Comparison of laparoscopy-assisted and open radical gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A retrospective study in a single minimally invasive surgery center

Comparison of Totally Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy and Laparoscopy-Assisted Total Gastrectomy on Short-Term Outcomes, Inflammatory Response Markers, and Glucose and Lipid Metabolism in Gastric Cancer Patients

Objective

To investigate the therapeutic efficacy of totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) versus laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) in gastric cancer (GC) treatment, as well as their effects on postoperative inflammation and glucose and lipid metabolic status.

Methods

Clinical data of 68 individuals with GC who underwent LATG (n=31) and TLTG (n=37) from January 2020 to December 2022 were procured. This included intraoperative blood loss, operative time, incision length, number of lymph nodes dissected, postoperative complication rates, and recovery indicators, such as inflammation, glucose metabolism, and lipid metabolism.

Results

The TLTG cohort demonstrated significant advantages in intraoperative blood loss, operative time, and incision length compared to the LATG cohort. Furthermore, TLTG was superior in reducing the incidence of complications. Nevertheless, no substantial variation was observed in the quantity of lymph nodes dissected. Additionally, TLTG showed benefits in postoperative recovery, including better control of the inflammatory response, reduction of complication risks, shorter hospital stay, and alleviation of postoperative pain. TLTG also exhibited a reduced impact on inflammation and demonstrated greater effectiveness in improving postoperative glucose and lipid levels.

Conclusion

TLTG surgery is associated with superior clinical outcomes in the treatment of GC compared to LATG, particularly in reducing surgical trauma and accelerating postoperative recovery. Furthermore, TLTG facilitates the resolution of postoperative inflammatory responses and the amelioration of metabolic disorders. The findings from this investigation advocate for the broader adoption of TLTG in the surgical treatment of GC.

A Modified Purse-String Stapling Technique for Intracorporeal Circular Stapled Esophagojejunostomy During Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy: Comparison with Extracorporeal Reconstruction Technique

Background: Intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy (EJ) in the context of laparoscopic total gastrectomy remains a complex and technically demanding procedure. We have previously introduced a novel method of intracorporeal circular stapled EJ utilizing a conventional purse-string suture instrument. Since May 2018, we have refined this technique, and the aim of this study was to assess its safety and efficacy. Methods: Between May 2018 and June 2022, we enrolled 92 patients who underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy with the modified intracorporeal reconstruction method. In addition, between March 2014 and June 2022, we enrolled 121 patients who underwent the procedure with the extracorporeal reconstruction method. We retrospectively collected and compared the clinical data of these 2 patient cohorts. Results: Intracorporeal reconstruction group experienced lower postoperative pain scores (2.7 ± 1.3 versus 4.5 ± 1.4, P = .032), reduced administration of analgesics (3.1 ± 2.2 versus 5.0 ± 3.5, P = .041), and shorter postoperative hospital stays (4.9 ± 2.3 versus 6.3 ± 3.5, P = .045) compared with the extracorporeal reconstruction group. In addition, anastomotic time and postoperative pain score were not increased in the overweight patients in the intracorporeal reconstruction group. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 2 (2.2%) patients in the intracorporeal reconstruction group and 4 (3.3%) patients in the extracorporeal reconstruction group. Anastomotic stricture occurred in 1 (1.1% and 0.8%) patient in each group. There was no significant difference in the overall postoperative complication rate between the 2 groups. Conclusions: The modified intracorporeal purse-string stapling technique for EJ during laparoscopic total gastrectomy is a safe and viable option, exhibiting less invasiveness and comparable outcomes to the extracorporeal reconstruction method, especially suitable for obese patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gastric Cancer

Objective: This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in gastric cancer and to compare MIS versus open gastrectomy (OG) in terms of early mortality and morbidity, long-term oncological outcomes, and recurrence rates.

Methods: A total of 75 patients who underwent MIS or OG for gastric cancer at Koç University School of Medicine between December 2014 and December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Postoperative complications and disease-specific survival were compared between surgical approaches.

