Laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: a collective review with meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211:677-686. [PMID: 20869270 DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.07.013]

Robotic distal gastrectomy using a novel pre-emptive supra-pancreatic approach without duodenal transection in the dissection of D2 lymph nodes for gastric cancer

Background

Robot-assisted surgery has shown remarkable progress as a minimally invasive procedure for gastric cancer. This study aimed to compare the pre-emptive suprapancreatic approach without duodenal transection and the conventional approach in terms of perioperative feasibility and short-term surgical outcomes.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent robotic distal gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection using the da Vinci Xi robotic system between December 2021 and April 2023 and categorized them into two groups for comparison. Patients treated using the pre-emptive suprapancreatic approach (observation group) were compared with those who received the conventional approach (control group). Employing one-to-one propensity score matching, we evaluated the postoperative morbidity and short-term outcomes in these two distinct groups to assess the efficacy and safety of the novel surgical technique.

Results

This study enrolled 131 patients: 70 in the observation group and 61 in the control group. After propensity score matching, the operative times were significantly longer in the control group than in the observation group (229.10 ± 33.96 vs. 174.84 ± 18.37, p <0.001). The mean blood loss was lower in the observation group than in the control group (25.20 ± 11.18 vs. 85.00 ± 38.78, p <0.001). Additionally, the observation group exhibited a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes, including suprapyloric, perigastric, and superior pancreatic lymph nodes (28.69 ± 5.48 vs. 19.21 ± 2.89, p <0.001; 4.98 ± 1.27 vs. 4.29 ± 1.21, p = 0.012; 10.52 ± 2.39 vs. 5.50 ± 1.62, p <0.001; 6.26 ± 2.64 vs. 5.00 ± 1.72, p = 0.029). Drain amylase levels in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group (30.08 ± 33.74 vs. 69.14 ± 66.81, p <0.001).

Conclusion

This study revealed that using the pre-emptive suprapancreatic approach without duodenal transection in the dissection of D2 lymph nodes for gastric cancer is a safe and feasible procedure in terms of surgical outcomes.

Comparison of short‑term outcomes and 3-year overall survival between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing use of robotic gastrectomy (RG) as an alternative to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in treating gastric cancer, controversy remains over the advantages of RG compared to LG and there is a paucity of studies comparing the two techniques regarding patient survival.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, 675 patients undergoing minimally invasive gastrectomy were recruited from January 2016 to January 2018 (LG: n = 567; RG: n = 108). A one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was applied to minimize the selection bias due to confounding factors, yielding 104 patients in each of the RG and LG groups. After matching, the short-term outcomes and 3-year overall survival were compared in the two groups.

RESULTS

The PSM cohort analysis showed a similar 3-year overall survival between RG and LG groups (p = .249). Concerning the short-term outcomes, the RG compared to LG resulted in lower blood loss (p = .01), lower postoperative complications (p = .001), lower postoperative pain (p = .016), earlier initiation of soft diet (p = .011), shorter hospital stay ‌(p = .012), but higher hospitalization expenses (p = .001).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that RG may offer advantages in terms of blood loss, surgical complications, recovery time, and pain management compared to LG while maintaining similar overall survival rates. However, RG is associated with higher hospital costs, potentially limiting its wider adoption. Further research, including large, multi-center randomized controlled trials with longer patient follow-up, particularly for advanced gastric cancer, is needed to confirm these findings.

Prediction of Post-Gastrectomy Pancreatic Complications: A Preoperative Imaging Study Based on Computed Tomography

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreas-related complications (PPRCs) are common after laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in patients with gastric cancer. We estimated the anatomical location of the pancreas on a computed tomography (CT) image and investigated its impact on the incidence of PPRCs after LG.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the preoperative CT images of 203 patients who underwent LG for gastric cancer between January 2010 and December 2017. From these images, we measured the gap between the upper edge of the pancreatic body and the root of the common hepatic artery. We evaluated the potential relationship between PPRCs and the gap between pancreas and common hepatic artery (GPC) status using an analysis based on the median cutoff value and assessed the impact of GPC status on PPRC incidence. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses to identify predictive factors for PPRC.

RESULT

Postoperative pancreas-related complications occurred in 11 patients (5.4%). The median of the optimal cutoff GPC value for predicting PPRC was 0 mm; therefore, we classified the GPC status into two groups: GPC plus group and GPC minus group. Univariate analysis revealed that sex (male), C-reactive protein (CRP) > .07 mg/dl, GPC plus, and visceral fat area (VFA) > 99 cm2 were associated with the development of PPRC. Multivariate analysis identified only GPC plus as independent predictor of PPRC (hazard ratio: 4.60 [95% confidence interval 1.11-31.15], P = .034).

CONCLUSION

The GPC is a simple and reliable predictor of PPRC after LG. Surgeons should evaluate GPC status on preoperative CT images before proceeding with laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A single cancer center experience

Objectives

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) was challenging to most surgeons due to the two-dimensional view, difficult manipulations of the instruments, ergonomic discomfort, and the associated muscular spasm and effort. Technological advances with improved surgical experience, have made LG a more feasible and favorable approach for gastric cancer (GC) patients.

Material and Methods

LG was performed in 44 patients with GC between July 2015 to June 2022, in the Department of Surgical Oncology, Oncology Center, Mansoura University, Egypt, and we assessed the surgical outcomes of this approach as an initial experience of a single cancer center.

Results

Twenty-seven patients underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, and seventeen underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy. Two cases had combined resection. Operative time was 339.2 ± 76.73 min, while blood loss was 153.86 ± 57.51 mL. The patients were ambulant on postoperative day 0, oral intake was started within three days (range 1-5 days) and the hospital stay was six days (range 3-9 days).

