation of laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer in Asia: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The benefits and risks of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LADG) are not yet sufficiently clear for acceptance as a standard treatment of early gastric cancer. Previous meta-analyses were not powered to reach definitive conclusions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing LADG with open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for early gastric cancer in Asia and published between January 1994 and January 2018 were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Patient characteristics, oncological safety and efficacy, and surgical safety were evaluated following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines (GRADE) guidelines. Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) reduced random error and reinforced the reliability and strength of evidence.

RESULTS

Eight trials including 2666 participants were selected. LADG benefits were an 11.6 cm shorter incision (95% CI: -13.31 to -9.88 cm; P < 0.0001), 103.81 ml less blood loss (95% CI: -133.68 to -73.94; P < 0.0001), 1.73 times less analgesic use (95% CI: -2.21 to -1.24; P < 0.0001), 0.51 days shorter time to first flatus (95% CI: -0.88 to -0.15 days; P = 0.006), lower risk of wound dehiscence (RR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.08-0.78; P = 0.02), lower risk of surgical adverse events (RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53-0.91; P = 0.008), and lower risk of respiratory complications (RR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.20-0.79; P = 0.009) than ODG. LADG had 2.22 fewer resected lymph nodes (95% CI: -4.33 to -0.12; P = 0.04) and 76.61 min longer procedures (76.61 min, 95% CI: 57.74-95.47 min; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In Asian patients, LADG had similar mortality and oncological safety, better surgical safety, less operative morbidity, less trauma, and faster recovery than ODG. It has a high role to play in node-negative cases due to better short-term outcomes but less nodal harvest. It is a recommended alternative treatment for experienced surgeons in high-volume centers.

Evolution trends of indications for laparoscopic surgery in patients with gastric cancer

Laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer has the advantages open surgery of less blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, faster postoperative recovery and smaller scar and has been widely carried out worldwide. Since laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer was carried out 20 years ago, the indications for laparoscopic gastric surgery has been expanding with the continuous progress of science and technology, the innovation of equipment, the improvement of the level of laparoscopic surgeons' awareness, and the obtainment of high quality clinical evidence. Here we review the evolution trends of indications for laparoscopic surgery in patients with gastric cancer.

Risk factors and management for gastric stenosis after endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric epithelial neoplasm

BACKGROUND

Only a few studies have reported treatment options for stenosis after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric neoplasms. This study aimed to identify the risk factors for and evaluate the management of stenosis after ESD for gastric epithelial neoplasms in the cardia and antrum.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 1218 patients (1447 gastric epithelial neoplasms) who underwent ESD at Tonan Hospital from June 2004 to November 2015. Post-ESD stenosis was defined when a standard endoscope could not be passed through the site.

RESULTS

Post-ESD stenosis occurred in 10 (21.3%) of the 47 cardia cases and 14 (3.2%) of the 432 antrum cases. A wide resection of more than three fourths of the circumferential extent was the sole significant risk factor related to post-ESD stenosis in both cardia and antrum. Prophylactic endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) was performed in 3 of 10 patients with cardiac stenosis and 4 of 14 with antral stenosis. Post-EBD bleeding occurred in one cardia (10%) and one antrum (7.1%) case each and was endoscopically treated. Perforation during EBD occurred in two (14.3%) antrum cases, both of which required emergency open surgery. All complications were observed in patients with conventional EBD, and no complications were associated with prophylactic EBD.

CONCLUSIONS

A wide resection of more than three fourths of the circumferential extent was the significant risk factor for post-ESD stenosis in both cardia and antrum, and prophylactic EBD could be a promising procedure for the management of post-ESD stenosis.

Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

The number of robotic gastrectomy (RG) performed per year has been increasing, particularly in East Asia where the incidence of gastric cancer is high and approximately half of the cases are diagnosed as early gastric cancer. With articulated devices of RG, surgeons are able to perform every procedure more meticulously, which can result in less bleeding and damage to organs. There are many single arm and comparative studies, and these study showed similar trends, which included relatively less estimated blood loss and longer operation time following RG than laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), equivalent number of harvested lymph nodes and similar length of postoperative hospital stay between RG and LG. Considering the results of these retrospective comparative studies, RG seems to be as feasible as LG in terms of early surgical outcomes. However, medical expense of RG is approximately twice as much as that of LG. Lack of solid evidence in terms of long-term outcomes is another problem. Considering the higher medical expenses associated with RG, its superiority in terms of long-term survival outcomes needs to be confirmed in the future for it to be accepted more widely.