Results: Of the patients, 44 were treated with MIS and 31 with OG. In the MIS group, 33 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery, and 11 patients underwent robotic gastrectomy. Duration of operation was significantly longer in the MIS group than in the OG group (p<0.0001). The median amount of blood loss was 142.5 (range, 110 to 180) mL in the MIS group and 180.4 (range, 145 to 230) mL in the OG group (p<0.706). The median number of lymph node dissection was 38.9 (range, 15 to 66) and 38.7 (range, 12 to 70) in the MIS and OG groups, respectively (p<0.736). The median length of hospitalization, twelve days in the OG group and nine days in the MIS group. Median follow-up was 19.1 (range, 2 to 61) months in the MIS group and 22.1 (range, 2 to 58) months in the OG group. The median OS and DFS rates were 56.8 months and 39.6 months in the MIS group, respectively (log-rank; p=0.004) and 31.6 months and 23.1 months in the OG group, respectively (log-rank; p=0.003).

Conclusion: Our study results suggest that, despite its technical challenges, MIS is an effective and safe method in treating gastric cancer with favorable early mortality and morbidity rates and long-term oncological outcomes, and acceptable recurrence rates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and high-quality nonrandomized comparative studies

BACKGROUND

Controversy persists about the effects of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) versus open distal gastrectomy (ODG) on short-term surgical outcomes and long-term survival within the field of advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

METHODS

Studies published from January 1994 to February 2020 that compare LDG and ODG for AGC were identified. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The selection of high-quality nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCTs) was based on a validated tool (Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies, MINORS). The short- and long-term outcomes of both procedures were compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 30 studies were included in this meta-analysis, which comprised of 8 RCTs and 22 NRCTs involving 16,029 patients (7864 LDGs, 8165 ODGs). The recurrence, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), 3-year overall survival (OS), and 5-year OS rates for LDG and ODG were comparable. LDG was associated with a lower postoperative complication rate (OR 0.79; P < 0.00001), lower estimated volume of blood loss (WMD -102.21 mL; P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD -1.96 days; P < 0.0001), shorter time to first flatus (WMD -0.54 day; P = 0.0007) and shorter time to first liquid diet (WMD -0.66 day; P = 0.001). The number of lymph nodes retrieved, mortality, intraoperative complications, intraoperative blood transfusion, and time to ambulation were similar. However, LDG was associated with a longer surgical time (WMD 33.57 min; P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

LDG with D2 lymphadenectomy is a safe and effective technique for patients with AGC when performed by experienced surgeons at high-volume specialized centers.

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: single Western center results

A robotic approach to abdominal surgery procedures may improve postoperative outcomes compared to either open or laparoscopic approaches. The role of robotics for gastric surgery, however, is still being evaluated. A retrospective review of the prospectively maintained database for robotic gastric surgery at University of Siena between 2011 and 2020 was conducted. Data regarding surgical procedures, early postoperative outcomes, and long-term follow-up were analyzed. 38 patients underwent robotic partial or total gastrectomy. Conversion to open occurred in two patients (5.2%) due to locally advanced disease as well as difficult identification of primary lesion. Postoperative morbidity was 13.1% while no postoperative mortality was registered. The mean length of operation was 358.6 (220–650) minutes and the mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was 35.8 (range: 5–73). The median OS of all population was 70.9 months. The median 5-year OS for the patients with positive nodes was worse than that of patients without metastatic lymph nodes [51.4 months (95% CI 35.5–67.4) vs. 79.5 months (95% CI 67.1–91.8); p = 0.079]. The interesting results including postoperative morbidity as well as mortality rate, the surgical outcomes, and the 5-year OS, were to be acceptable considering the data recorded by previous studies on robotic gastrectomy. This study demonstrated that robotic gastrectomy is feasible and can be safely performed. However, further follow-up and randomized clinical trials are required to confirm the role of a robotic approach in gastric cancer surgery.

[Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer : Operative and postoperative results]

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive gastrectomy is increasingly becoming established worldwide as an alternative to open gastrectomy (OG); however, the majority of available articles in the literature refer to Asian populations and early stages of gastric cancer. This makes an international comparison difficult due to a discrepancy in patient populations and tumor biology as well as Asian and western treatment approaches. Little is known, therefore, whether laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) can be performed in advanced cancer, in particular with respect to laparoscopic D2 lymphadenectomy, with sufficient radicality and safety in this country.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All gastrectomies performed for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer with clinical UICC stages 2 and 3 between 2005 and 2017 were analyzed. A case match by age, gender and UICC stage was performed to compare the operative and early postoperative results of LG and OG.