Conclusion

LG for GC is a feasible approach for both early and advanced GC patients as it allows for adequate diagnosis of the peritoneal disease, meticulous dissection, and identification of the lymph nodes with minimal blood loss and decrease surgery-related problems and encourage the early patients' discharge from hospital and return to daily life activities.

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.

Initial Experience with Robotic Gastrectomy in Patients with Gastric Cancer: An Assessment of Short-Term Surgical Outcomes

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is an alternative minimally invasive surgical technique that has gradually come into use for the treatment of gastric cancer (GC). This study aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of RG for the treatment of GC. We retrospectively reviewed the use of RG in 47 patients with GC, and clinicopathological features and surgical outcomes were evaluated. The median age and body mass index of the patients were 68 years and 21.9 kg/m², respectively. Distal gastrectomy, total gastrectomy, and proximal gastrectomy were performed in 39 (83.0%), 5 (10.6%), and 3 (6.4%) patients, respectively. The median operative time was 354 (256- 603) min. None of the operations were converted to open or laparoscopic procedures. The median blood loss was 15 (2-350) ml. None of the patients required blood transfusion. The mean number of resected lymph nodes was 43 (7-93). The median duration of postoperative hospital stay was 13 (9-37) days. Approximately 4.3% and 2.1% of the patients had anastomotic leakage and pancreatic fistula, respectively. One (2.1%) patient had Clavien-Dindo classification grade IIIa surgical complication (anastomotic leakage). No treatment-related deaths were observed. These findings suggest that RG might be a safe and feasible procedure for the treatment of GC.

Efficacy and safety of indocyanine green tracer-guided lymph node dissection in minimally invasive radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The implementation of indocyanine green (ICG) tracer-guided lymph node dissection is still in the preliminary stages of laparoscopic surgery, and its safety and efficacy for gastric cancer remain unclear.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify relevant subjects from inception to June 2022. The core indicators were the total number of harvested lymph nodes and the safety of the laparoscopic gastrectomy with ICG. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Thirteen studies and 2,027 participants were included (642 for the ICG-group and 1,385 for the non-ICG group). The mean number of lymph nodes dissected in the ICG group was significantly greater than that in the non-ICG group (WMD = 6.24, 95% CI: 4.26 to 8.22, P <0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the mean number of positive lymph nodes dissected between the ICG and the non-ICG groups (WMD = 0.18, 95% CI: −0.70 to 1.07, P = 0.879). Additionally, ICG gastrectomy did not increase the risk in terms of the operative time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative complications.

Conclusion

ICG tracer with favorable safety increases the number of harvested lymph nodes but not the number of positive lymph nodes in laparoscopic gastrectomy. More high-quality, large-sample-size randomized controlled trials are still needed to enhance this evidence.

Mesenteric closure after laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction is effective for prevention of internal hernia: a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Internal hernia (IH) is one of the critical complications after gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction, which can be prevented by closing mesenteric defects. However, only few studies have investigated the incidence of IH after laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) with Roux-en-Y reconstruction for gastric cancer till date. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of defect closure for the prevention of IH after LTG.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study collected data from 714 gastric cancer patients who underwent LTG with Rou-en-Y reconstruction between 2010 and 2016 in 13 hospitals. We evaluated the incidence of postoperative IH by comparing closure and non-closure groups of Petersen's defect, jejunojejunostomy mesenteric defect, and transverse mesenteric defect.

RESULTS

The closure group for Petersen's defect included 609 cases, while the non-closure group included 105 cases. The incidence of postoperative IH in the closure group for Petersen's defect was significantly lower than it was in the non-closure group (0.5% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.001). The closure group for jejunojejunostomy mesenteric defect included 641 cases, while the non-closure group included 73 cases. The incidence of postoperative IH in the closure group of jejunojejunostomy mesenteric defect was significantly lower than that in the non-closure group (0.8% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.004). Out of 714 patients, 41 underwent retro-colic reconstruction. No patients in the transverse mesenteric defect group developed IH.

CONCLUSION

Mesenteric defect closure after LTG with Roux-en-Y reconstruction may reduce postoperative IH incidence. Endoscopic surgeons should take great care to prevent IH by closing mesenteric defects.

Reduced-port robotic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a single-institute experience

Background

Reduced-port laparoscopic gastrectomy can potentially reduce postoperative pain and improve recovery time. However, the inherent difficulty caused by the narrow manipulation angle makes this operation difficult, especially during lymph node dissection. The intrinsic advantage of the da Vinci^® robotic system might offset this difficulty, maintaining adequate surgical quality with risks of surgical complications equal to those by the conventional four-port robotic approach. The aim of this study was to compare the reduced-port robotic approach and the conventional four-port approach in terms of postoperative pain and short-term surgical outcomes.

Methods

All patients who underwent radical gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection using the da Vinci Xi robotic system, including reduced-port or conventional four-port approach, were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome was postoperative pain assessed using the numerical rating scale (NRS). The secondary outcomes were the number of harvested lymph nodes, operation time, length of hospital stay, and postoperative 30-day complications.

Results

Forty-eight patients were enrolled in the study, 10 cases in the reduced-port and 38 in the conventional four-port group. Postoperative NRS revealed no significant difference between the reduced-port and conventional four-port groups [postoperative day (POD) 1: 4.5 vs. 3, p = 0.047, POD 3: 4 vs. 3, p = 0.178]. After propensity score matching, there were no significant differences in the median number of harvested lymph nodes, operation time, and length of hospital stay between the groups. The postoperative 30-day complications were more frequent in the conventional four-port group, but there was no significant difference compared with the reduced-port group after propensity score matching.

