Technical and Survival Risks Associated With Esophagojejunostomy by Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Carcinoma

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.

Comparison of short-term and long-term clinical effects of modified overlap anastomosis and conventional incision-assisted anastomosis in laparoscopic total gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

To compare short-term and long-term clinical effects of modified overlap anastomosis and conventional incision-assisted anastomosis for laparoscopic total gastrectomy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients with gastric cancer admitted to the Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University from January 2016 to March 2020. Quality of life, intraoperative and postoperative conditions were analyzed.

RESULTS

Compared with the conventional assisted group, the modified overlap group showed a shorter auxiliary incision, milder postoperative pain, shorter time to the first postoperative anal exhaust, shorter time to the first postoperative liquid food intake, and shorter postoperative stay. There were no differences between the two groups regarding operation time, esophagus-jejunum anastomosis time, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph nodes dissected, and length of the upper incision margin. There were no differences between the two groups regarding postoperative early and late complications. There were no differences between the two groups regarding the QLQ-C30 scale three years after the operation. The scores of the QLQ-STO22 scale 3 years after the operation showed significantly lower scores for dysphagia and feeding limit in the modified overlap group than those in the conventional assisted anastomosis group. There was no recurrence in the modified overlap group but one patient in the conventional assisted group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy with modified overlap anastomosis have better minimal invasiveness and faster post-operative recovery than conventional incision-assisted anastomosis.

Double stapling technique versus hemi-double stapling technique for esophagojejunostomy with OrVil™ after laparoscopic total gastrectomy: a single-blind, randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The transorally inserted anvil (OrVil™) is frequently selected for esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) because of its versatility. During anastomosis with OrVil™, the double stapling technique (DST) or hemi-double stapling technique (HDST) can be selected by overlapping the linear stapler and the circular stapler. However, no studies have reported the differences between the methods and their clinical significance.

METHODS

A randomized controlled clinical trial with a parallel assignment and single-blind outcomes assessment analysis was conducted. Patients with gastric cancer eligible for LTG who met the selection criteria were randomized. Preoperative characteristics and perioperative and postoperative outcomes were compared between the DST and HDST. The primary endpoint was an anastomosis-related complication, and the secondary endpoints were perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications, excluding anastomosis-related complications.

RESULTS

Thirty patients with gastric cancer were eligible and randomized. LTG and esophagojejunostomy were successfully performed in all patients, without conversion to laparotomy. Preoperative characteristics, excluding preoperative chemotherapy, were not significantly different between the two groups. One anastomotic leakage of Clavien-Dindo classification grade ≥ IIIa was observed in the DST, although no significant difference was found between the two groups (6.6% vs. 0%, P = 0.30). In the HDST, one case of anastomotic stricture required endoscopic balloon dilation. No significant differences were found in operative time, whereas the anastomosis time was significantly shorter in the HDST than in the DST (47.5 ± 15.8 vs. 38.2 ± 8.8 min, P = 0.028). Except for anastomosis-related complications, postoperative complications (P = 0.282) and postoperative hospital stay for the DST and HDST were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

No superiority was found between the DST and HDST with OrVil™ in esophagojejunostomy of LTG for gastric cancer with respect to postoperative complications, whereas the HDST may be preferable in terms of the simplicity of the surgical technique.

Postoperative morbidity and quality of life between totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy and laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy: a propensity-score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the surgical outcome and quality of life (QoL) of totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) compared with laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) in patients with clinical stage I gastric cancer.

METHODS

From 2012 to 2018, EGC patients who underwent TLTG (n = 223), including the first case with intracorporeal hemi-double stapling, were matched to those who underwent LATG (n = 114) with extracorporeal circular stapling, using 2:1 propensity score matching (PSM). Prospectively collected morbidity was compared between the TLTG and LATG groups in conjunction with the learning curve. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL questionnaires QLQ-C30, STO22, and OG25 were prospectively surveyed during postoperative 1 year for patient subgroups.

RESULTS

After PSM, grade I pulmonary complication rate was lower in the TLTG group (n = 213) than in the LATG group (n = 111) (0.5% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.007). Other complications were not different between the groups. The learning curve of TLTG was overcome at the 26th case in terms of the comprehensive complication index. The TLTG group after learning curve showed lower grade I pulmonary complication rate than the matched LATG group (0.5% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.024). Regarding postoperative QoL, the TLTG group (n = 63) revealed less dysphagia (P = 0.028), pain (P = 0.028), eating restriction (P = 0.006), eating (P = 0.004), odynophagia (P = 0.023) than the LATG group (n = 21). Multivariate analyses for each QoL item demonstrated that TLTG was the only common independent factor for better QoL.

CONCLUSIONS

TLTG reduced grade I pulmonary complications and provided better QoL in dysphagia, pain, eating, odynophagia than LATG for patients with clinical stage I gastric cancer.

Comparison of laparoscopic surgery with open standard surgery for advanced gastric carcinoma in a single institute: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Compared with open standard gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) did not result in inferior disease-free survival for early-stage and locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC). However, whether LG for AGC in elderly patients is more beneficial than OG is unclear.

METHODS

This study examined 458 patients with AGC. The mortality, morbidity, and prognosis were compared by age, gender, T and N factors, and pathological stage in the LG and OG groups using propensity score matching analysis. For the final analysis, 151 pairs of patients were selected from at each group.

RESULTS

The results showed that no significant difference in mortality and morbidity existed between the two groups. The 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rates were 70% and 62% in the LG and OG groups, respectively (p = 0.104). The 5-year RFS rates in patients with pathological stages I, II, and III who had undergone LG were 84%, 80%, and 55%, respectively, and 78%, 70%, and 45%, respectively, in those who had undergone OG (p < 0.005). The 5-year RFS rates in nonelderly patients who underwent LG or OG were 75% and 68%, respectively, and 58% and 40%, respectively, in elderly patients who underwent LG or OG (p < 0.005).

CONCLUSION

The 5-year RFS rates in patients with AGC at each stage did not significantly differ between LG and OG. However, the benefits at 5-year RFS in patients who underwent LG compared with OG were larger in elderly patients than those in nonelderly patients.

Impact of postoperative complications on long-term outcomes of patients following surgery for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 64 follow-up studies

Gastrectomy for cancer is a technically demanding procedure, with postoperative complications (POCs) reported to be in the range of 20%-46%. However, the effect of POCs on long-term survival of gastric cancer patients following surgery is far from conclusive. This systemic review aimed to determine the impact of postoperative complications (POCs) on the long-term survival of patients following surgery for gastric cancer. A systematic electronic search of PubMed and Scopus was performed from inception to June 26, 2018 to identify studies that described the relationship between POCs and long-term survival. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS) from each study were combined using a random-effects model. Sixty-four eligible studies with reported results for 46198 gastric cancer patients were included. A meta-analysis found a statistically significant difference in OS, CSS and RFS between gastric patients with unspecific POCs and no POCs, POCs ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade (CD) 2 and < CD2, major POCs and minor POCs, infectious and non-infectious complications, anastomotic and non-anastomotic complications, and cardiopulmonary and non-cardiopulmonary complications. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not significantly change the summary of OS risk estimates between patients with POCs and without POCs. No significant publication bias was observed for the same outcome. The meta-analysis revealed that POCs were associated with worse survival among patients with resected gastric cancer, suggesting that treatment strategies aimed at minimizing POCs may improve oncological outcomes.

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.