Minimally Invasive Treatment of Stomach Cancer

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open total gastrectomy: a matched-cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to compare short-term laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) with open total gastrectomy (OTG) outcomes in gastric cancer.

METHODS

Seventy patients who underwent total gastrectomy via LTG or OTG were included. All cases were matched for stage, age, and sex by means of statistically generated selection of all gastrectomies performed during the same period.

RESULTS

Although the operation time was not longer for LTG, the time required for esophagojejunostomy was significantly longer in LTG than in OTG (43 vs 14 min, P < .05). The incidence of anastomotic complications was higher in the LTG group as well.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative complications such as anastomotic leakage and stenosis were observed more frequently in LTG. To improve the safety of esophagojejunostomy in LTG, technical innovations should be pursued.

Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy and open total gastrectomy in gastric cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) has been used more frequently despite the associated technical difficulty and concerns over oncological safety. This study was undertaken to compare the short- and long-term surgical outcomes following either LATG or open total gastrectomy (OTG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

A total of 120 LATG and 228 OTG were retrospectively matched with respect to sex, age (±5 years), and pathological tumor-node-metastasis stage for comparison of the clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

The total complication rate among 120 LATG and 228 OTG was 18.3 % (22/120) and 16.2 % (37/228), respectively. The most common complication after LATG was anastomotic-related complication (6.7 %); five anastomotic leakages (4.2 %) and three anastomotic strictures were reported (2.5 %). That after OTG was wound complication (3.5 %), including seroma or infection. Matched patients analysis: Time to first gas passing and time to the resumption of a soft diet were significantly shorter in the LATG group than in the OTG group. The postoperative hospital stay of LATG was shorter in the LATG group (9.3 ± 4.2 days) than in the OTG group (11.7 ± 7.3 days; p = 0.057). Among matched patients, there was no significant difference between complication rate (24 vs. 32 %; p = 0.504) or leakage rate (6 vs. 4 %). During median follow-up of 50 (range, 10-92) months, there was no significant difference in the disease-free survival rate between the matched groups, respectively (94.5 vs. 87.1 %: p = 0.148). As for patients with TNM stage I gastric cancer, the disease-free survival rate (100 vs. 90.9 %; p = 0.5) and the cumulative survival rate (91.5 vs. 95.2 %; p = 0.618) did not differ significantly between the LATG and OTG groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LATG for gastric cancer has the advantage over an OTG in terms of better short-term outcomes and similar long-term outcome. LATG is an acceptable alternative to OTG for the treatment of gastric cancer.

Minimally invasive approaches for gastric cancer-Japanese experiences

Since development of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with lymph node dissection in 1991 in Japan, laparoscopic gastrectomy (LAG) is improving and evolving. Recently, advanced LAG techniques including D2 lymph node dissection or anastomosis after total gastrectomy have been developed. Retrospective and prospective multicenter studies have been conducted for early and non-early gastric cancers to establish high-quality evidence. This review summarizes the current trends of minimally invasive approaches for gastric cancer based on current Japanese experiences.

Current status of minimal access surgery for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim was to conduct a systematic review of the literature on the subject of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and determine the relative merits of laparoscopic (LG) and open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric carcinoma.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search of the Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents and PubMed databases identified individual retrospective and prospective series on LG (proximal, distal and total). Furthermore, all clinical trials that compared LG and OG published in the English language between January 1990 and the end of December 2006 were also identified. A large number of outcome variables were analysed for individual series and comparative trials between LG and OG and results discussed and tabulated.

RESULTS

The majority of the literature is published from Japan showing both oncological adequacy and safety of LG. The majority of early series and comparative studies have utilized laparoscopic resection for early and distal gastric cancer. However, with increasing advanced laparoscopic experience, advancement in digital technology and improvement in instrumentation, more advanced gastric cancers and more extensive procedures such as laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy and laparoscopy-assisted D2 dissection are becoming more common. To date lymph node harvesting, resection margins and complication rates seem to be equivalent to open procedures. Furthermore, the earlier fears of port-site metastases have not been borne out.

CONCLUSIONS

The available data suggests that LG seems to be associated with quicker return of gastrointestinal function, faster ambulation, earlier discharge from hospital, and comparable complications and recurrence rate to OG. However, the operating time for LG remains significantly longer compared to its open counterpart, although with experience it is achieving parity with OG. However, the majority of the comparative trials (if not all) probably do not have the power to detect differences in the outcome. As far as the RCT's (LG vs. OG) are concerned, the numbers of patients in such trials are small and the majority of patients were operated upon for early distal gastric cancer and, therefore, any meaningful conclusions regarding the advantages or disadvantages of LG for both the ECGs and extensive and advanced gastric tumours are difficult to justify.

Laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: 5 years' experience

The purpose of this study was to clarify the safety and value of laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer. This retrospective study involved 101 patients with gastric cancer treated with laparoscopic surgery at the Nippon Medical School Hospital from February 2001 through July 2005. The following variables were evaluated: age, sex, comorbid conditions, tumor size, location, gross type, histological type, depth of wall invasion, and presence or absence of lymph node metastasis. The surgical variables investigated included operating time, blood loss, postoperative complications, and length of postoperative stay. Mean tumor diameter was 24.1 +/- 18.4 mm, and most tumors were located in the lower third of the stomach. Endoscopic examination revealed that 98 of the tumors were early gastric cancers. The mean operation time was 255 +/- 74 min, and mean blood loss was 128 +/- 162 g. Local gastrectomy without lymphadenectomy was performed in 13 cases, and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy with perigastric lymphadenectomy was performed in 16 cases. Distal gastrectomy with systemic lymphadenectomy was performed in 56 cases. Proximal or total gastrectomy with lymph node dissection for tumors located in the upper half of the stomach was performed in 16 cases. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 13.3 +/- 7.6 days. No patients died during the admission. Postoperative surgical complications occurred in 10 patients (10%) and consisted of anastomotic bleeding in 3 patients, pneumohypoderma in 1 patient, and remote infection in 6 patients. The only medical complication was a stroke in 1 patient. We conclude that laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy is a safe and useful operation for most early gastric cancers. If patients are selected properly, laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy can be a curative and minimally invasive treatment for gastric cancer.