RESULTS

A total of 243 patients with advanced gastric cancer were analyzed. Of these 81 patients (33.3%) underwent LG. The operative time for LG was around 74 min longer (279.2 min vs. 353.4 min, OG vs. LG; p < 0.001), the hospital stay after LG was around 4 days shorter (22.9 days vs. 18.4 days, OG vs. LG; p < 0.001). Significantly more lymph nodes were resected by LG (24.1 lymph nodes vs. 28.8 lymph nodes, OG vs. LG; p < 0.001). In terms of morbidity and mortality there were no differences between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The present study showed that minimally invasive gastrectomy can be performed safely and with comparable histopathological results to open surgery, even in advanced gastric cancer in western populations; however, larger case series and evidence from high-quality studies are urgently needed especially to compare short-term and long-term survival.

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.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: initial Egyptian experience at the National Cancer Institute

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy has been used as a superior alternative to open gastrectomy for the treatment of early gastric cancer. However, the application of laparoscopic D2 lymphadenectomy remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer.

RESULTS

Between May 2016 and May 2018, twenty-five consecutive patients with gastric cancer underwent laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy: eighteen patients (72%) underwent distal gastrectomy, four patients (16%) underwent total gastrectomy, and three patients (12%) underwent proximal gastrectomy. The median number of lymph nodes retrieved was 18 (5-35). A positive proximal margin was detected in 2 patients (8%). The median operative time and amount of blood loss were 240 min (200-330) and 250 ml (200-450), respectively. Conversion to an open procedure was performed in seven patients (28%). The median hospital stay period was 8 days (6-30), and the median time to start oral fluids was 4 days (3-30). Postoperative complications were detected in 4 patients (16%). There were two cases of mortality (8%) in the postoperative period, and two patients required reoperation (8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy can be carried out safely and in accordance with oncologic principles.

Comparison of the short-term outcomes between totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) are two common surgical approaches for upper and middle gastric cancer. Which surgical approach offers more advantages is still controversial due to a lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the short-term outcomes between the two surgical approaches.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to evaluate short-term outcomes between TLTG and LATG, including overall postoperative complications, anastomosis-related complications, time for anastomosis, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, proximal margin, distal margin, time to first flatus, time to first diet, and postoperative hospital stay. Short-term outcomes were pooled and compared by meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3. Mean differences (MDs) or risk ratios (RRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 9 cohort studies fulfilled the selection criteria. The total sample included 1671 cases. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the two surgical approaches in overall postoperative complications (RR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.82 to 1.26, P = .87),anastomosis-related complications (RR = 0.64, 95%CI = 0.39 to 1.03, P = .06),time for anastomosis (MD = -5.13, 95% CI = -10.54 to 0.27, P = .06),operation time (MD = -10.68, 95% CI = -23.62 to 2.26, P = .11), intraoperative blood loss (MD = -25.58, 95% CI = -61.71 to 10.54, P = .17), harvested lymph nodes (MD = 1.61, 95% CI = -2.09 to 5.31, P = .39), proximal margin (MD = -0.37, 95% CI = -0.78 to 0.05, P = .09), distal margin (MD = 0.79, 95% CI = -0.57 to 2.14, P = .25), time to first flatus (MD = 0.01, 95% CI = -0.13 to 0.15, P = .87), time to first diet (MD = -0.22, 95% CI = -0.45 to 0.02, P = .07), and postoperative hospital stay (MD = -0.51, 95% CI = -1.10 to 0.07, P = .09).

CONCLUSIONS

TLTG is a safe and feasible surgical approach for upper and middle gastric cancer, with short-term outcomes that are similar to LATG. Nevertheless, high-quality, large-sample and multicenter RCTs are still required to further verify our conclusions.

Clinical Implication of Tumor-invasive Status into the Muscularis Propria in T2 Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND/AIM

Several studies have investigated prognostic factors in patients with T2 gastric cancer, but no consensus has been reached to date. The aim was to investigate the clinicopathological significance of the status of tumor invasion into the muscularis propria (MP) in T2 gastric cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 113 patients with T2 cancer were enrolled. The status of caner invasion was analyzed according to width (extent of horizontal invasion) and depth (extent of vertical invasion).