Conclusions

Reduced-port robotic gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection might be comparable to the conventional four-port robotic operation in terms of postoperative pain, surgical quality, and short-term outcomes. However, further studies are required to confirm our results and clarify the advantages of the robotic reduced-port approach.

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 Cancer: Cut Down Complications to Unveil Positive Results of Minimally Invasive Approach

Several randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have confirmed the advantages of laparoscopic surgery in early gastric cancer, and there are indications that this may also apply in advanced distal gastric cancer. The study objective was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), in comparison to open gastrectomy (OG), in the management of locally advanced gastric cancer. The single-center, case–control study included 204 patients, in conveyance sampling, who underwent radical gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer. Out of 204 patients, 102 underwent LG, and 102 patients underwent OG. The primary endpoints were safety endpoints, i.e., complication rates, reoperation rates, and 30-day mortality rates. The secondary endpoints were efficacy endpoints, including perioperative characteristics and oncological outcomes. Even though the overall complication rate was higher in the OG group compared to the LG group (30.4% and 19.6%, respectively), the difference between groups did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.075). No significant difference was identified in reoperation rates and 30-day mortality rates. Time spent in the intensive care unit (ICU) and overall hospital stay were shorter in the LG group compared to the OG group (p < 0.001). Although the number of retrieved lymph nodes is oncologically adequate in both groups, the median number is higher in the OG group (35 vs. 29; p = 0.024). Resection margins came out to be negative in 92% of patients in the LG group and 73.1% in the OG group (p < 0.001). The study demonstrated statistically longer survival rates for the patients in the laparoscopic group, which particularly applies to patients in the most prevalent, third stage of the disease. When patients with the Clavien–Dindo grade ≥II were excluded from the survival analysis, further divergence of survival curves was observed. In conclusion, LG can be safely performed in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer and accomplish the oncological standard with short ICU and overall hospital stay. Since postoperative complications could affect overall treatment results and diminish and blur the positive effect of the minimally invasive approach, further clinical investigations should be focused on the patients with no surgical complications and on clinical practice to cut down the prevalence of complications.

Clinical efficacy and safety of robotic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) is a new technique that is rapidly gaining popularity and may help overcome the limitations of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG); however, its safety and therapeutic efficacy remain controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RDG.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies that compared RDG and LDG and were published between the time of database inception and May 2021. We assessed the bias risk of the observational studies using ROBIN-I, and a random effect model was always applied.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 22 studies involving 5386 patients. Compared with LDG, RDG was associated with longer operating time (Mean Difference [MD] = 43.88, 95% CI = 35.17-52.60), less intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 24.84, 95% CI = - 41.26 to - 8.43), a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD = 2.41, 95% CI = 0.77-4.05), shorter time to first flatus (MD = - 0.09, 95% CI = - 0.15 to - 0.03), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = - 0.68, 95% CI = - 1.27 to - 0.08), and lower incidence of pancreatic fistula (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.07-0.79). Mean proximal and distal resection margin distances, time to start liquid and soft diets, and other complications were not significantly different between RDG and LDG groups. However, in the propensity-score-matched meta-analysis, the differences in time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups lost significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, RDG appears feasible and safe, shows better surgical and oncological outcomes than LDG and, comparable postoperative recovery and postoperative complication outcomes.

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.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background

Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of gastric cancer (GC). However, whether RDG has a clinical advantage over laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) is yet to be determined. Thus, this study aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of RDG for the treatment of GC as compared with LDG.

Methods

In total, 157 patients were enrolled between February 2018 and August 2020 in this retrospective study. We then compared the surgical outcomes between RDG and LDG using propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis to reduce the confounding differences.

Results

After PSM, a clinicopathologically well-balanced cohort of 100 patients (50 in each group) was analyzed. The operation time for the RDG group (350.1 ± 58.1 min) was determined to be significantly longer than that for the LDG group (257.5 ± 63.7 min; P < 0.0001). Of interest, there was a decreased incidence of pancreatic fistulas and severe complications after RDG as compared with LDG (P = 0.092 and P = 0.061, respectively). In addition, postoperative hospital stay was statistically slightly shorter in the RDG group as compared with the LDG group (12.0 ± 5.6 vs. 13.0 ± 12.3 days; P = 0.038).

Conclusions

Our study confirmed that RDG is a feasible and safe procedure for GC in terms of short-term surgical outcomes. A surgical robot might reduce postoperative severe complications and length of hospital stay.

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.

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.

Laparoscopic Surgery of Gastric Cancer with D2 Lymphadenectomy and Omentum Preservation: Our 10 Years Experience

