Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open D2 gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer

Robotic total gastrectomy for carcinoma in the remnant stomach: a comparison with laparoscopic total gastrectomy

Background

Total gastrectomy for carcinoma in the remnant stomach (CRS) remains a technically demanding procedure. Whether robotic surgery is superior, equal, or inferior to laparoscopic surgery in patients with CRS is unclear. This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) and laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) for the treatment of CRS.

Methods

In this cohort study, we retrospectively analysed the data from patients who underwent RTG or LTG for CRS at Southwest Hospital (Chongqing, China) between May 2006 and October 2019. The surgical outcomes, post-operative complications, and survival outcomes between the two groups were compared.

Results

Compared with LTG, RTG was associated with similar effective operation time (272.0 vs 297.9 min, P = 0.170), higher total costs (105,967.2 vs 81,629.5 RMB, P < 0.001), and less estimated blood loss (229.2 vs 288.8 mL, P = 0.031). No significant differences were found between the robotic and laparoscopic groups in terms of conversion rate, time to first flatus, time to first soft diet, post-operative hospital stay, post-operative complications, R0 resection rate, and number of retrieved lymph nodes (all P > 0.05). The 3-year disease-free survival and 3-year overall survival rates were comparable between the two groups (65.5% vs 57.5%, P = 0.918; 69.0% vs 60.0%, P = 0.850, respectively).

Conclusions

RTG is a safe and feasible procedure for the treatment of CRS and could serve as an optimal treatment for CRS.

Surgical and survival outcomes after laparoscopic and open gastrectomy for serosa-invasive Siewert type II/III esophagogastric junction carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

The potential advantage of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) compared with open gastrectomy (OG) for serosa-invasive (pT4a) Siewert type II and III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) remains uncertain. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the short- and long-term outcomes of LG compared to OG for pT4a Siewert type II/III AEG cancers.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 283 patients with pathological confirmed T4a Siewert type II and type III AEG who underwent LG or OG in our center between January 2004 and September 2015. The short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the groups using a 1:1 matched propensity score matching method (PSM).

RESULTS

The LG group had a longer operation time, less estimated blood loss, less time to first flatus, less time to start liquid diet, less time to first ambulation, and shorter length of incision than the OG group. The conversion rates were 5.4% in the LG groups. There was no significant difference in the overall complication rate between the LG and OG groups. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) were comparable between the LG and OG groups (35.4% vs 32.1%, p = 0.541; 34.1% vs 31.0%, p = 0.523, respectively). There was no significant difference in the recurrence rate and pattern between the LG and OG groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic gastrectomy is associated with better short-term outcomes and similar long-term outcomes for pT4a Siewert type II/III AEG. This study reveals that LG could be a safe and feasible option for pT4a Siewert type II/III AEG compared to OG.

Long-term and short-term outcomes after laparoscopic versus open surgery for advanced gastric cancer: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of laparoscopy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains controversial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a literature search on the EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant available articles published between the time of the databases' inception and July 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 14,689 patients were included in the 41 studies identified. A total of 6976 patients were in an laparoscopic approach group (LG) and 7713 patients were in an open approach group (OG). The meta-analysis showed that in randomized control trials (RCTs), LG were better than OG in terms of estimated blood loss, time to oral intake and time to first flatus while the operation time and proximal resection margin (PRM) were significantly worse in LG than in OG. In the non-RCTs, LG had shorter hospital stays, less blood loss, less intraoperative transfusion, less time to oral intake, time to first flatus, time to ambulation; less overall or serious complications; and better 3-year and 5-year overall or disease-free survival (DFS). Operation times and PRM were significantly worse for LGs.

CONCLUSION

The safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for AGC is not inferior to that of traditional open surgery, and to a certain extent, can reduce trauma, facilitate recovery, and be validated in RCTs and non-RCTs. In the real-world cohort, laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer achieved a better survival rate and DFS rate. However, to evaluate the efficacy of these two methods more comprehensively, high-quality randomized controlled trials and longer follow-up times are still needed.