RESULTS

The prognosis of the group with wide width of invasion (≥1.5 cm) was significantly poorer than that of the group with narrow width of invasion (<1.5 cm) (p=0.001). Multivariate analysis identified the width, and not the depth, as an independent prognostic factor. The analysis according to AJCC N stage showed that the width, and not the nodal status, was an independent prognostic factor in the N2-N3 patients (p=0.005).

CONCLUSION

Measurement of the width of tumor invasion into the MP was useful to understand the malignant potential of T2 gastric cancer.

Laparoscopic D2 plus complete mesogastrium excision using the "enjoyable space" approach versus conventional D2 total gastrectomy for local advanced gastric cancer: short-term outcomes

Introduction

Laparoscopy-assisted radical total gastrectomy is technically demanding.

Aim

To introduce the “enjoyable space” approach to achieve D2 plus complete mesogastrium excision (CME) and to investigate its safety and feasibility.

Material and methods

Between January 2015 and December 2017, 165 patients with primary advanced upper gastric cancer underwent laparoscopy-assisted radical total gastrectomy. Among these patients, 81 underwent conventional D2 total gastrectomy (D2 group) and 84 underwent D2 plus CME total gastrectomy (D2 + CME group). Clinicopathological characteristics, surgical outcomes and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.

Results

There were no significant differences between the two groups (p > 0.05) in clinicopathological characteristics. However, the D2 + CME group had a longer mean operative time, lower mean blood loss and slightly higher mean number of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) than the D2 group (p < 0.05 each). The mean time to first flatus, liquid diet, and soft diet and the duration of hospital stay were similar between the two groups (p > 0.05 each). No significant difference in postoperative complication rates was found between the groups (16.0% vs. 9.5%, p > 0.05).

Conclusions

The “enjoyable space” approach is an option to achieve D2 + CME, and its safety and feasibility over conventional method are confirmed with lower intraoperative blood loss and more harvested LNs.

Learning curve and short-term outcomes of modularized LADG for advanced gastric cancer: A retrospective study

Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) is a complicated procedure. To reduce the difficulty of the operation and standardize the surgical procedure, we explored a new operation mode, which we termed modularized LADG (MLADG). To further extend the new operation mode, we conducted this study to evaluate the short-term outcomes of MLADG for advanced gastric cancer, and determine the learning curve.Data from 100 consecutive patients who received LADG between October 2016 and October 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Short-term outcomes, such as operation time and intraoperative blood loss, were evaluated, and the learning curve was calculated.For MLADG, the mean operation time was 168.2 ± 13.0 minutes, the mean intraoperative blood loss was 93.6 ± 29.1 ml, the mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 28.6 ± 4.2, and conversion to open surgery occurred in only 1 case. In addition, MLADG had an acceptable postoperative complication incidence and fast postoperative recovery. After the first 20 cases, the operation skill reached a mature and stable level.Our results indicate that MLADG is an oncologically feasible and technically safe surgical procedure. For the trainees with rich experience in open distal gastrectomy, the learning curve is considered to be completed after 20 MLADG cases.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of a randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy is a feasible and safe procedure for treating advanced gastric cancer in terms of short-term outcomes. However, concern about long-term oncologic outcomes has limited the adoption of laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

We launched a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and open gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for locally advanced gastric cancer to evaluate long-term oncologic feasibility. The 5-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and tumor recurrences have been determined on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

Between January 2010 and June 2012, a total of 328 patients with preoperative clinical stage T_2-4aN_0-3M₀ gastric cancer were enrolled in the trial. We excluded 6 patients with unresected tumor, and the remaining 322 patients were randomized to the laparoscopic group (162 patients) or the open group (160 patients) for radical surgery. One patient in laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy and 4 patients in open gastrectomy were lost to follow-up immediately after discharge, leaving 317 patients (161 in laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy and 156 in open gastrectomy) eligible for long-term analysis. The 5-year overall survival rate was 49.0% in the laparoscopic group and 50.7% in the open group, and the 5-year disease-free survival rate was 47.2% and 49.6% in the 2 groups, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and disease-free survival showed no differences between the 2 groups. There was no difference in the 5-year tumor recurrence rate between the 2 procedures.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy can provide comparable long-term survival without an increase in recurrence and metastasis in treating advanced gastric cancer.