Introduction: The debate is still open about laparoscopic treatment of gastric cancer. The aim of this retrospective study is to analyze our short-, medium-, and long-term surgical and oncological results in laparoscopic treatment of gastric cancer with D2 lymphadenectomy and omentum preservation. Materials and Methods: From January 2010 to June 2018, after >150 surgical procedures for gastric cancer performed by minimally invasive approach, we performed 100 laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomies and 38 total gastrectomies, both for early gastric cancer (EGC) and advanced gastric cancer (AGC). We always made a D2 lymphadenectomy or higher. As often as possible, we performed omentum-preserving technique. Primary outcomes analyzed included incidence of medical and surgical complications. Secondary outcomes analyzed were survival probability and incidence of relapse. Every patient read and signed informed consent before surgery. Results: Mean operative time: 2.4 ± 0.7 hours (range 1.2-4.7 hours). Rate of conversions: 14.5% (20/138); intraoperative complications: 1.4% (2/138) and positive resection margins: 6.5% (9/138). Overall incidence of duodenal fistula: 3.6% (5/138). Rate of reoperation was 7.3% (10/138). Postoperative complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification: I 3.6% (5/138); II 13.0% (18/138); III 5.8% (8/138); III B 0.7% (1/138); V 1.4% (2/138). Overall survival with 60 months follow-up was 58%. Overall 60 months incidence of relapse was 44%. Patients with omentum preservation had a lower incidence of relapse than patients with omentectomy (40% versus 57% P = .002). Conclusions: Laparoscopic treatment of gastric cancer with D2 lymphadenectomy and omentum preservation is safe and feasible, both for EGC and for AGC. Although this study has limitations, omentum-preserving technique was associated with a statistically lower recurrence rate.

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.

SURVIVAL AND PERIOPERATIVE MORBIDITY OF TOTALLY LAPAROSCOPIC VERSUS OPEN GASTRECTOMY FOR EARLY GASTRIC CANCER: ANALYSIS FROM A SINGLE LATIN AMERICAN CENTRE

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy has numerous perioperative advantages, but the long-term survival of patients after this procedure has been less studied.

AIM

To compare survival, oncologic and perioperative outcomes between completely laparoscopic vs. open gastrectomy for early gastric cancer.

METHODS

This study was retrospective, and our main outcomes were the overall and disease-specific 5-year survival, lymph node count and R0 resection rate. Our secondary outcome was postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

Were included 116 patients (59% men, age 68 years, comorbidities 73%, BMI 25) who underwent 50 laparoscopic gastrectomies and 66 open gastrectomies. The demographic characteristics, tumour location, type of surgery, extent of lymph node dissection and stage did not significantly differ between groups. The overall complication rate was similar in both groups (40% vs. 28%, p=ns), and complications graded at least Clavien 2 (36% vs. 18%, p=0.03), respiratory (9% vs. 0%, p=0.03) and wound-abdominal wall complications (12% vs. 0%, p=0.009) were significantly lower after laparoscopic gastrectomy. The lymph node count (21 vs. 23 nodes; p=ns) and R0 resection rate (100% vs. 96%; p=ns) did not significantly differ between groups. The 5-year overall survival (84% vs. 87%, p=0.31) and disease-specific survival (93% vs. 98%, p=0.20) did not significantly differ between the laparoscopic and open gastrectomy groups.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study support similar oncologic outcome and long-term survival for patients with early gastric cancer after laparoscopic gastrectomy and open gastrectomy. In addition, the laparoscopic approach is associated with less severe morbidity and a lower occurrence of respiratory and wound-abdominal wall complications.

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.

Introducing laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer in general practice: a retrospective cohort study based on a nationwide registry database in Japan

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) is considered a technically demanding procedure with safety issues, it has been performed in several hospitals in Japan. Data from a nationwide web-based data entry system for surgical procedures (NCD) that started enrollment in 2011 are now available for analysis.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from 32,144 patients who underwent total gastrectomy and were registered in the NCD database between January 2012 and December 2013. Mortality and morbidities were compared between patients who received LTG and those who underwent open total gastrectomy (OTG) in the propensity score-matched Stage I cohort and Stage II-IV cohort.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in mortality rate between LTG and OTG in both cohorts. Operating time was significantly longer in LTG while the blood loss was smaller. In the Stage I cohort, LTG, performed in 33.6% of the patients, was associated with significantly shorter hospital stay but significantly higher incidence of readmission, reoperation, and anastomotic leakage (5.4% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.01). In the Stage II-IV cohort, LTG was performed in only 8.8% of the patients and was associated with significantly higher incidence of leakage (5.7% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.02) although the hospital stay was shorter (15 days vs. 17 days, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

LTG was more discreetly introduced than distal gastrectomy, but remained a technically demanding procedure as of 2013. This procedure should be performed only among the well-trained and informed laparoscopic team.

A Comparison of the Body Composition Changes Between Laparoscopy-assisted and Open Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND/AIM

Laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for gastric cancer may prevent the loss of body weight or lean body mass after surgery due to its reduced surgical stress compared with open total gastrectomy (OTG).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 303 patients were examined in this study. All patients received the same perioperative care via fast-track surgery. The body weight and composition were evaluated using a bioelectrical impedance analyzer within 1 week before and at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eight patients received OTG, and 95 received LATG. Although the clinical T factor and N factor were significantly different between these two groups, other clinical factors were similar. The respective body weight loss (1 week/1 month/3 months) was -4.7%/-8.0%/-11.9% in the OTG group and -4.7%/-8.2%/-11.6% in the LATG group, that were not significantly different between the two groups at any time point of measurement (p=0.698/0.528/0.534, respectively). The respective lean body mass loss (1 week/1 month/3 months) was -4.2%/-6.4%/-7.4% in the OTG group and -4.0%/-5.8%/-6.2% in the LATG group, that were not significantly different between the groups (p=0.503/0.588/0.946, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The body composition changes were similar between the OTG and LATG groups using the same perioperative care of fast-track surgery. Adopting a laparoscopic approach would not help in reducing loss of body weight or lean body mass after gastric cancer surgery.

Learning curve of totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a single teaching hospital study

Introduction

Totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) for gastric cancer has gradually gained popularity. However, the learning curve of TLDG is rarely reported.