Defining a Hospital Volume Threshold for Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy in the United States

Importance

There is increasing interest in expanding use of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). This procedure is complex, with data suggesting a significant association between hospital volume and outcomes.

Objective

To determine whether there is an MIPD hospital volume threshold for which patient outcomes could be optimized.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Adult patients undergoing MIPD were identified from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample from 2000 to 2012. Multivariable models with restricted cubic splines were used to identify a hospital volume threshold by plotting annual hospital volume against the adjusted odds of postoperative complications. The current analysis was conducted on August 16, 2016.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Incidence of any complication.

Results

Of the 865 patients who underwent MIPD, 474 (55%) were male and the median patient age was 67 years (interquartile range, 59-74 years). Among the patients, 747 (86%) had cancer and 91 (11%) had benign conditions/pancreatitis. Overall, 410 patients (47%) had postoperative complications and 31 (4%) died in-hospital. After adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics, increasing hospital volume was associated with reduced complications (overall association P < .001); the likelihood of experiencing a complication declined as hospital volume increased up to 22 cases per year (95% CI, 21-23). Median hospital volume was 6 cases per year (range, 1-60). Most patients (n = 717; 83%) underwent the procedure at low-volume (≤22 cases per year) hospitals. After adjustment for patient mix, undergoing MIPD at low- vs high-volume hospitals was significantly associated with increased odds for postoperative complications (odds ratio, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.03-2.94; P = .04).

Conclusions and Relevance

Hospital volume is significantly associated with improved outcomes from MIPD, with a threshold of 22 cases per year. Most patients undergo MIPD at low-volume hospitals. Protocols outlining minimum procedural volume thresholds should be considered to facilitate safer dissemination of MIPD.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Phase III evidence in the shape of a series of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses has shown that laparoscopic gastrectomy is safe and gives better short-term results with respect to the traditional open technique for early-stage gastric cancer. In fact, in the East laparoscopic gastrectomy has become routine for early-stage gastric cancer. In contrast, the treatment of advanced gastric cancer through a minimally invasive way is still a debated issue, mostly due to worries about its oncological efficacy and the difficulty of carrying out an extended lymphadenectomy and intestinal reconstruction after total gastrectomy laparoscopically. Over the last ten years the introduction of robotic surgery has implied overcoming some intrinsic drawbacks found to be present in the conventional laparoscopic procedure. Robot-assisted gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy has been shown to be safe and feasible for the treatment of gastric cancer patients. But unfortunately, most available studies investigating the robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared to laparoscopic and open technique are so far retrospective and there have not been phase III trials. In the present review we looked at scientific evidence available today regarding the new high-tech surgical robotic approach, and we attempted to bring to light the real advantages of robot-assisted gastrectomy compared to the traditional laparoscopic and open technique for the treatment of gastric cancer.

The Trend of Perioperative Care of Gastrectomy in Kanagawa, Japan

Comprehensive surveys on perioperative care in Japan, including that in community or private hospitals, have not been reported, and current trends remain unclear. The present survey was designed to investigate current routines for perioperative care in patients who undergo surgery for gastric cancer in Kanagawa, Japan. A questionnaire was designed specifically to obtain information on perioperative routines in patients with gastric cancer throughout Kanagawa. A total of 55 hospitals in Kanagawa responded. Most hospitals perform antimicrobial prophylaxis every 3 hours intraoperatively, use a postoperative drainage tube, use a urinary catheter for only 2 days after surgery, administer epidural anesthesia, and encourage early mobilization. Liquid intake until 3 hours before surgery is not allowed in most hospitals. Most hospitals do not routinely provide preoperative nutrition support, perform bowel mechanical preparation, administer prophylaxis against thromboembolism, place a postoperative nasogastric tube, attempt to maintain normovolemia, or administer planned nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The day of restarting drinking or eating varies considerably. Many elements of perioperative management, especially postoperative oral nutrition, have yet to be standardized for patients with gastric cancer in Japan. There are great gaps between clinical practice and evidence-based practice in fluid management and drain usage.

