Three cases of laparoscopic total gastrectomy with intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy for gastric cancer in remnant stomach

The safety, feasibility, and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic completion total gastrectomy for remnant gastric cancer: a prospective study with 3-year follow-up (FUGES-004 study)

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of laparoscopic completion total gastrectomy (LCTG) for remnant gastric cancer (RGC) remains controversial.

METHODS

The primary outcome was postoperative morbidity within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), 3-year overall survival (OS), and recurrence. Inverse probability treatment weighted (IPTW) was used to balance the baseline between LCTG and OCTG.

RESULTS

Final analysis included 46 patients with RGC who underwent LCTG at the FJMUUH between June 2016 and June 2020. The historical control group comprised of 160 patients who underwent open completion total gastrectomy (OCTG) in the six tertiary teaching hospitals from CRGC-01 study. After IPTW, no significant difference was observed between the LCTG and OCTG groups in terms of incidence (LCTG vs. OCTG: 28.0 vs. 35.0%, P =0.379) or severity of complications within 30 days after surgery. Compared with OCTG, LCTG resulted in better short-term outcomes and faster postoperative recovery. However, the textbook outcome rate was comparable between the two groups (45.9 vs. 32.8%, P =0.107). Additionally, the 3-year DFS and 3-year OS of LCTG were comparable to those of OCTG (DFS: log-rank P =0.173; OS: log-rank P =0.319). No significant differences in recurrence type, mean recurrence time, or 3-year cumulative hazard of recurrence were observed between the two groups (all P >0.05). Subgroup analyses and concurrent comparisons demonstrated similar trends.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective study suggested that LCTG was noninferior to OCTG in both short-term and long-term outcomes. In experienced centers, LCTG may be considered as a viable treatment option for RGC.

Laparoscopic Completion Total Gastrectomy for Remnant Gastric Cancer

Background: Remnant gastric cancer (RGC) is increasing due to past use of subtotal gastrectomy to treat benign diseases, improvements in the detection of gastric cancer, and increased survival rates after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Laparoscopic access provides the advantages and benefits of minimally invasive surgery. However, laparoscopic completion total gastrectomy (LCTG) for RGC is technically demanding, even for experienced surgeons. Because of its rarity and heterogeneity, no standard surgical strategy has been established and few surgeons will develop technical expertise to carry out this procedure. Aim: To describe our standard technique, giving surgeons a head start in LCTG and report the early experience with this stepwise approach. Materials and Methods: We detail all the steps involved in the procedure, including trocar placement and surgical description. Results: Between 2009 and 2019, a total of 8 patients with past history of RGC were operated with this technique. All patients had been previously operated by open method, 7 due to peptic ulcer disease and 1 due to gastric cancer. Their mean age at the time of the first surgery was 38.9 years (range 25-56 years) and the mean interval between the first and the second gastrectomy was 32.1 years (range 13.6-49). Billroth II was the previous reconstruction in all cases. A 5-trocar technique was used followed by total gastrectomy with side-to-side stapled intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy anastomosis and Roux-en-Y reconstruction. The mean operation time was 272 minutes (range 180-330) and median blood loss was 247 mL (range 50-500). There was no conversion and no major intraoperative complication. Major postoperative complications occurred in 3 patients. Conclusion: Completion total gastrectomy for RGC is a morbid procedure and laparoscopic access is technically feasible, hopefully carrying the benefits of faster recovery, reduced postoperative pain, and wound complications. By standardizing the approach, the learning curve may be shortened and better results achieved.

Laparoscopic Completion Total Gastrectomy as a Standardized Procedure for Gastric Stump Cancer: A Case Control Study

Objective

Complete gastrectomy for gastric stump cancer (GSC) can be challenging due to severe adhesions; therefore, advanced techniques are required when being performed by laparoscopic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic completion total gastrectomy (LCTG) for the treatment of GSC.

Methods

Patient records from January 2010 to October 2018 were retrospectively evaluated. The patients were classified into 2 groups depending on whether they underwent open or laparoscopic gastrectomy. We compared patient characteristics; operative, clinical, and pathological data between the groups.

Results

Twenty open and 17 LCTGs were performed. Laparoscopic gastrectomy resulted in a significantly longer operation time (230 versus 182.5 min; P = 0.026), lower blood loss (14 versus 105 mL; P < 0.001), and shorter period to the first flatus passage (2 versus 3 days; P < 0.001) than open gastrectomy. No significant differences in the number of retrieved lymph nodes, duration of hospital stay, complication rate, and postoperative analgesic usage between the 2 groups were observed. No patients required conversion to open surgery in the laparoscopic-treatment group. Pathologic findings revealed that the laparoscopic group had a smaller tumor size (not pathologic T category) and fewer metastatic lymph nodes than the open group, leading to an earlier distribution of the pathologic stage in the laparoscopic group.