Laparoscopic Compared with Open D2 Gastrectomy on Perioperative and Long-Term, Stage-Stratified Oncological Outcomes for Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the IMIGASTRIC Database

Simple Summary

Gastric resection with D2 lymphadenectomy is considered the gold standard for the treatment of both advanced and early gastric cancer with lymph node metastasis. The performance of D2 lymphadenectomy is technically challenging and represents a key factor in improving patients’ survival. For these reasons, the execution of gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy using the traditional open surgical technique still represents the most widespread approach and, based on current international guidelines, the indication for laparoscopic surgery is limited to early gastric cancer that does not require a D2 lymphadenectomy. The present study aimed to investigate the use of laparoscopic versus open surgical approaches in performing gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for cancer in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes and long-term survival. The study was conducted using the data collected in the International study group on Minimally Invasive surgery for Gastric Cancer (IMIGASTRIC) international database.

Abstract

Background: The laparoscopic approach in gastric cancer surgery is being increasingly adopted worldwide. However, studies focusing specifically on laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy are still lacking in the literature. This retrospective study aimed to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer. Methods: The protocol-based, international IMIGASTRIC (International study group on Minimally Invasive surgery for Gastric Cancer) registry was queried to retrieve data on patients undergoing laparoscopic or open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer with curative intent from January 2000 to December 2014. Eleven predefined, demographical, clinical, and pathological variables were used to conduct a 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis to investigate intraoperative and recovery outcomes, complications, pathological findings, and survival data between the two groups. Predictive factors of long-term survival were also assessed. Results: A total of 3033 patients from 14 participating institutions were selected from the IMIGASTRIC database. After 1:1 PSM, a total of 1248 patients, 624 in the laparoscopic group and 624 in the open group, were matched and included in the final analysis. The total operative time (median 180 versus 240 min, p < 0.0001) and the length of the postoperative hospital stay (median 10 versus 14.8 days, p < 0.0001) were longer in the open group than in the laparoscopic group. The conversion to open rate was 1.9%. The proportion of patients with in-hospital complications was higher in the open group (21.3% versus 15.1%, p = 0.004). The median number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the laparoscopic approach (median 32 versus 28, p < 0.0001), and the proportion of positive resection margins was higher (p = 0.021) in the open group (5.9%) than in the laparoscopic group (3.2%). There was no significant difference between the groups in five-year overall survival rates (77.4% laparoscopic versus 75.2% open, p = 0.229). Conclusion: The adoption of the laparoscopic approach for gastric resection with D2 lymphadenectomy shortened the length of hospital stay and reduced postoperative complications with respect to the open approach. The five-year overall survival rate after laparoscopy was comparable to that for patients who underwent open D2 resection. The types of surgical approaches are not independent predictive factors for five-year overall survival.

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

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

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.

Robotic Surgery in Gastrointestinal Surgery

Robotic surgery is expanding in the minimally invasive treatment of gastrointestinal cancer. In the field of gastrointestinal cancer, robotic surgery is performed using a robot-assisted surgery system. In this system, the robot does not operate automatically but is controlled by the surgeon. The surgery assistant robot currently used in clinical practice worldwide is the leader-follower type, including the da Vinci® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical). This review describes the current state of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer and discusses the future development of robotic systems in gastrointestinal surgery.

A study of outcomes, technical safety, and feasibility of D‐2 lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer

Background and Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for elderly gastric-cancer patients: comparisons with laparoscopic gastrectomy in non-elderly patients and open gastrectomy in the elderly

Background

The benefits of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in elderly gastric-cancer patients still remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LG in elderly gastric-cancer patients.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent LG or open gastrectomy (OG) between June 2009 and July 2015 in a single high-volume center. We compared surgical, short-term, and long-term survival outcomes among an elderly (≥70 years old) LG (ELG) group (n = 114), a non-elderly (<70 years old) LG (NLG) group (n = 740), and an elderly OG (EOG) group (n = 383).

Results

Except for extended time to first flatus, the surgical and short-term outcomes of the ELG group were similar to those of the NLG group. The ELG group revealed comparable disease-specific survival (DSS) rates to the NLG group (64.9% vs 66.2%, P = 0.476), although the overall survival (OS) rate was lower (57.0% vs 65.5%, P < 0.001) in the ELG group than in the NLG group. The ELG group showed longer operation time than the EOG group (236.4 ± 77.3 vs 179 ± 52.2 min, P < 0.001). The ELG group had less estimated blood loss (174.0 ± 88.4 vs 209.3 ± 133.8, P = 0.008) and shorter post-operative hospital stay (8.3 ± 2.5 vs 9.2 ± 4.5, P = 0.048) than the EOG group. The severity of complications was similar between the ELG and NLG groups. Multivariate analysis confirmed that LG was not a risk factor for post-operative complications.