Learning curve for gastric cancer patients with laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy: 6-year experience from a single institution in western China

Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) is widely used for gastric cancer (GC) patients nowadays. This study aimed to investigate the time trend of outcomes so as to describe the learning curve for GC patients with LADG at a single medical institution in western China over a 6-year period.A total of 246 consecutive GC patients with LADG were divided into 5 groups (group A: 46 patients from 2006 to 2007; group B: 47 patients in 2008; group C: 49 patients in 2009; group D: 73 patients in 2010; and group E: 31 patients in 2011). All surgeries were conducted by the same surgeon. Comparative analyses were successively performed by Mann-Whitney U test or Student t test among the 5 different groups for the clinical data, including clinicopathologic characteristics, surgical parameters, postoperative course, and survival outcomes, through which the learning curve was described.There were no differences in the baseline information among the 5 groups (P > 0.05), and the proportion of advanced GC patients with LADG slightly increased from 58.7% to 77.4% during the 6 years. Besides, the proportion of D2/D2+ lymphadenectomy and the number of retrieved lymph nodes gradually grew from 60.9% to 80.6% and from 20.0 to 28.8, respectively. In addition, the operation time decreased from 299.2 to 267.8 minutes, while the estimated blood loss dropped from 175.2 to 146.8 mL. Furthermore, some surgical parameters (surgical duration and blood loss) and postoperative course (such as postoperative complications, the time to ambulation, to first flatus, and to first liquid intake as well as the length of hospital stay) were all observed to be significantly different between group A and other groups (P < 0.05), illustrating a similar downward trend and remaining stable to form a plateau after 46 cases in group A. However, no difference on overall survival was found among these 5 groups, and multivariate analysis indicated that factors, such as age, tumor differentiation, tumor size, and T stage as well as N stage, were independent prognostic factors for patients with LADG.Improvement on surgical parameters and postoperative course can be seen over the past years, and the cutoff value of the learning curve of LADG for surgeons with rich experience in open operation might be 46 cases.

Infectious Complications after Major Abdominal Cancer Surgery: In Search of Improvable Risk Factors

BACKGROUND

Major resections for esophageal, gastric, hepatic, pancreatic, and colorectal cancer continue to be associated with a high peri-operative morbidity of up to 30%-40%. To a large extent, this morbidity is caused by infectious complications that add up to a considerable burden to patients and hospital costs. The objective of this large retrospective cross-sectional study was to determine independent patient and operation-related risk factors for infectious complications after major abdominal cancer operations to elucidate how infection rates can be reduced and improve health-care quality.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In 1,389 cancer patients who underwent a major resection procedure between 2009 and 2013, infectious complications and their independent determinants were analyzed by multivariable logistic regression (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Male gender was a risk factor for infections in general, whereas patients ≥65 y (odds ratio [OR] 1.75; p = 0.008), urinary tract infection (OR 0.51; p = 0.004), American Society of Anesthesiologists score (OR 1.55; p = 0.004), overall (OR 1.70; p = 0.037), vascular (OR 1.59; p = 0.020), and neurologic comorbidity (OR 2.22; p = 0.001) were associated significantly with pneumonia. Intra-abdominal drainage (OR 1.41; p = 0.024) and a duration of surgery of ≥180 min (OR 1.85; p = 0.001) were risk factors for surgical site infections. Total parenteral nutrition was significantly associated with intravascular catheter-induced infections (OR 18.09; p < 0.001) and sepsis (OR 6.69; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, several independent risk factors for infectious complications in major abdominal cancer operations were identified, providing opportunities for further reducing peri-operative infections. General awareness and focus on preventing infectious complications may have a significant impact on health-care outcomes and costs.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Current considerations

