Comparison of Reduced Port Totally Laparoscopic-assisted Total Gastrectomy (Duet TLTG) and Conventional Laparoscopic-assisted Total Gastrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016;26:e132-e136. [PMID: 27846181 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0000000000000329]

Safety and effectiveness of totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy vs laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

For gastric cancer with total gastrectomy, the usual laparoscopic surgical approaches are totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG). Due to its difficult anastomotic technique, the adoption of TLTG is limited. Therefore, surgeons prefer using LATG, which also led to TLTG being somewhat overlooked, so there is no clear conclusion today as to which surgical procedure is more favorable to the patient's recovery. This article aimed to compare the safety and short-term outcomes of the two surgical approaches.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies comparing TLTG and LATG, published up to December 2022, were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases. The study outcomes, including operative time, blood loss, anastomosis time, number of retrieved lymph nodes, proximal and distal resection margins, time to first fluid and soft diet, hospitalization duration, time to first flatus, and postsurgical and anastomotic complications, were compared between these two different surgical procedures. Statistics were analyzed with RevMan 5.4 and Stata 13.1.

RESULTS

Fifteen publications were included in this study. The total sample included 3023 cases. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in overall postoperative complications between the two surgical approaches ( P >0.05). Compared with LATG, TLTG led to reduced intraoperative blood loss ( P <0.0001), an increased number of lymphatic node dissections ( P <0.0001), and decreased hospitalization duration ( P =0.002). However, operative time, anastomosis time, pulmonary infection, resection margins, time to first fluid and soft diet, time to first flatus and anastomosis-related complications were no significant difference between TLTG and LATG groups ( P >0.05).

CONCLUSION

TLTG did not lead to an increase in overall postoperative complications, which is a reliable surgical approach for treatment of gastric cancer. Moreover, it may reduce harm to patients and enable them to obtain better surgical outcomes.

Current Issues in Reduced-Port Gastrectomy: A Comprehensive Review

Reduced-port gastrectomy (RPG) includes all procedures derived from various efforts to minimize surgical invasiveness, with single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy (SILG) being the ultimate reduced-port technique. However, there are challenges related to its feasibility, oncological validity, training, and education. This review describes the current issues and challenges, as well as the future prospects of RPG for gastric cancer. Gastrectomy, which started as an open surgery, has evolved into a laparoscopic surgery. With the advancements in laparoscopic technology, SILG has been used to minimize surgical scarring. However, owing to the technical difficulties of SILG, cases involving the addition of 1 trocar or needle grasper alongside the multichannel port have also been reported. Additionally, 3-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (3PLG) using only 3 trocars is also being performed. RPG, as a concept, includes a range of approaches such as SILG, 2-port laparoscopic gastrectomy, and 3PLG. These techniques aimed to reduce the number of ports or incisions required for laparoscopic gastrectomy. Despite technical difficulties, RPGs offer numerous advantages, including minimal invasiveness, excellent cosmetic outcomes, and the potential for improved post-operative recovery, such as reduced length of hospital stay and post-operative pain. It could be considered similar to conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy, and may not be oncologically inferior. Ongoing studies, such as the KLASS 12, are required to gain further insights.

Feasibility and Potential of Reduced Port Surgery for Total Gastrectomy With Overlap Esophagojejunal Anastomosis Method

PURPOSE

Reduced port surgery (RPS) for gastric cancer has been frequently reported in distal gastrectomies but rarely in total gastrectomies. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of 3-port totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) with overlapping esophagojejunal (EJ) anastomosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 81 patients who underwent curative TLTG for gastric cancer (36 and 45 patients with 3-port and 5-port TLTG, respectively) were evaluated. All 3-port TLTG procedures were performed with the same method as 5-port TLTG, including EJ anastomosis with the intracorporeal overlap method using a linear stapler, except for the number of ports and assistants. Short-term outcomes, including the number of lymph nodes (LNs) harvested by station and postoperative complications, were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Clinical characteristics were not significantly different among the groups, except that the 3-port TLTG group was younger and had a lower rate of pulmonary comorbidity. There were no cases of open conversion or additional port placement. All operative details and the number of harvested LNs did not differ between the groups, but the rate of suprapancreatic LN harvest was higher in the 3-port TLTG group. No significant differences were observed in the overall complication rates between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Three-port TLTG with overlapping EJ anastomoses using a linear stapler is a feasible RPS procedure for total gastrectomy to treat gastric cancer.