Conclusions

LG is a feasible and safe procedure for elderly patients with acceptable short- and long-term survival outcomes.

The safety and feasibility of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in very elderly patients: short-and long-term outcomes

PURPOSE

It remains unclear whether laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer is a suitable treatment for very elderly (VE) patients. We aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of LG for gastric cancer in VE patients.

METHODS

We reviewed 226 consecutive patients who underwent LG between January 2010 and December 2016. We compared VE patients (age ≥ 80, n = 38) with non-elderly patients (age ≤ 79, n = 188).

RESULTS

An ASA-PS score ≥ 2 was more common in VE group (86.8 vs. 48.9%; P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in the operating time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, or postoperative morbidity between the groups. The 3-year survival rate and 3-year disease-specific survival rate were lower in the VE group (53.7 vs. 85.6%; P < 0.0001, 78.5 vs. 92.4%; P = 0.0116). A univariate analysis showed that PS scores ≥ 2, Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 4, and pN stage were independent predictors of decreased overall survival rates in the VE group. A multivariate analysis showed total gastrectomy, a Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 4, and the pN stage to be independent predictors in the VE group.

CONCLUSION

LG for gastric cancer is, thus, considered to be safe for patients aged 80 years or older. Total gastrectomy, a Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 4, and the pN stage were independent risk factors for a poor prognosis in these patients.

Laparoscopic versus open approach in gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Additional studies comparing laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) versus open gastrectomy (OG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) have been published, and it is necessary to update the systematic review of this subject.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted the meta-analysis to find some proof for the use of LG in AGC and evaluate whether LG is an alternative treatment for AGC.

METHOD

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and high-quality retrospective studies (NRCT) compared LG and OG for AGC, which were published in English between January 2010 and May 2019, were search in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Knowledge by three authors independently and thoroughly. Some primary endpoints were compared between the two groups, including intraoperative time, intraoperative blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, first flatus, first oral intake, first out of bed, post-operative hospital stay, postoperative morbidity and mortality, rate of disease recurrence, and 5-year over survival (5-y OS). Besides, considering for this 10-year dramatical surgical material development between 2010 and 2019, we furtherly make the same analysis based on recent studies published between 2016 and 2019.

RESULT

Thirty-six studies were enrolled in this systematic review and meta-analysis, including 5714 cases in LAG and 6094 cases in OG. LG showed longer intraoperative time, less intraoperative blood loss, and quicker recovery after operations. The number of harvested lymph nodes, hospital mortality, and tumor recurrence were similar. Postoperative morbidity and 5-y OS favored LG. Furthermore, the systemic analysis of recent studies published between 2016 and 2019 revealed similar result.

CONCLUSION

A positive trend was indicated towards LG. LG can be performed as an alternative to OG for AGC.

Study protocol of a multicenter phase III randomized controlled trial investigating the efficiency of the combination of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and neoadjuvant laparoscopic intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy (NLHIPEC) followed by R0 gastrectomy with intraoperative HIPEC for advanced gastric cancer (AGC): dragon II trial

Background

Even though treatment modalities such as adjuvant systemic radio-chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) have individually have improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates in advanced Gastric Cancer (AGC), the peritoneum still presides as a common site of treatment failure and disease recurrence. The role of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been acknowledged as prophylaxis for peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) in AGC patients and in this study, we aim at investigating the safety and efficacy of the combination of neoadjuvant laparoscopic HIPEC (NLHIPEC) with NAC in the neoadjuvant phase followed by surgery of curative intent with intraoperative HIPEC followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (AC).