Radical gastrectomy with an adequate lymphadenectomy is the main procedure which makes it possible to cure patients with resectable gastric cancer (GC). 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 GC. While laparoscopic gastrectomy has become standard therapy for early-stage GC, especially in Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea, 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. Some intrinsic drawbacks of the conventional laparoscopic technique have prevented the worldwide spread of laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer and, despite technological advances in recent year, it remains a technically challenging procedure. The introduction of robotic surgery over the last ten years has implied a notable mutation of certain minimally invasive procedures, making it possible to overcome some limitations of the traditional laparoscopic technique. Robot-assisted gastric resection with D2 lymph node dissection has been shown to be safe and feasible in prospective and retrospective studies. However, to date there are no high quality comparative studies investigating the advantages of a robotic approach to GC over traditional laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. On the basis of the literature review here presented, robot-assisted surgery seems to fulfill oncologic criteria for D2 dissection and has a comparable oncologic outcome to traditional laparoscopic and open procedure. Robot-assisted gastrectomy was associated with the trend toward a shorter hospital stay with a comparable morbidity of conventional laparoscopic and open gastrectomy, but randomized clinical trials and longer follow-ups are needed to evaluate the possible influence of robot gastrectomy on GC patient survival.

Long-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy versus open distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials

The objective of this study was to compare long-term surgical outcomes and complications of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for the treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC) based on a review of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated using the Cochrane methodology.RCTs comparing LADG and ODG were identified by a systematic literature search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and the China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database, for papers published from January 1, 2003 to July 30, 2015. Meta-analyses were performed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes.Our systematic literature search identified 8 eligible RCTs including 732 patients (374 LADGs and 358 ODGs), with low overall risk of bias. Long-term mortality and relapse rate were comparable for both techniques. The long-term complication rate was 8.47% in LADG groups and 13.62% in the ODG group, indicating that LADG was associated with lower risk for long-term complications (RR = 0.63; 95%CI = 0.39-1.00; P = 0.03).In the treatment of EGC, LADG lowered the rate of long- and short-term complications and promoted earlier recovery, with comparable oncological outcomes to ODG.

Oncologic value of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND:

The oncologic validity of laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains controversial. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available evidence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A comprehensive search was performed between 2008 and 2014 to identify comparative studies evaluating morbidity/mortality, oncologic surgery-related outcomes, recurrence and survival rates. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out using RevMan 5.2 software.

RESULTS:

Eight studies with a total of 1456 patients were included in this analysis. The complication rate was lower in LADG [odds ratio (OR) 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.42-0.83; P < 0.002]. The in-hospital mortality rate was comparable (OR 1.22; 95% CI = 0.28-5-29, P = 0.79). There was no significant difference in the number of harvested lymph nodes, resection margins, cancer recurrence rate, cancer-related mortality or overall and disease-free survival (OS and DFS, respectively) rates between the laparoscopic and the open groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION:

The current study supports the view that LADG for AGC is a feasible, safe and effective procedure in selected patients. Adequate lymphadenectomy, resection margins, recurrence, cancer-related mortality and long-term outcomes appear equivalent to open distal gastrectomy (ODG).

Feasibility of laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for patients with poor physical status: A propensity-score matching study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopically-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) has been established to be a minimally invasive treatment for early gastric cancer. However, few studies have shown the feasibility of LAG in patients with risky comorbidities according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) classification. We performed this retrospective cohort study to assess the feasibility of LG in patients with an ASA-PS class of 3 or higher.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 214 patients with an ASA-PS class of 3 or 4 among 1192 patients who underwent radical gastrectomy with lymph-node dissection between 1999 and 2014 in our hospital. Finally, 106 patients were generated by propensity-score matching between LAG and open gastrectomy (OG). Postoperative complications were compared between LAG and OG.

RESULT

The overall incidence of complications was the same in LAG (30%) and OG (30%). Surgical complications were similar in LAG and OG (19% and 17%, p = 0.80). Medical complications also did not differ significantly between LAG and OG (21% and 15%, p = 0.45).

CONCLUSION

LAG was a feasible procedure for patients with gastric cancer who had an ASA-PS class of 3 or 4 and could undergo general anesthesia. LAG can become an optional treatment for such risky patients.

Laparoscopic-assisted versus open radical gastrectomy for resectable gastric cancer: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Previous studies comparing laparoscopic-assisted to open gastrectomy (OG) for resectable gastric cancer were inexhaustive, so an updated meta-analysis was performed to clarify quality of life, patient satisfaction, safety and effectiveness associated with laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG).