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy versus open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a 10-year single-institution experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for gastric cancer has been widely applied; however, its oncologic efficacy has yet been well established. The study aimed to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes of LADG versus open distal gastrectomy (ODG) on gastric cancer.

METHODS

The clinicopathologic data of gastric cancer patients who underwent distal gastrectomy with curative intent from October 2004 through September 2014 were included and analyzed in a retrospective cohort. The last follow-up was September 2016.

RESULTS

769 eligible patients (LADG 414 vs. ODG 355) were included in the study. No significant difference was observed between the groups in 5-year DFS (LADG 61.2% vs. ODG 59.1%; p = 0.384) and OS rates (LADG 65.8% vs. ODG 66.3%; p = 0.750). During surgery, though LADG group had longer operating time, the blood loss was less than ODG group. LADG group had faster postoperative recovery course including shorter time to oral intake, ambulation, and discharge time. Postoperative complication rate within 30 days showed no significant difference between the groups (LADG 15.7% vs. ODG 13.0%; p = 0.281). Age over 65 years old, blood loss > 200 ml, postoperative complication, and advanced T and N stage were identified as independent risk factors for DFS and OS.

CONCLUSIONS

LADG could yield similar oncologic outcomes compared with ODG in treating distal gastric cancer. However, the findings need to be further confirmed through ongoing prospective randomized controlled trials.

Comparison of Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy With Open Distal Gastrectomy for Patients With Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Single-Center Analysis From a Community Hospital

Objective:

This study is aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) at the community hospital.

Summary of Background Data:

Although various clinical trials have shown that laparoscopic distal gastrectomy was feasible in patients with early gastric cancer, its safety and efficacy for patients with advanced gastric cancer need to be elucidated.

Methods:

Patients with pathological Stage IB-III gastric cancer who underwent open distal gastrectomy (ODG) or LDG with D1+ or more extended lymph node (LN) dissection between 2007 and 2014 were eligible for this retrospective study. Patient characteristics, clinicopathologic factors, and post-treatment recurrence were recorded. To evaluate the safety of the surgery, surgical outcomes and postoperative complication were investigated.

Results:

638 patients underwent gastrectomy for gastric cancer, with 67 patients included in ODG group and 61 included in LDG group. Patients in the ODG group showed significantly more progressive disease than those in the LDG group. Postoperative infectious complications, [≥Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification grade III] occurred 6% in all patients, and there was no significant difference between groups. Hospital stay (median, range) was (9, 6–45) in ODG and (7, 5–58) in LDG, with significantly shorter stays in the LDG group (&lt;0.001).

Conclusions:

LDG could be safely performed for advanced gastric cancer in a community hospital. However, long-term outcomes, including types of postoperative recurrence, need further evaluation.

The long-term clinical outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a large-scale single institutional retrospective study

BACKGROUNDS AND PURPOSE

Robotic surgery has been applied in gastric carcinoma over a decade. Although a series of studies were performed to investigate the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted gastrectomy, few papers were in view of long-term outcomes. The current study was aimed to explore the oncological outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

A total of 606 gastric cancer patients who underwent robot-assisted gastrectomy during March 2010 through March 2017, were enrolled in this research. The clinicopathologic characteristics, surgical procedures along with follow-up information and prognostic factors were recorded in detail. The disease-free survival and overall survival rates were tested by Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

All the patients underwent the robotic surgery including 15 proximal gastrectomies, 403 distal gastrectomies, 169 total gastrectomies and 19 remnant gastrectomies. Fifiy-six (9.24%) patients were lost in the follow-up process (3-87 months, a media of 42 months). There were 119 recurrences observed, including 55 local recurrences, 51 peritoneal metastasis and 13 distant metastasis. The 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival were 73.60% and 74.24%, while the 5-year disease-free survivorship and overall survival rates were 68.73% and 69.33%. The 5-year overall survival rates grouped based on TNM stage were 96.58% for IA, 88.16% for IB, 87.03% for IIA, 80.62% fo IIB, 58.50% for IIIA, 48.62% for IIIB, 45.32% for IIIC and 17.03% for IV.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted gastrectomy is a valuable procedure for gastric cancer patients. Beside its feasibility and safety, it reveals an acceptable long-term clinical outcome.