Methods

In this multicenter Phase III randomized controlled trial, 326 patients will be randomly separated into 2 groups into a 1:1 ratio after laparoscopic exploration. The experiment arm will receive the proposed comprehensive Dragon II regimen while the control group will undergo standard R0 D2 followed by 8 cycles of AC with oxaliplatin with S-1 (SOX) regimen. The Dragon II regimen comprises of 1 cycle of NLHIPEC for 60mins at 43 ± 0.5 °C with 80 mg/m² of Paclitaxel followed by 3 cycles of NAC with SOX regimen and after assessment, standard R0 D2 gastrectomy with intraoperative HIPEC followed by 5 cycles of SOX regimen chemotherapy. The end-points for the study are 5 year PFS, 5 year OS, peritoneal metastasis rate (PMR) and morbidity rate.

Discussion

This study is one of the first to combine NLHIPEC with NAC in the preoperative phase which is speculated to provide local management of occult peritoneal carcinomatosis or peritoneal free cancer cells while NAC will promote tumor downsizing and down-staging. The addition of the intraoperative HIPEC is speculated to manage dissemination due to surgical trauma. Where the roles of intraoperative HIPEC and NAC have individually been investigated, this study provides innovative insight on a more comprehensive approach to management of AGC at high risk of peritoneal recurrence. It is expected that the combination of NLHIPEC with NAC and HIPEC will increase PFS by 15% and decrease PMR after gastrectomy of curative intent.

Trial registration

World Health Organization Clinical Trials - International Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) with Registration ID ChiCTR1900024552, Registered Prospectively on the 16th July, 2019.

15-year experience of laparoscopic gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer: analysis on short-term and long-term oncologic outcome

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is now a widely accepted treatment option for gastric cancer. However, there is insufficient evidence for LG for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Many retrospective studies have shown that LG for AGC is safe and feasible, but very few studies have shown the actual outcome in general practice. The aim of this study is to analyze our last 15 years of experience in LG for AGC.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review from May 2003 to May 2017 in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. A total of 1592 patients who had LG for AGC were enrolled of which 109 patients with open conversion were excluded. We evaluated the short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes of LG for AGC.

RESULTS

A total of 1483 patients were analyzed. There were 432 cases of total gastrectomy, 982 cases of distal gastrectomy, and 69 cases of proximal gastrectomy. The total complication rate was 9.1% (135/1483), which included wound-related complications (0.7%), postoperative bleeding (0.5%), anastomosis or stump leakage (2.2%), intestinal obstruction (0.9%), pancreatic fistula (0.1%), intra-abdominal abscess (1.6%), and lung morbidity (3.0%). The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade 3 and above complications was 4.9%. Age was the only significant risk factor in multivariate analysis (OR 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04, P = 0.01). 5-year overall survival stratified by stage was as follows: stage IB 88.9%, stage IIA 88.7%, stage IIB 84.2%, stage IIIA 71.7%, stage IIIB 56.8%, stage IIIC 45.4%, and stage IV 25%. Total recurrence rate was 14.4%, which included local recurrence (1.1%) and distant metastases (13.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

During our 15 years of experience, we have successfully performed 1483 cases of AGC with laparoscopy. Our results showed short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes that were comparable with other studies. LG is safe and feasible in general practice for advanced gastric cancer when performed by experienced surgeons.

Factors associated with failure of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in colorectal and gastric surgery

Background: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathway is widely applied in the perioperative period of stomach and colorectal surgery, and can decrease the length of hospital stay of the patients without compromising the safety of the patients. However, some patients are removed from this pathway for various reasons. Here we found some factors that taking the patients out from the procedures. Methods: A retrospective analysis of collected data of 550 patients over a 3-year period was conducted, with 292 in the ERAS group and 258 in the conventional care group. Then various basic elements were analyzed to explore the reasons for the failure to complete the ERAS program. Results: Total length of hospital stay after surgery was significantly shorter in the ERAS group, and a similar incidence of complication rates were observed in the two groups. In this study, the significant factors that associated with complications were advanced age (OR 2.18; p = .031), history of abdominal surgery (OR 2.03; p = .04), incomplete gastrointestinal obstruction (OR 3.42; p < .001), laparoscopic surgery (OR 0.39; p = .004) and intraoperative neostomy (OR 2.37; p = .006). Conclusions: We found that advanced age (>80 years old), history of abdominal surgery, gastrointestinal obstruction and stoma formation were the risk factors. We anticipated to design a risk assessment system upon the high-risk patients from the present ERAS pathway, and make a modified ERAS pathway for those patients.

Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer: short-term outcomes at a mono-institution

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted surgery, a developed technology, is becoming more and more accepted by surgeons. However, the comparison between robotic-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) and conventional laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is seldom reported, or usually the sample sizes reported are small. The current research was designed to compare the short-term outcomes of RATG and LATG with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC in a mono-institution from China.

METHODS

A total of 205 patients from June 2015 to October 2018 were included in this study. Among them, 106 patients underwent LATG, and 99 patients underwent RATG. The patients' clinicopathological characteristics, surgical performance and short-term outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The clinicopathological characteristics showed no difference between the LATG group and the RATG group. However, compared with the LATG group, the operation time was longer (P = 0.000), and the operative blood loss (P = 0.000) and the volume of abdominal drainage was less (P = 0.000) in the RATG group. Moreover, the RATG took less time to remove abdominal drainage tube than LATG (P = 0.000). The plasma levels of CRP at 72 h post-operation was lower (P = 0.000), and the number of retrieved lymph nodes was more (P = 0.000) in the RATG group. Nevertheless, the postoperative length of stay (P = 0.890), the time to first flatus (P = 0.448), the postoperative complication (P = 0.915) and the visual analogue pain score at 24 h post-operation (P = 0.457) were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RATG with D2 lymphadenectomy shows safety and feasibility for AGC and could be served as an alternative treatment for AGC in the future.

Acute Kidney Injury Induced by Pneumoperitoneum Pressure Via a Mitochondrial Injury-dependent Mechanism in a Rabbit Model of Different Degrees of Hydronephrosis

OBJECTIVE

To clarify the effect of mitochondrial injury during laparoscopic surgery of the kidney in different degrees of hydronephrosis in rabbit model.

METHODS

A total of 90 rabbits were randomly allocated into 3 groups (groups PN, PM, and PS, ie, rabbits without, with mild and with severe hydronephrosis, respectively). The rabbits in the PM group (n = 30) and PS group (n = 30) underwent surgical procedures that induced mild and severe left hydronephrosis, respectively. The rabbits in all the groups were then allocated into 5 subgroups and were subjected to intra-abdominal pressures of 0, 6, 9, 12, and 15 mmHg. Changes in the mitochondrial membrane potential and mitochondrial electron microstructure were observed. The apoptosis proteins cytochrome C, apoptosis-inducing factor, caspase-3, and caspase-9 were measured by western blot analysis.

RESULTS

As the degrees of hydronephrosis increased, histopathological changes such as the decrease in mitochondrial membrane potential and mitochondrial vacuolization along with increased expression of apoptosis proteins, cytochrome C, apoptosis-inducing factor, caspase-3 gained statistically significance at lower intra-abdominal pressures (In PN and PM groups at 15 mmHg, and in PS group at 9 mmHg; for all P <.01).

CONCLUSION

Mitochondrial injury plays an important role during acute kidney injury induced by pneumoperitoneal pressure in different degrees of hydronephrosis in the rabbit model.

Long-term oncological outcomes in laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A meta-analysis of high-quality nonrandomized studies

BACKGROUND

Multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and several meta-analyses have confirmed that laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is a safe and feasible procedure for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) in terms of short-term outcomes. However, the long-term oncological outcomes of LG for AGC are still needed for further evaluation. This study aimed to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of LG with open gastrectomy (OG) for patients with AGC.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in various databases from January 1997 to August 2018. Studies comparing the long-term oncological outcomes between LG with OG were evaluated and data were extracted accordingly. We performed the meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies with 4494 patients (2273 in LG group and 2221 in OG group) were included. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05, P = 0.28), disease-free survival (DFS) rate (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06, P = 0.27), and recurrence rate (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.04, P = 0.13) were comparable in LG and OG. Subgroup analysis showed the publication year, study region, sample size, extent of resection, extent of lymphadenectomy, retrieved lymph nodes, proportion of stage III, and patients with serosa-positive (pT4a) did not influence the estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with AGC, LG is a feasible surgical procedure alternative to OG in terms of long-term oncological outcomes.