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to December 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LAG with OG for resectable gastric cancer. Relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled with random-effects model. Furthermore, trial sequential analysis (TSA) was employed to indicate the credibility of pooled estimate.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs totaling 2,307 gastric cancer patients (1,163 in laparoscopic and 1,144 in open) were included. Compared with OG, LAG showed higher patient satisfaction and quality of life, less blood loss, hospital stay and overall postoperative morbidity, and longer operating time, which were confirmed by TSA. LAG also accelerated time to first flatus, first walking and first intake and reduced frequency of analgesic administration and days of fever. There were no significant difference between the two groups in number of retrieved lymph nodes, mortality, recurrence, long-term overall survival and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

For patients with resectable gastric cancer, LAG decreased blood loss, length of hospital stay and overall postoperative morbidity and improved postsurgical recovery. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:756-767. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Gastric cancer: Current status of lymph node dissection

D2 procedure has been accepted in Far East as the standard treatment for both early (EGC) and advanced gastric cancer (AGC) for many decades. Recently EGC has been successfully treated with endoscopy by endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection, when restricted or extended Gotoda's criteria can be applied and D1+ surgery is offered only to patients not fitted for less invasive treatment. Furthermore, two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been demonstrating the non inferiority of minimally invasive technique as compared to standard open surgery for the treatment of early cases and recently the feasibility of adequate D1+ dissection has been demonstrated also for the robot assisted technique. In case of AGC the debate on the extent of nodal dissection has been open for many decades. While D2 gastrectomy was performed as the standard procedure in eastern countries, mostly based on observational and retrospective studies, in the west the Medical Research Council (MRC), Dutch and Italian RCTs have been conducted to show a survival benefit of D2 over D1 with evidence based medicine. Unfortunately both the MRC and the Dutch trials failed to show a survival benefit after the D2 procedure, mostly due to the significant increase of postoperative morbidity and mortality, which was referred to splenopancreatectomy. Only 15 years after the conclusion of its accrual, the Dutch trial could report a significant decrease of recurrence after D2 procedure. Recently the long term survival analysis of the Italian RCT could demonstrate a benefit for patients with positive nodes treated with D2 gastrectomy without splenopancreatectomy. As nowadays also in western countries D2 procedure can be done safely with pancreas preserving technique and without preventive splenectomy, it has been suggested in several national guidelines as the recommended procedure for patients with AGC.

Demonstrating Value: A Case Study of Enhanced Recovery

An enhanced recovery after surgery strategy will be increasingly adopted in the era of value-based care. The various elements in each enhanced recovery after surgery protocol are likely to add value to the overall patient surgical journey. Although the evidence varies considerably based on type of surgery and patient group, the team-based approach of care should be universally applied to patient care. This article provides an overview of up-to-date techniques and methodology for enhanced recovery, including an overview of value-based care, delivery, and the evidence base supporting enhanced recovery after surgery.

Clinical outcomes and quality of life according to types of reconstruction following laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer

PURPOSES

Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) has gained wide acceptance and is being more commonly performed at the period of introduction. This study was designed to determine the clinical outcomes and quality of life (QOL) according to types of reconstruction following LADG for gastric cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2007 and 2010, 117 consecutive patients underwent LADG. These patients were classified into 2 groups: Billroth-I group (n=74) and Roux-en-Y group (n=48).

RESULTS

Although there were no significant differences in background factors such as sex, body mass index, pN stage, pT stage, or extent of lymphadenectomy between both the groups, patients with Billroth-I reconstruction were found more frequently in the lower portion of gastric cancer (P=0.0173), shorter surgical durations (P<0.0001), and less blood loss (P<0.0001). The overall postoperative complication rates did not significantly differ between both the groups (P=0.0675). However, the incidence of patients with postoperative stasis (P=0.0170) and long hospital stay (P=0.0039) was significantly higher in patients with Roux-en-Y reconstruction. Concerning the evaluation of long-term QOL using the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale, there were no significant differences in total score between both the groups (P=0.4387).

CONCLUSIONS

Billroth-I technique might comparatively be accessible and safe in the reconstruction of LADG. However, the differences of reconstruction do not affect long-term QOL.