Safety and Efficacy of OGT-Assisted Overlap Oesophagojejunostomy Versus the Traditional Overlap Method in Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy for Gastric/Gastroesophageal Junction (G/GEJ) Tumours

INTRODUCTION

Overlap guiding tube (OGT)-assisted overlap oesophagojejunostomy (EJS), which was first designed and reported by our team, has shown feasibility. However, its safety and efficiency have not yet been compared with the conventional overlap approach.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the data of 155 gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy by conventional (conventional group, n = 83) or OGT-assisted (OGT group, n = 72) overlap methods at Nanfang Hospital. The anastomotic efficiency and surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The success rate of inserting an anvil fork into the oesophageal lumen at the first attempt in the OGT group was much higher than in the conventional group (86.7% vs. 97.2%, P = 0.019). Consistently, the duration of EJS (P < 0.001) in the OGT group was significantly shorter than that in the conventional group. Operatively, there was one case in which oesophageal pseudocanals developed; another case was converted to thoracoscopic surgery in the conventional group, but there were no such cases in the OGT group. In terms of postoperative recovery, the OGT group was superior to the conventional group. The incidence of postoperative complications (28.9% vs. 20.8%, P = 0.247) and the classification of complication severity (P = 0.450) were milder in the OGT group, although the difference was not statistically significant. Notably, the conventional group had four cases (4.8%) of oesophagojejunal anastomotic leakage (EJAL) and one case (1.2%) of anastomotic stenosis. In the OGT group, two patients (2.8%) developed EJAL, but none developed anastomotic stenosis or anastomotic bleeding. Neither group had any cases of unplanned secondary surgery or perioperative deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

The OGT-assisted method reduced the surgical difficulty of overlap EJS with good safety. This study provides new perspectives for optimizing EJS.

Modern surgical therapy for gastric cancer-Robotics and beyond

The surgical paradigm for gastric cancer has been changed from extended surgery to minimally invasive surgery. Laparoscopic surgery is a practical method for minimally invasive surgery for early gastric cancer, and the indication is expanding to advanced gastric cancer. In recent years, robotic gastrectomy has been highlighted as a breakthrough to overcome the drawbacks of laparoscopic gastrectomy. Here, we discuss the recent updates of modern surgical therapy for gastric cancer-robotics and beyond.

Current Status and Trends of Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy in Korea

Since its introduction in the early 1990s, laparoscopic gastrectomy has been widely accepted for the treatment of gastric cancer worldwide. In the last decade, the Korean Laparoendoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery Study group performed important clinical trials and exerted various efforts to enhance the quality of scientific knowledge and surgical techniques in the field of gastric cancer surgery. Laparoscopic gastrectomy has shifted to a new era in Korea due to recent advances and innovations in technology. Here, we discuss the recent updates of laparoscopic gastrectomy—namely, reduced-port, single-incision, robotic, image-guided, and oncometabolic surgery.

Intracorporeal Esophagojejunostomy during Reduced-port Totally Robotic Gastrectomy for Proximal Gastric Cancer: a Novel Application of the Single-Site® Plus 2-port System

Purpose

Intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy during reduced-port gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer is a technically challenging technique. No study has yet reported a robotic technique for anastomosis. Therefore, to address this gap, we describe our reduced-port technique and the short-term outcomes of intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent a totally robotic reduced-port total or proximal gastrectomy between August 2016 and March 2020. We used an infra-umbilical Single-Site^® port with two additional ports on both sides of the abdomen. To transect the esophagus, a 45-mm endolinear stapler was inserted via the right abdominal port. The common channel of the esophagojejunostomy was created between the apertures in the esophagus and proximal jejunum using a 45-mm linear stapler. The entry hole was closed with a 45-mm linear stapler or robot-sewn continuous suture. All anastomoses were performed without the aid of an assistant or placement of stay sutures.

Results

Among the 40 patients, there were no conversions to open, laparoscopic, or conventional 5-port robotic surgery. The median operation time and blood loss were 254 min and 50 mL, respectively. The median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 40.5. The median time to first flatus, soft diet intake, and length of hospital stay were 3, 5, and 7 days, respectively. Three (7.5%) major complications, including two anastomosis-related complications and a case of small bowel obstruction, were treated with an endoscopic procedure and re-operation, respectively. No mortality occurred during the study period.