Comparative study of laparoscopic radical gastrectomy and open radical gastrectomy

Introduction:

At present, the main treatment of gastric cancer is surgical resection combined with radiotherapy and chemotherapy, the most important part of which is radical gastrectomy. Laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer is difficult to operate, and whether it can achieve the same curative effect with the laparotomy is still controversial.

Materials and Methods:

This study retrospectively analysed the clinical data of 269 gastric cancer patients surgically treated by our medical team from May 2011 to December 2015 for comparative analysis of the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted radical gastrectomy and traditional open radical gastrectomy.

Results:

The laparoscopic surgery group had longer duration of surgery, less intra-operative blood loss, shorter post-operative exhaust time, shorter post-operative hospital stay and shorter timing of drain removal. The average number of harvested lymph nodes in the laparoscopic surgery group was 22.9 ± 9.5 per case. And in the laparotomy group the average number was 23.3 ± 9.9 per case. The difference had no statistical significance. With the increase of the number of laparoscopic surgical procedures, the amount of intra-operative blood loss gradually decreases, and the duration of surgery is gradually reduced.

Conclusion:

Laparoscopic radical gastrectomy is superior to open surgery in the aspects of intra-operative blood loss, post-operative exhaust time, post-operative hospital stay and timing of drain removal. With the number of laparoscopic radical gastrectomy cases increased, the duration of surgery is shortened and the amount of intra-operative blood loss will decrease.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has progressed rapidly in the last decade, overcoming many obstacles in laparoscopic technology. We compared surgical performance and short-term clinical outcomes between RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). In total, 163 patients with gastric cancer were randomly treated with RG (n=102) or LG (n=61). D2 lymphadenectomy was achieved in all patients. Digestive tract reconstruction in the RG group was performed by intracorporeal hand sewing, but extracorporeal anastomosis in the LG group was performed with a 25-mm circular stapler or linear stapler. Compared with the LG group, the RG group had less intraoperative blood loss (P=0.005) and more lymph nodes retrieved (P=0.000). Postoperative complications between the 2 groups were not significantly different during the 11-month follow-up (P=0.063). Compared with LG, RG is a feasible and safe approach with minimally invasive, satisfactory intracorporeal digestive tract reconstruction, and fast recovery. Multicenter randomized controlled studies of larger numbers of patients are needed.

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

BACKGROUND

Technical safety and short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) have been investigated in many clinical trials. However, studies with large sample size and sufficient follow-up comparing LAG and open gastrectomy (OG) for AGC have seldom been reported. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of LAG versus open OG for AGC using a propensity score matching analysis.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 459 and 856 patients who underwent LG or OG with D2 lymph node dissection, respectively, for AGC between June 2007 and June 2012. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to compensate for heterogeneity between groups. We compared long-term outcomes between the two groups after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

In the propensity score-matched cohort, no significant differences were observed in 5-year overall survival (OS) (52.0% vs. 53.4%; P = 0.805) and disease-free survival (DFS) (46.8% vs. 47.3%; P = 0.963) between the LAG group and OG group. Stratified analysis showed that the 5-year OS and DFS rates were comparable between the two groups in each tumor stage (P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that the operation method was not an independent prognostic factor for OS or DFS. Further analysis showed that the recurrence pattern was similar between the LAG group the OG group (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

LAG is a feasible surgical procedure for AGC in terms of long-term prognosis, although the results should be confirmed by the ongoing randomized controlled trials.

Long-term results of hand-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy for advanced Siewert type II and type III esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) combines laparoscopic surgery with the tactile feedback of a hand-assist device for complex laparoscopic operations. This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients who underwent HALS versus open surgery for the treatment of advanced Siewert type II and type III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 77 patients with advanced Siewert type II and IIIAEG between March 2010 and March 2011. Data concerning the basic characteristics of patients, pathological staging, early postoperative course, and long-term follow-up were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

HALS resulted in significantly lower mean blood loss and mean postoperative hospital stay in comparison to open surgery (P = 0.007 and 0.01, respectively). The mean number of resected lymph nodes was 23.22 ± 9.36 in the HALS group, which was more than in the open surgery group (18.61 ± 6.91, P = 0.015). The cumulative 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 52.8% (95% CI 43.07-60.09) for all patients in the HALS group (78.6% for stage II patients and 36.4% for stage III patients). The 5-year OS rate was not significantly different between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

While achieving similar oncological outcomes to open surgery, the HALS approach resulted in reduced blood loss, shortened postoperative hospital stay, and the resection of more lymph nodes. This analysis suggests that HALS may serve as a less invasive and as successful alternative to open surgery for the treatment of advanced Siewert type II and type IIIAEG.