Comparison of the cost and outcomes following totally laparoscopic and laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomies for gastric cancer: a single-institution comparison

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the short-term surgical outcomes and cost-benefits following totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) and laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for the treatment of gastric cancer.

METHODS

Between April 2007 and December 2013, a total of 100 patients with gastric cancer underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy. The patients were classified into two groups according to whether intracorporeal anastomosis or extracorporeal anastomosis had been performed. The comparison between the groups was based on clinicopathological characteristics and surgical and economic outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 57 and 43 patients who underwent TLDG and LADG, respectively. The patients' demographics and tumor characteristics did not show any statistically significant differences with the exception for tumor location. In the LADG group, tumors were localized to relatively higher positions (p = 0.024) and received Roux-en-Y reconstruction more frequently (p < 0.001). There were no differences in the incidence of morbidity. Anastomotic leakage was not recorded in either group, although anastomotic stenosis occurred in one patient (1.8 %) after TLDG and in two patients (4.7 %) after LADG. Compared with the LADG group, the TLDG group was associated with significantly less operative blood loss (p < 0.001), a shorter time to oral intake (p = 0.012), and hospital stay (p = 0.018). The median operation costs were greater in the TLDG group than in the LADG group (¥982,000 in TLDG vs. ¥879,830 in LADG; p < 0.001), whereas the median total hospital costs were similar between the two groups (¥1302,665 in LADG vs. ¥1383,322 in TLDG: p = 0.119).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that TLDG is as technically feasible, safe, and effective as LADG for treating patients with gastric cancer. Furthermore, TLDG is associated with equivalent total hospital costs compared with LADG. The increased operation cost is offset by the decreased costs associated with longer periods of hospitalization.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy in Western European patients with advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The advantage of laparoscopic gastrectomy compared to open gastrectomy has been established in Asian patient series with early gastric cancer. However, its feasibility in Western European patients with locally advanced gastric cancer is unknown.

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2014 70 consecutive patients with advanced gastric cancer underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection. A Billroth II reconstruction was performed after distal gastrectomy. In case of total gastrectomy a jejunal J-pouch reconstruction was performed.

RESULTS

Total gastrectomy was performed in 56 patients and distal gastrectomy in 14 patients. Perioperative chemotherapy was administered in 45/70 (64%) patients. A radical resection was achieved in 63/70 (90%). The median number of dissected lymph nodes was 17 (2-62). The median intraoperative blood loss was 305 (30-2700) milliliters. The median postoperative hospital stay was 11 (5-91) days. The 30-day mortality was 4.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic gastrectomy can be performed in Western European patients with advanced gastric cancer and meets the oncologic standard with low intraoperative blood loss and short hospital stay.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Cancer: Practice Patterns and Short-term Outcomes Among 7061 Patients

OBJECTIVES

To describe national practice patterns regarding utilization of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) and compare short-term outcomes with those following open pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer.

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in use of MIPD; however, published data are limited to single institutional experiences.

METHODS

Adult patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were identified from the National Cancer Database, 2010-2011. Descriptive statistics and multivariable modeling were employed to characterize use of MIPD (laparoscopic or robotic) and compare short-term outcomes to those following open pancreaticoduodenectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 7061 patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy: 983 had MIPD and 6078 had open procedures. The use of MIPD increased by 45% (179 cases) from 2010 to 2011. The majority of hospitals (92%) performing MIPD were low volume (≤ 10 cases/2 years). Factors independently associated with undergoing MIPD included fewer comorbidities, treatment at an academic institution, and a neuroendocrine tumor diagnosis (all P < 0.01). The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was 5.1% for MIPD versus 3.1% after open surgery. For patients with adenocarcinoma, there were no differences between MIPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy after multivariable adjustment in number of lymph nodes removed, rate of positive surgical margins, length of stay, or readmissions. However, 30-day mortality was higher for patients undergoing MIPD versus open surgery (odds ratio = 1.87, confidence interval: 1.25-2.80, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

While there is increasing interest in employing MIPD for adenocarcinoma, its use is associated with increased 30-day mortality. The majority of hospitals performing MIPD were low volume. These results may suggest that MIPD is a complex procedure for which comprehensive protocols outlining criteria for implementation might be warranted to optimize patient safety.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Distal Gastrectomy With D2 Lymph Node Dissection for cT2 Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes

The purpose of this study was to determine whether laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LDG) with D2 lymphadenectomy could be a standard treatment for cT2N0-1 gastric cancer. There have been few reports regarding the long-term outcomes of patients with advanced gastric cancer who underwent LDG with D2 lymphadenectomy. The study included 32 patients who underwent LDG with D2 lymphadenectomy and 44 patients who underwent open distal gastrectomy (ODG) with D2 lymphadenectomy. There was no clinicopathologic difference in patient background between the groups. Operative duration was significantly longer in the LDG group than in the ODG group (297 ± 12 minutes versus 226 ± 10 minutes; P &lt; 0.001). However, blood loss was significantly less (90 ± 27 mL versus 314 ± 23 mL; P &lt; 0.001) and the number of days to assisted ambulation significantly shorter (1.1 ± 0.1 days versus 1.5 ± 0.1 days; P = 0.010) in the LDG group than in the ODG group. Median follow-up period was 60 months. The 5-year overall survival rates for the LDG group and the ODG group were 89.5% and 97.1%, respectively. The 5-year relapse-free survival rates for the LDG group and the ODG group were 88.0% and 97.7%, respectively. There were no significant differences in overall and relapse-free survival rates between the groups. LDG with D2 lymphadenectomy for cT2N0-1 gastric cancer is oncologically and technically safe and feasible, and is an option in the surgeon's arsenal. Randomized controlled study including the investigation of cost-effectiveness should be conducted.

Systematic review of anastomotic complications of esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy

AIM: To investigate the anastomotic complications of esophagojejunostomy (EJS) after laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG), we reviewed retrospective studies.

METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PubMed for studies published from January 1, 1994 through January 31, 2015. The search terms included “laparoscopic,”“total gastrectomy,” and “gastric cancer.” First, we selected 16 non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LTG with open total gastrectomy (OTG) and conducted an updated meta-analysis of anastomotic complications after total gastrectomy. The Newcastle-Ottawa scoring system (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the non-RCTs included in this study. Next, we reviewed anastomotic complications in 46 case studies of LTG to compare the various procedures for EJS.

RESULTS: The overall incidence of anastomotic leakage associated with EJS was 3.0% (30 of 984 patients) among LTG procedures and 2.1% (31 of 1500 patients) among OTG procedures in the 16 non-RCTs. The incidence of anastomotic leakage did not differ significantly between LTG and OTG (odds OR = 1.42, 95%CI: 0.86-2.33, P = 0.17, I² = 0%). Anastomotic stenosis related to EJS was reported in 72 (2.9%) of 2484 patients, and the incidence was 3.2% among LTG procedures and 2.7% among OTG procedures. The incidence of anastomotic stenosis related to EJS was slightly, but not significantly, higher in LTG than in OTG (OR = 1.55, 95%CI: 0.94-2.54, P = 0.08, I² = 0%). The various procedures for LTG were classified into six categories in the review of case studies of LTG. The incidence of EJS leakage was similar (1.1% to 3.2%), although the incidence of EJS stenosis was relatively high when the OrVil^TM device was used (8.8%) compared with other procedures (1.0% to 3.6%).

CONCLUSION: The incidence of anastomotic complications associated with EJS was not different between LTG and OTG. Anastomotic stenosis was relatively common when the OrVil^TM device was used.

Laparoscopy-assisted versus open distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: A meta-analysis based on seven randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to answer the superiority of comparing laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with open distal gastrectomy (ODG) in the treatment early gastric cancer (EGC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comprehensive search up to May 31, 2014 was conducted on PubMed, Web of science, and the Cochrane Library. All eligible studies comparing LADG versus ODG were included. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were performed using RevMan 5.2 software.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) totaling 390 patients (195 LADG and 195 ODG) were analyzed. Compared to ODG, LADG showed longer operative time (WMD = 79.60; 95%CI = 59.86 to 99.35; P < 0.00001), but was associated with less blood loss (WMD = -108.11; 95%CI = -145.97 to -70.26; P < 0.00001), fewer administered analgesics (WMD = -1.70; 95%CI = -2.19 to -1.22; P < 0.00001), fewer number of harvested lymph node (WMD = -2.77; 95%CI = -4.38 to -1.16; P = 0.0007), lower incidence of postoperative complications (OR = 0.26; 95%CI = 0.13 to 0.54; P = 0.0003), shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD = -1.0; 95% CI = -1.83 to -0.16; P = 0.02) and earlier passage of flatus (WMD = -0.62; 95% CI = -0.96 to -0.27; P = 0.0005).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that LADG significantly reduced blood loss, decreased the frequency of analgesic administration, faster recovery, a shorter hospital stay and fewer postoperative complications compared with ODG, though at the price of longer operative times and the number of harvested lymph nodes lesser as compared to ODG.