Aim

To determine the learning curve of TLDG for gastric cancer.

Material and methods

We retrospectively reviewed and analyzed the medical records of 80 patients with gastric cancer who underwent TLDG with lymph node dissection from January 2016 to December 2017. We divided the patients into four groups based on when they underwent TLDG: group A (cases 1–20), group B (cases 21–40), group C (cases 41–60), and group D (cases 61–80). Comparative analyses of clinical data, including clinicopathologic characteristics, operative data, and postoperative course, were performed for these groups.

Results

No significant difference was observed between the groups in various clinicopathologic characteristics. Total operative time for group A (168.3 ±14.6 min) was significantly longer than for groups B (152.5 ±10.5 min), C (154.2 ±11.6 min), and D (155.3 ±10.8 min), but there was no significant difference between groups B, C, and D. Anastomosis time for group A (27.5 ±12.4 min) was significantly longer than for groups B (15.3 ±4.6 min), C (16.6 ±5.7 min), and D (15.4 ±4.5 min), but there was no significant difference between groups B, C, and D. Non-anastomosis time, estimated blood loss, retrieved lymph nodes, time to first flatus, time to first oral intake, and postoperative hospital stay and complications showed no difference between the four groups.

Conclusions

An experience of approximately 20 cases of TLDG was required to complete the learning curve.

Outcomes Following Surgery for Gastric Cancer at a Single Institution: A 16-Year Experience

Objective

We analyzed the cases of gastric cancer patients who underwent surgical treatment during the 16 years from 1997 to 2012 at our department to clarify these trends.

Methods

The subjects were 810 patients who underwent surgery for gastric cancer between 1997 and 2012. We divided the cases into the early-period group (1997–2006) treated before the introduction of laparoscopy, and the late-period group (2007–2012). We compared the clinicopathological factor and survival rates between the early- and late-period groups.

Results

The average patient age was higher in the late-period group than in the early-period group. Tumor localization showed an increased proportion in the U-region in the late period, and histological type in the late period showed a higher proportion of poorly differentiated cases. The cases receiving adjuvant chemotherapy increased in the late period. The five-year survival rate in the late-period group was shown to be equivalent to that in early-period group. Although the proportion of poorly differentiated cases was increased in late-period group, their survival rate was equivalent, probably because of the use of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Conclusions

Distinct characteristics were seen over the period of 16 years. It is important to continue the analysis of surgical outcomes to identify trends that need to be addressed.

Laparoscopic Gastrectomy Performed by an Expert in Open Gastrectomy

Purpose

Senior surgeons prefer open gastrectomy (OG), while young surgeons prefer laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surgical outcomes of LG performed by a senior surgeon who was an expert in OG during his learning period, by comparing them with LGs performed by a young surgeon.

Materials and Methods

A senior surgeon performed 50 curative gastrectomies with laparoscopy (LG-S group) from March 2015 to August 2016. A young surgeon's initial 50 LGs comprised the LG-Y group. Clinicopathological characteristics and surgical outcomes were compared between the LG-S and LG-Y groups.

Results

D2 lymphadenectomy was more frequently performed in the LG-S group than in the LG-Y group (P=0.029). The operation time and number of retrieved lymph nodes did not significantly differ between the 2 surgeons (P=0.258 and P=0.410, respectively). Postoperative hospital stay and postoperative complication rate were similar between 2 groups (P=0.234 and P=1.000, respectively). Similarly, significant decreases in operation time with increasing case numbers were observed for both surgeons, whereas the number of retrieved lymph nodes increased significantly in the LG-Y group but not in the LG-S group.

Conclusions

The LG outcomes when performed by the senior surgeon were comparable to those when performed by the young surgeon, despite performing more extended lymphadenectomies. Senior surgeons who are experts in OG should not refrain from performing LG.

The Advances of Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Laparoscopic gastrectomy is evolving. With the increasing expertise and experience of oncologic surgeons in the minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer, the indication for laparoscopic gastrectomy is expanding to advanced cases. Many studies have demonstrated the benefits of minimally invasive surgery, including reduced risk of surgery-related injury, reduced blood loss, less pain, and earlier recovery. In order to establish concrete evidence for the suitability of minimal invasive surgery for gastric cancer, many multicenter RCTs, comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery, are in progress. Advances in laparoscopic gastrectomy are moving toward increasingly minimally invasive approaches that enable the improvement of the quality of life of patients, without compromising on oncologic safety.

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.

Introduction of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in a Western tertiary referral centre: A prospective cost analysis during the learning curve

AIM

To evaluate the costs of the introduction of a laparoscopic surgery program for gastric cancer in a Western community training hospital and tertiary referral centre for gastric cancer surgery.

METHODS

All patients who underwent surgery for gastric cancer with curative intent in 2013 and 2014 were prospectively included. Primary outcomes were costs regarding surgery and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic gastrectomy was used in 52 patients [mean age 68 years (± 9, range 50 to 87)] and open gastrectomy was used in 25 patients [mean age 70 years (± 10, range 46 to 85)]. Mean costs (in euro’s) of surgical instrumentation were significantly higher for laparoscopic surgery: 2270 ± 670 vs 1181 ± 680 in the open approach (P < 0.001). Costs of theatre use were higher in the laparoscopic group: mean 3819 ± 865 vs 2545 ± 1268 in the open surgery (P < 0.001). Total costs of hospitalization (i.e., costs of surgery and admission) were not different between laparoscopic and open surgery, 8187 ± 4864 and 7673 ± 8064 respectively (P = 0.729). Mean length of hospital stay was 9 ± 12 d in the laparoscopic group vs 14 ± 14 d in the open group (P = 0.044).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer coincided with higher costs for theatre use and surgical instrumentation compared to the open technique. Total costs were not significantly different due to shorter length of stay and less intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and shorter ICU stay in the laparoscopic group.