Short-term surgical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) has gained acceptance as one of the best treatments for early gastric cancer. However, the application of LAG with D2 lymph node dissection in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains controversial.

METHODS

We launched a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and open gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for locally AGC to evaluate technical safety and oncologic feasibility. The postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were based on the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

Between January 2010 and June 2012, a total of 328 patients with preoperative clinical stage T_2-3N_0-3M₀ gastric cancer were enrolled in the trial. Six patients with unresected AGC were excluded, and the remaining 322 patients were randomized to the laparoscopic group (162 patients) or the open group (160 patients) for radical surgery. All patients underwent D2 lymph node dissection including 18 (5.59%) proximal gastrectomies, 196 (60.87%) distal gastrectomies, and 108 (33.54%) total gastrectomies. Six patients (3.70%) in the LAG group were converted to open procedures. The overall complication rate was 11.72% in the LAG group and 14.38% in the open group (P = 0.512). No mortality occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term results of the current study suggest that LAG with D2 lymph node dissection is a safe and feasible procedure in treating patients with locally AGC in experienced centers.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of robot-assisted versus laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) has been used for gastric cancer since 2002. This meta-analysis was carried out to evaluate whether RAG is safer and more effective than conventional laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

We performed a manual search for these 2 types of operations (RAG and LAG) in the PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases up to April 30, 2016. Twelve nonrandomized controlled trials that reported on RAG and LAG for gastric cancer were included. Outcomes evaluated included operation time, number of retrieved lymph nodes, blood loss, length of the resection margin, complications, and postoperative hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 3744 patients in 12 studies were included (1134 patients in the RAG group and 2610 patients in the LAG group). The operation time was significantly shorter in the LAG group [weighted mean difference (WMD) 42.0 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI 28.11-55.89) minutes; P < .00001], while the loss of blood volume was lower in the RAG group (P = .01). The number of retrieved lymph nodes, duration of postoperative stay, length of the proximal resection margin, length of the distal resection margin, and postoperative complications were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that RAG is a safe and appropriate treatment for gastric cancer patients in comparison to LAG. Nevertheless, RAG is not superior to LAG. Future research on RAG should focus on comparing the differences in retrieved lymph nodes in different tiers, evaluating the postoperative recovery and reducing the cost of the treatment.

Long- and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy in patients with clinically and pathological locally advanced gastric cancer: a propensity-score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic (laparoscopy-assisted) gastrectomy (LG) has several short-term benefits as compared with open distal gastrectomy (OG) in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Survival rates did not differ significantly between LG and OG in retrospective studies of AGC, although some studies included unmatched groups of patients or patients with AGC who had a preoperative diagnosis of early gastric cancer. The aim of present study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with AGC who underwent LG with those of patients with AGC who underwent OG using a propensity-score matching analysis.

METHODS

The study group comprised patients with a preoperative and pathologically confirmed diagnosis of AGC who underwent LG or OG with lymphadenectomy between January 2001 and December 2012 in our hospital. To minimize bias between the LG and OG groups, propensity scores were calculated using a logistic regression model and the following variables: sex, age, body-mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class, type of gastrectomy, and clinical and pathological tumor stage. After propensity-score matching, 104 patients (52 who underwent LG and 52 who underwent OG) were studied.

RESULTS

LG was associated with significantly earlier initiation of food intake (p <0.01) and a significantly shorter period of postoperative hospitalization (p <0.01). The incidence of all-grade overall, surgical, and medical complications did not differ significantly between the LG group and OG group (p = 0.24, p = 0.12, and p >0.99). Overall and relapse-free survival also did not differ between the LG group and OG group (p = 0.96, p = 0.91). In each tumor stage, overall and relapse-free survival did not differ significantly between the LG group and OG group.