Conclusions

Intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy during reduced-port gastrectomy can be safely performed and is feasible with acceptable surgical outcomes.

Long-Term Oncological Outcomes of Reduced Three-Port Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Early-Stage Gastric Carcinoma: a Retrospective Large-Scale Multi-Institutional Study

Purpose

With advances in surgical techniques, reduced-port laparoscopic surgery is increasingly being performed for the treatment of gastric carcinoma. Many studies have reported satisfactory short-term outcomes after reduced 3-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of 3-port LG in patients with gastric carcinoma.

Materials and Methods

We reviewed the medical records of 1,117 patients who underwent LG for gastric carcinoma in three major institutions between 2012 and 2015. The data showed that 460 patients underwent 3-port LG without assistance, and 657 underwent conventional 5-port LG. We compared the overall and disease-free survival rates between the 2 groups.

Results

There were 642 male and 475 female patients with a mean age of 56.1 years. Among them, 1,028 (92.0%) underwent distal gastrectomy and 89 (8.0%) underwent total gastrectomy. In the final pathologic examination, 1,027 patients (91.9%) were stage I, 73 (6.5%) were stage II, and 17 (1.5%) were stage III, and there were no significant difference in the pathologic stage between groups. The 3- and 5-port LG groups showed no significant differences in the 5-year overall survival (94.3% vs. 96.7%, P=0.138) or disease-free survival (94.3% vs. 95.9%, P=0.231). Stratified analyses according to pT and pN stages also showed no significant differences in overall or disease-free survival between the two groups.

Conclusions

Long-term survival after 3- and 5-port LG was comparable in patients with early-stage gastric carcinoma. The 3-port technique requiring limited surgical assistance may be an appropriate surgical option for this patient population.

Is the 5-port approach necessary in laparoscopic gastrectomy? Comparison of surgical effects of reduced-port laparoscopic gastrectomy and conventional laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Reduced-port surgery, in which fewer ports are used than those in conventional laparoscopic surgery, is becoming increasingly popular for various procedures. However, the application of reduced-port surgery to the gastrectomy field is still underdeveloped. The aim of this study was to use meta-analysis to address the potentially important advantages of this surgical technique.

METHODS

Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically reviewed (through October 2019) to identify studies that compared reduced-port (RPLG) and conventional laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (CLG) in patients with gastric carcinoma. The endpoints were postoperative time, length of in-hospital stay, blood loss, retrieved lymph nodes, postoperative complications, time to first flatus, and aesthetic outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies, which included 1743 patients (907 RPLG and 836 CLG), were ultimately included in this analysis. Better aesthetic results: were obtained with RPLG (risk ratio 1.578; 95%CI, 1.377-1.808; P = .000), although length of in-hospital stay (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.106; 95% CI, -0.222 to 0.010; P = .074), time to first flatus (SMD -0.006; 95%CI, -0.123 to 0.110; P = .913), and perioperative complications (risk ratio 0.255; 95%CI, 0.142-0.369; P = .478) were equivalent. However, operative time was significantly longer (SMD 0.301; 95%CI, 0.194-0.409; P = .00), blood loss was greater (SMD -0.31; 95%CI, -0.415 to 0.205; P = .000), and fewer lymph nodes were harvested (SMD 0.255; 95%CI, 0.142-0.369; P = .000) in the RPLG group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis showed that RPLG is as safe as the CLG approach and offers better aesthetic results for patients with gastric carcinoma. However, basing on current evidence, RPLG was not an efficacious surgical alternative to CLG, as operative time was significantly longer, blood loss was greater, and fewer lymph nodes were harvested in the RPLG group. Additional high-powered controlled randomized trials are required, to determine whether RPLG truly offers any advantages; these future studies should particularly focus on pain scores and aesthetic outcomes.

Efficacy of totally laparoscopic compared with laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic radical gastrectomy is currently the most common surgical approach for gastric cancer. The main difference between totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) is the route of digestive tract reconstruction. However, TLTG is currently not widespread as the safety and feasibility of intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy is uncertain.