Totally laparoscopic 95% gastrectomy for cancer: technical considerations

INTRODUCTION

Total gastrectomy is the standard treatment for tumours arising in the proximal stomach and for diffuse cancer according to the Lauren classification. Laparoscopic approach is progressively accepted and provides encouraging results. In order to reduce complications associated to the esophago-jejunal anastomosis, the concept of the 95 % open gastrectomy was developed in Japan, in the early 1980s. This procedure provides the spearing of a small remnant gastric stump of 2 cm and allows performing a gastro-jejunal anastomosis. Unlike the 7/8 gastrectomy, the 95 % gastrectomy allows the complete resection of the gastric fundus and an optimized pericardial lymph node dissection (group 1 and 2). We herein describe, step-by-step, our technique of full laparoscopic 95 % gastrectomy (G95 %), with D2 lymphadenectomy, including complete lymphadenectomy of the cardial nodes.

DISCUSSION

When it is possible to respect the oncologic criteria regarding proximal resection margin, 95 % gastrectomy would offer best short-term results, such as lower anastomotic leak rate and a better quality of life, limiting the effect of disruption of the eso-gastric junction.

CONCLUSION

In selected patients, laparoscopic G95 % is feasible and safe; it could be performed without any additional technical difficulties. Controlled clinical trials are necessary to confirm the encouraging results of the cases series, recently reported in literature.

Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy reduced surgical site infection as compared with open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer in a meta-analysis of both randomized controlled and case-controlled studies

BACKGROUND

In some meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), laparoscopic or laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LDG) had several short-term advantages. However, several specific postoperative complications (PCs) were not analyzed sufficiently.

METHODS

RCTs and case-controlled studies (CCSs) comparing postoperative complications between LDG and open distal gastrectomy (ODG) were identified in PubMed and Embase. Studies in which patients' status, extent of lymph-node dissection, or reconstruction procedures were matched between the groups were included in a meta-analysis. Postoperative complications such as surgical-site infection (SSI; which included wound infection and intra-abdominal abscess), leakage, anastomotic stenosis, bleeding, ileus, delayed gastric emptying, pneumonia were evaluated in a meta-analysis performed using Review Manager version 5.2 software.

RESULT

This meta-analysis included a total of 2144 patients (1065 underwent LDG and 1079 underwent ODG) from 5 RCTs and 13 CCSs. SSI and wound infections were reported in 14 studies, and the incidences were significantly lower in LDG than in ODG (n = 1737; odds ratio [OR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.85, P = 0.01, I(2) = 0%, and OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24-0.88, P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%). There were no significant differences in intra-abdominal abscess or other specific complications between the procedures.

CONCLUSION

LDG was associated with a lower incidence of SSI, especially wound infection, as compared with ODG in a meta-analysis of both RCTs and CCSs.

Is Laparoscopic Surgery the Standard of Care for GI Luminal Cancer?

As surgeons in India strive to keep pace with the technical advances in the field of laparoscopic surgery, we endeavor to evaluate the mounting global evidence regarding laparoscopic gastric and colorectal resections for cancer. We seem to be riding on the crest of excellence in traditional open surgery for gastrointestinal malignancies, opening avenues for research and for the establishment of practice guidelines in laparoscopic surgery. Results from available trials along with those from ongoing studies are paving the path toward the acceptance and standardization of these procedures. What must be ascertained is whether sound oncological principles, which are ultimately exhibited by long-term outcomes, are being preserved while garnering the established benefits of minimally invasive surgery.