CONCLUSION

LG can be a feasible treatment that is beneficial in terms of earlier recovery after operation and can be expected to result in similar survival as OG in patients with AGC.

Impact of obesity on short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopy assisted distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for gastric cancer has been rapidly adopted for the treatment of both early and advanced gastric cancers which need lymph node dissection, but remains difficult procedure, especially in patients with obesity. We evaluated the impact of obesity on short- and long-term outcomes of LADG for gastric cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated 243 patients who underwent LADG for gastric cancer between January 2007 and December 2014. The patients were classified based on their body mass index (BMI) into the Obese (BMI ≥ 25) and Non-Obese (BMI < 25) Groups. Patient characteristics, clinicopathologic and operative findings, and short- and long-term outcomes were investigated and compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The groups did not differ in age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, the presence of comorbidities, or pathologic stage. Operative time (265 ± 46.6 vs. 244 ± 55.6 min; P = 0.007) and estimated blood loss (113 ± 101.4 vs. 66.5 ± 95.2 ml; P = 0.007) were greater in the Obese Group. Fewer lymph nodes were retrieved in the Obese Group (38 ± 23.7 vs. 47.5 ± 24.3; P = 0.004). No differences were evident in postoperative complication rate (20% vs. 17%; P = 0.688) or the duration of postoperative hospital stay (9 ± 8.5 vs. 9 ± 5.1 days; P = 0.283) between the two groups. In the Obese Group, the 5-year overall survival rate was significantly lower than in the Non-Obese Group (67.6% vs. 90.3%; P = 0.036). Furthermore, 5-year disease-specific survival was significantly lower in the Obese Group than in the Non-Obese Group (72.7% vs. 94.9%; P = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

LADG in patients with obesity could be performed as safe as in patients without obesity, with comparable postoperative results. But obesity may be a poor prognostic factor in gastric cancer.

Effect of laparoscopic gastrectomy on compliance with adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with gastric cancer

This study was designed to investigate the effect of laparoscopic gastrectomy on adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with gastric cancer.Patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy at our institution from January 2008 to January 2015 with R0 resection, as determined by a pathological examination, were included in this study. According to the surgical approach, patients were divided into the laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) group and open gastrectomy (OG) group. Short-term and long-term outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.Of the 206 patients enrolled in the study, 114 patients were included in the LG group and 92 patients were included in the OG group. There was no significant difference in patients' general data, including age, sex, medical comorbidities, and pathological staging, between the 2 groups. However, patients in the LG group had less intraoperative blood loss, fewer postoperative complications, and a shorter hospital stay compared with patients in the OG group. There was no significant difference in the start time of adjuvant chemotherapy between the groups. However, compared with OG, LG had the following advantages: patients received more cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy, more patients received a full dose of on-schedule adjuvant chemotherapy, and more patients completed ≥75% of the planned dose. Long-term survival and disease-free survival rates were higher in the LG than in the OG.In summary, LG can improve compliance with adjuvant chemotherapy and long-term outcomes in patients with gastric cancer.

Pancreas-related complications following gastrectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of open versus minimally invasive surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreas-related complications are quite uncommon but potentially life-threatening occurrences that may occasionally complicate the postoperative course of gastrectomy. A number of reports have described such conditions after both standard open and minimally invasive surgery. Our study has the purpose to systematically determine the pooled incidence of pancreatic events following radical gastrectomy. We also aimed to elucidate whether any difference in incidence exists between patients operated via conventional open or minimally invasive surgery.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized or well-matched studies comparing conventional with minimally invasive oncological gastrectomy and reporting pancreas-related postoperative complications. We evaluated possible differences in outcomes between open and minimally invasive surgery. A meta-analysis of relevant comparisons was performed using RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies, whereby 6 randomized and 14 non-randomized comparative studies including a total of 7336 patients, were considered eligible for data extraction. Globally, more than 1% of patients experienced some pancreatic occurrences during the postoperative course. The use of minimally invasive surgery showed a trend toward increased overall pancreatic morbidity (OR 1.39), pancreatitis (OR 2.69), and pancreatic fistula (OR 1.13).

CONCLUSIONS

Although minimally invasive radical gastrectomy is currently established as a valid alternative to open surgery for the treatment of gastric cancer, a higher risk of pancreas-related morbidity should be taken into account.