AIM

To compare the short-term efficacy of TLTG and LATG for radical gastrectomy of gastric cancer, and to determine the safety and feasibility of intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched for all relevant articles regarding TLTG vs LATG for gastric cancer published up to October 1, 2019. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established. All the basic conditions of patients and important clinical data related to surgery were extracted, and a meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Eight studies involving a total of 1883 cases (869 cases in the TLTG group and 1014 cases in the LATG group) were included. Compared with the LATG group, reduced intraoperative blood loss (weighted mean difference = -35.37, 95%CI: -61.69 - -9.06, P = 0.008) and a larger number of retrieved lymph nodes (weighted mean difference = 3.11, 95%CI: -2.60 - 12.00, P = 0.01) were found in the TLTG group. There were no significant differences in operating time, anastomotic time, tumor size, proximal resection margin length, postoperative pain score, time to first flatus, time to first oral intake, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative anastomosis-related complication rate and overall complication rate between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy is safe and feasible. TLTG has the advantages of being minimally invasive, reduced intraoperative blood loss and easier access to lymph nodes compared with LATG. Totally laparoscopic gastrectomy is likely to be the surgical trend for gastric cancer in the future.

Laparoscopic perigastric mesogastrium excision technique for radical total gastrectomy

Introduction

Complete mesogastrium excision (CME) of the perigastric mesogastrium and dissection of lymph nodes (LNs) no. 10 and no. 11 remain technically challenging aspects of laparoscopic radical total gastrectomy (LRTG) plus CME. To address some of these difficulties, we introduced the laparoscopic perigastric mesogastrium excision technique (LPMET) and the concept of the “enjoyable space” to partly modify the procedures of conventional radical surgery and characterize the perigastric space and the surgical plane as well as its boundaries.

Aim

To introduce the laparoscopic perigastric mesogastrium excision technique (LPMET) and the “enjoyable space” when undergoing laparoscopic radical total gastrectomy.

Material and methods

From July 2016 to June 2017, 79 cases of upper gastric cancer that were treated by laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy plus CME were investigated. The retrospective database included the patient characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, and morbidity and mortality rates depending on the completeness of their medical records.

Results

Laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy plus CME was successfully performed in all 79 cases. The mean surgical time was 232.5 ±46.0 min, and the intraoperative blood loss was 67.6 ±52.3 ml. A total of 2245 LNs were retrieved (mean 28.1 ±10.8 retrieved from each specimen). The mean postoperative hospital stay was 10.3 ±1.6 days. The postoperative morbidity rate was 17.7%. After a median follow-up period of 12 months, one patient experienced liver metastasis; of the other 78 patients, none died or experienced tumor recurrence or metastasis.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic perigastric mesogastrium excision technique and the “enjoyable space” could be a novel, minimally invasive approach and space to achieve CME and provide benefit for the dissection of LNs no. 10 and no. 11.

Surgical Outcomes of Reduced-Port Laparoscopic Gastrectomy Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The technical feasibility and oncologic efficacy of reduced-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (RPG) for gastric cancer remain unclear.

METHODS

A series of 767 patients with gastric cancer who underwent R0 laparoscopic gastrectomy were retrospectively matched for age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiology score, body mass index, surgeon, lymph node dissection, and pathologic stages by propensity scoring. Finally, data from 274 patients (74 conventional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy [CLDG] cases, 74 reduced-port distal gastrectomy [RPDG] cases, 63 conventional laparoscopic total gastrectomy [CLTG] cases, and 63, reduced-port total gastrectomy [RPTG] cases) were selected for analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with the conventional group, the reduced-port group had significantly longer operation times (RPDG 265 min vs CLDG 239 min; p = 0.001 and RPTG 305 min vs CLTG 285 min; p = 0.012) and reduced blood loss (RPDG 48 ml vs CLDG 68 ml; p = 0.001 and RPTG 75 ml vs CLTG 110 ml; p = 0.026). The number of dissected lymph nodes was significantly higher in the CLDG group than in the RPDG group (38 vs 31; p = 0.002). Cosmetic satisfaction showed significant superiority in the reduced-port group compared with the conventional group. No significant difference was observed in overall survival (OS) (5-year OS: RPDG 100% vs CLDG 96.7%; p = 0.207 and RPTG 91.6% vs CLTG 91.8%; p = 0.615) or relapse-free survival (RFS) (5-year RFS: RPTG 92.3% vs CLTG 92.1%; p = 0.587).

CONCLUSIONS

The study results suggest that RPG for gastric cancer by an experienced surgeon is a feasible and safe technique. The RPG procedure can be presented to patients as one of the effective treatment options.