Impact of Centralizing Gastric Cancer Surgery on Treatment, Morbidity, and Mortality

INTRODUCTION

Centralization of gastric cancer surgery is thought to improve outcome and has been imposed in the Netherlands since 2012. This study analyzes the effect of centralization in terms of treatment outcome and survival in the Eastern part of the Netherlands.

METHODS

All gastric cancer patients without distant metastases who underwent a gastrectomy in six hospitals in the Eastern part of the Netherlands between 2008 and 2011 (pre-centralization) and 2013-2016 (post-centralization) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patient and tumor characteristics and treatment outcomes (duration of surgery, blood loss, resection margin, lymphadenectomy, chemotherapy, postoperative complications and hospital stay, and overall and disease-free survival) were analyzed and compared between pre- and post-centralization.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-four patients were included pre-centralization and 106 patients post-centralization. Patient and tumor characteristics were almost similar in the two periods. After centralization, more patients were treated with perioperative chemotherapy (25 vs. 42% p < 0.01). The proportion of patients treated with an adequate lymphadenectomy (21 vs. 93% p < 0.01) and laparoscopic surgery (6 vs. 40% p < 0.01) increased significantly (p < 0.01). The amount of cardiac complications (16 vs. 7.5% p < 0.05) decreased; however, complications needing a re-intervention were comparable (42 vs. 40% p = 0.79). Median hospital stay decreased from 10 to 8 days (p < 0.01). A 30-day mortality did not differ significantly (4.2 vs. 1.9%). A 1-year overall (78 vs. 80% p = 0.17) and disease-free survival (73 vs. 74% p = 0.66) remained stable.

DISCUSSION

Centralizing gastric cancer treatment in the Eastern part of the Netherlands resulted in improved lymph node harvesting and a successful introduction of laparoscopic gastrectomies. Centralization has not translated into improved mortality, and other variables may also have led to these improved outcomes. Further research using a nationwide population-based study will be needed to confirm these data.

Intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy using hemi-double-stapling technique after laparoscopic total gastrectomy in gastric cancer patients

Purpose

To present the feasibility and safety of Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy using hemi-double-stapling technique after laparoscopic total gastrectomy.

Methods

We reviewed the outcomes from 58 consecutive patients with gastric cancer who underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy. The clinicopathological characteristics including postoperative complications were examined.

Results

The mean age and body mass index were 57.3 ± 9.7 years and 23.7 ± 2.6 kg/m², respectively. The mean overall total operation was 199.8 ± 57.0 minutes. Intraoperative blood loss was 81.6 ± 56.3 mL and there was no open conversion. The patients' hospital stay was a mean 9.6 ± 2 days. The mean proximal margin of the specimens was 2.7 ± 1.8 cm. There were 3 cases (5.1%) of anastomosis leakage, but all were controlled successfully by endoscopic stent.

Conclusion

The circular HDST technique is simple and reliable without any significant demerits with respect to safety concerns or difficulty of operation.

Robotic gastrectomy for elderly gastric cancer patients: comparisons with robotic gastrectomy in younger patients and laparoscopic gastrectomy in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery for gastric cancer has been adopted to overcome technical difficulties in performing laparoscopic gastrectomy. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of robotic gastrectomy in elderly gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy from 2003 to 2010 in a single high-volume center were included in this study. We retrospectively compared preoperative characteristics, perioperative factors, and oncological parameters among an elderly (≥70 years old) robotic gastrectomy group (n = 49), a younger (<70 years old) robotic gastrectomy group (n = 321), and an elderly laparoscopic gastrectomy group (n = 132).

RESULTS

The elderly robotic group presented with more comorbidities than the younger robotic group. Except for number of retrieved lymph nodes (36.5 vs. 41.5; P = 0.007), short-term operative outcomes including complications and pathological parameters were comparable between the two robotic groups. The elderly robotic group showed comparable disease-specific survival to the younger robotic group although overall survival was worse. Compared to their laparoscopic counterparts, the elderly robotic group showed longer mean operation time (227 vs. 174 min). Nevertheless, the incidence and severity of postoperative complications was not different between the two elderly groups. Overall and disease-specific survival were also comparable between the elderly groups. In multivariate analysis, age and surgical approach were not risk factors for overall and major complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of robotic gastrectomy in the elderly did not differ from those in younger robotic gastrectomy patients and were comparable to those in elderly patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy. Thus, robotic gastrectomy could be a safe and feasible approach in elderly patients.

Robotic vs laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective comparative mono-institutional study

Background

Robotic surgery has been developed with the aim of improving surgical quality and overcoming the limitations of conventional laparoscopy in the performance of complex mini-invasive procedures. The present study was designed to compare robotic and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in the treatment of gastric cancer.

Methods

Between June 2008 and September 2015, 41 laparoscopic and 30 robotic distal gastrectomies were performed by a single surgeon at the same institution. Clinicopathological characteristics of the patients, surgical performance, postoperative morbidity/mortality and pathologic data were prospectively collected and compared between the laparoscopic and robotic groups by the Chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney test, as indicated.

Results

There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups. Mean tumor size was larger in the laparoscopic than in the robotic patients (5.3 ± 0.5 cm and 3.0 ± 0.4 cm, respectively; P = 0.02). However, tumor stage distribution was similar between the two groups. The mean number of dissected lymph nodes was higher in the robotic than in the laparoscopic patients (39.1 ± 3.7 and 30.5 ± 2.0, respectively; P = 0.02). The mean operative time was 262.6 ± 8.6 min in the laparoscopic group and 312.6 ± 15.7 min in the robotic group (P < 0.001). The incidences of surgery-related and surgery-unrelated complications were similar in the laparoscopic and in the robotic patients. There were no significant differences in short-term clinical outcomes between the two groups.

Conclusions

Within the limitation of a small-sized, non-randomized analysis, our study confirms that robotic distal gastrectomy is a feasible and safe surgical procedure. When compared with conventional laparoscopy, robotic surgery shows evident benefits in the performance of lymphadenectomy with a higher number of retrieved and examined lymph nodes.

Who may benefit from robotic gastrectomy?: A subgroup analysis of multicenter prospective comparative study data on robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy

AIMS

Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer has been proven to be a feasible and safe minimally invasive procedure. However, our previous multicenter prospective study indicated that robotic gastrectomy is not superior to laparoscopic gastrectomy. This study aimed to identify which subgroups of patients would benefit from robotic gastrectomy rather than from conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy.

METHODS

A prospective multicenter comparative study comparing laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy was previously conducted. We divided the patients into subgroups according to obesity, type of gastrectomy performed, and extent of lymph node dissection. Surgical outcomes were compared between the robotic and laparoscopic groups in each subgroup.

RESULTS

A total of 434 patients were enrolled into the robotic (n = 223) and laparoscopic (n = 211) surgery groups. According to obesity and gastrectomy type, there was no difference in the estimated blood loss (EBL), number of retrieved lymph nodes, complication rate, open conversion rate, and the length of hospital stay between the robotic and laparoscopic groups. According to the extent of lymph node dissection, the robotic group showed a significantly lower EBL than did the laparoscopic group after D2 dissection (P = 0.021), while there was no difference in EBL in patients that did not undergo D2 dissection (P = 0.365).

CONCLUSION

Patients with gastric cancer undergoing D2 lymph node dissection can benefit from less blood loss when a robotic surgery system is used.

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.

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.

Minimally invasive surgery for stomach cancer

Laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer has become extremely widespread in recent years especially in Asian countries due to its low invasiveness. As to evidence of indication for laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer, laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer often appears to be indicated for early gastric cancer at many institutions, while evidence was considered to be insufficient to recommend laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer at Stage II and above. There are also problems with indications for cases other than tumour factors. No meta-analyses and prospective studies have been reported, but outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer in gastric cancer patients with co-morbid and/or existing diseases have been reported in retrospective studies. Indications in the elderly appear to be favourable in terms of post-operative ambulation considering factors such as the degree of dissection in accordance with the status of the patient. Meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials and several retrospective studies have compared the short-term usefulness of laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer with that of conventional gastrectomy. The superiority of laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer has been reported in terms of the reduced amount of bleeding, a reduction in the administration frequency and period of analgesic doses, a reduction in the duration of fever, early recovery of intestinal movement and early return to oral intake. A small-scale randomized controlled trial and several retrospective studies have demonstrated no significant differences in survival rate, recurrence rate and type of recurrence between laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer and conventional gastrectomy. The results of the aforementioned trials in early gastric cancer in Japan and Korea for which enrolment is complete remain to be published.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: Present and future directions

Laparoscopic surgery is applied today worldwide to most digestive procedures. In some of them, such as cholecystectomy, Nissen's fundoplication or obesity surgery, laparoscopy has become the standard in practice. In others, such as colon or gastric resection, the laparoscopic approach is frequently used and its usefulness is unquestionable. More complex procedures, such as esophageal, liver or pancreatic resections are, however, more infrequently performed, due to the high grade of skill necessary. As a result, there is less clinical evidence to support its implementation. In the recent years, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has been increasingly applied, again with little evidence for comparison with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This review will focus on the complex digestive procedures as well as those whose use in standard practice could be more controversial. Also novel robot-assisted procedures will be updated.

Comparison of laparoscopic total gastrectomy and laparotomic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Background

The use of laparoscopy for the treatment of gastric cancer suffered some resistance among surgeons around the world, gaining strength in the past decade. However, its oncological safety and technical feasibility remain controversial.

Aim

To describe the results from the clinical and anatomopathological point of view in the comparative evaluation between the surgical videolaparoscopic and laparotomic treatments of total gastrectomy with linphadenectomy at D2, resection R0.

Method

Retrospective analyses and comparison data from patients submitted to total gastrectomy with D2 linphadenectomy at a sole institution. The data of 111 patients showed that 64 (57,7%) have been submitted to laparotomic gastrectomy and 47 (42,3%) to gastrectomy entirely performed through videolaparoscopy. All variables related to the surgery, post-operative follow-up and anatomopathologic findings have been evaluated.

Results

Among the studied variables, videolaparoscopy has shown a shorter surgical time and a more premature period for the introduction of oral and enteral nourishment than the open surgery. As to the amount of dissected limph nodes, there has been a significant difference towards laparotomy with p=0,014, but the average dissected limph nodes in both groups exceed 25 nodes as recommended by the JAGC. Was not found a significant difference between the studied groups as to age, ASA, type of surgery, need for blood transfusion, stage of the disease, Bormann classification, degree of differentiation, damage of the margins, further complications and death.

Conclusions

The total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy performed by laparoscopy presented the same benefits known of laparotomy and with the advantages already established of minimally invasive surgery. It was done with less surgical time, less time for re-introduction of the oral and enteral diets and lower hospitalization time compared to laparotomy, without increasing postoperative complications.

Laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery: Current evidence and future perspectives

Laparoscopic gastrectomy has been widely accepted as a standard alternative for the treatment of early-stage gastric adenocarcinoma because of its favorable short-term outcomes. Although controversies exist, such as establishing clear indications, proper preoperative staging, and oncologic safety, experienced surgeons and institutions have applied this approach, along with various types of function-preserving surgery, for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. With technical advancement and the advent of state-of-the-art instruments, indications for laparoscopic gastrectomy are expected to expand as far as locally advanced gastric cancer. Laparoscopic gastrectomy appears to be promising; however, scientific evidence necessary to generalize this approach to a standard treatment for all relevant patients and care providers remains to be gathered. Several multicenter, prospective randomized trials in high-incidence countries are ongoing, and results from these trials will highlight the short- and long-term outcomes of the approach. In this review, we describe up-to-date findings and critical issues regarding laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Increase in Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Surgery Regarding the Therapeutic Approach of Gastric Cancer Detected by Cancer Screening in Saga Prefecture, Japan

Objective Despite recent advances in endoscopic treatment and laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancers, an increase in the uptake of these therapeutic approaches has not yet been fully demonstrated. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the change in therapeutic approaches regarding the treatment of gastric cancers detected by cancer screening in Saga Prefecture, Japan between April 2002 and March 2011. Methods Gastric cancer screening by X-ray was performed on 311,074 subjects between April 2002 and March 2011. In total, 534 patients were thereafter diagnosed with gastric cancer. Eighteen subjects were excluded because precise details of their treatment were not available. To evaluate the changes in the therapeutic approach, the observation period was divided into three 3-year intervals: Period I: April 2002 to March 2005; Period II: April 2005 to March 2008; Period III: April 2008 to March 2011. Results The use of open laparotomy for the treatment of gastric cancer decreased, and laparoscopic surgery and endoscopic treatment increased markedly in a time-dependent manner. A 2.5-fold increase in endoscopic treatment, and a 18.4-fold increase in laparoscopic surgery were observed in Period III compared with Period I (after adjusting for age and tumor characteristics). Conclusion Endoscopic treatment and laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer increased during the investigation period (2002-2011), although the tumor characteristics of the gastric cancers detected through cancer screening in Saga Prefecture, Japan did not show any changes.

Potential benefits of laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy with esophagogastrostomy for cT1 upper-third gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Few reports have compared laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy (LAPG) with laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) in patients with cT1N0 gastric cancer. This study assessed the safety and feasibility of LAPG with esophagogastrostomy in these patients and compared postgastrectomy disturbances and nutritional status following LAPG and LATG.

METHODS

This study compared 40 patients who underwent LAPG with esophagogastrostomy and 59 who underwent LATG with esophagojejunostomy, both with OrVil™. Surgical outcomes, postoperative complications, nutritional status at 1 and 2 years, and relapse-free survival were compared in these two groups.

RESULTS

Operation time was significantly shorter in the LAPG group than in the LATG group (280 min vs. 365 min, P < 0.001). Although the rate of surgical complications was similar in the two groups, the rate of anastomotic stricture was significantly higher in the LAPG group than in the LATG group (28 vs. 8.4 %; P = 0.012). Rates of reflux esophagitis graded A or higher in the Los Angeles classification were 10 and 5.1 %, respectively. Hemoglobin levels 2 years after surgery, relative to baseline levels, were significantly higher in the LAPG group than in the LATG group (98.6 vs. 92.9 %, P = 0.020). Body weight, albumin and total protein concentrations, and total lymphocyte count 1 and 2 years after surgery were slightly, but not significantly, higher in the LAPG group. Relapse-free survival rates were similar, as were 5-year overall survival rates (86 vs. 79 %, P = 0.42).

CONCLUSIONS

LAPG with esophagogastrostomy using OrVil™ was safe and feasible for patients with cT1N0 gastric cancer. LAPG may have nutritional advantages over LATG, but the rate of anastomotic stricture was significantly higher for LAPG than for LATG.

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.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison of short-term surgical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) is a new minimally invasive surgical technique for gastric cancer. This study was designed to compare RAG with laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) in short-term surgical outcomes.

METHODS

Between October 2011 and August 2014, 423 patients underwent robotic or laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: 93 RAG and 330 LAG. We performed a comparative analysis between RAG group and LAG group for clinicopathological characteristics and short-term surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

RAG was associated with a longer operative time (P < 0.001), lower blood loss (P = 0.001), and more harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.047). Only three patients in LAG group had positive margins, and R0 resection rate for RAG and LAG was similar (P = 0.823). The RAG group had postoperative complications of 9.8 %, comparable with those of the LAG group (P = 0.927). Proximal margin, distal margin, hospital stay, days of first flatus, and days of eating liquid diet for RAG and LAG were similar. In the subgroup of serosa-negative patients, RAG had a longer operation time (P = 0.003), less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.005), and more harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.04). However, in the subgroup of serosa-positive patients, RAG had a longer operation time (P = 0.001), but no less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.139) and no more harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.139). Similarly, in the subgroup of total gastrectomy patients, RAG had a longer operation time (P = 0.018), but no less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.173).

CONCLUSIONS

The comparative study demonstrates that RAG is as acceptable as LAG in terms of surgical and oncologic outcomes. With lower estimated blood loss, acceptable complications, and radical resection, RAG is a promising approach for the treatment of gastric cancer. However, the indication of patients for RAG is critical.