Conclusions

LCTG for the treatment of GSC was safely conducted with fewer complications and mortalities than previously reported results. Advanced technologies and sophistication of laparoscopic skills may further yield minimal invasiveness with better short-term outcome.

Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy for Remnant Gastric Cancer: A Single-institution Experience and Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND/AIM

The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) for remnant gastric cancer (RGC) remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of LTG with open total gastrectomy (OTG) for RGC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty-two patients who underwent total gastrectomy for RGC were enrolled in this study.

RESULTS

LTG was carried out in seven patients, and OTG was performed in the remaining 15 patients. The mean operation time in the LTG group was longer than that in the OTG group. The estimated blood loss in the LTG group was less than that in the OTG group. No cases in the LTG group required open conversion. Postoperatively, the first meal and defecation were earlier in the LTG group than in the OTG group. The overall survival rates of the two groups were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic total gastrectomy is a feasible surgical option for RGC.

Short-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy for remnant gastric cancer: A single-institution experience and systematic review of the literature

AIM

Application of laparoscopic approaches for the treatment of remnant gastric cancers (RGC) is still controversial. Therefore, in the present study, the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for RGC was investigated.

METHODS

A total of 27 patients who underwent gastrectomy for RGC from June 2008 to September 2017 were enrolled in this study. A comprehensive review of the literature on LG for RGC published before December 2017 using the PubMed database was carried out.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic gastrectomy was carried out in seven patients, and open gastrectomy (OG) was done in the remaining 20 patients. LG was associated with significantly less intraoperative blood loss (70 ± 71 vs. 1066 ± 1428 g; P < 0.001), significantly more retrieved lymph nodes (22 ± 13 vs. 12 ± 9; P = 0.03), a relatively lower postoperative complication rate, and a relatively shorter postoperative hospital stay than OG. A comprehensive review of the literature showed that LG for RGC was more likely to correlate with longer operative time, less blood loss, lower postoperative complication rate, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and more retrieved lymph nodes than OG.

CONCLUSION

The clinical outcome of our patients with RGC and the literature indicated that a laparoscopic approach contributed to faster recovery after surgery than an open approach without sacrificing its radicality and was a safe and secure treatment option for RGC.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for remnant gastric cancer: Risk factors associated with conversion and a systematic analysis of literature

BACKGROUND

In traditional opinion, history of abdominal surgery was the relative contraindication for Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) with high rate of conversion to Open gastrectomy (OG).Use of LG for treatment of remnant gastric cancer (RGC) has been documented in some case studies and controlled clinical trials. However, whether LG is superior, equal or inferior to OG in these patients is not clear.

METHODS

English language articles published between January 2005 and January 2016 were searched in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Main outcome measures were: conversion of LG to OG, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, tumor size, positive proximal resection margin, lymph node dissection, disease stage, post-operative resumption of oral intake, postoperative hospital stay, complications, mortality and follow-up findings. Published clinical data which was in the situation of conversion to OG was collected, and the factors associated with conversion to open surgery were examined.

RESULTS

Five non-randomized controlled trials and seven LG case studies were included in the systematic review. Meta-analysis of the data could not be performed due to high variation and heterogeneity in study design, study population, LG technique, and outcome measures among the included studies. Systematic analysis of the included studies showed that LG was associated with significantly shorter mean operative time, early resumption of oral intake, and shorter hospital stay, as compared to that with OG. No significant difference in complications was observed between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

LG in the hands of experienced surgeons is relative feasibility and safety for RGC. Previous surgical anastomosis, previous open surgery and surgical experience were associated with conversion to OG. However, these findings should be validated with robust prospective comparative studies.

Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy with D2 Lymphadenectomy and Side-to-Side Stapled Esophagojejunostomy

INTRODUCTION

An optimal method has yet to be established for laparoscopic total gastrectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis.

METHODS

We aim to describe a simple technique for intracorporeal anastomoses. Technique of laparoscopic total gastrectomy with side-to-side stapled intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy anastomosis and Roux-en-Y jejunojejunostomy is performed on patients with gastric malignancy in an academic community tertiary care center.

RESULTS

The anastomotic technique of laparoscopic total gastrectomy with side-to-side stapled esophagojejunostomy is described.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy and side-to-side esophagojejunostomy is safe to perform and has the advantage of a wide lumen with low chance for stricture. A laparoscopic total gastrectomy with stapled side-to-side esophagojejunostomy is feasible and safe in advanced gastric cancer.

Totally laparoscopic versus laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy for upper and middle gastric cancer: a single-unit experience of 253 cases with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) is the most commonly used methods of laparoscopic gastrectomy for upper and middle gastric cancer. However, totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) is unpopular because reconstruction is difficult, especially for the intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy. We adopted TLTG with various types of intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy. In this study, we compared LATG and TLTG to evaluate their outcomes.

METHODS

From March 2006 to September 2015, 253 patients with upper and middle gastric cancer underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG), 145 patients underwent LATG, and 108 patients underwent TLTG. The clinicopathological characteristics and postoperative outcomes were retrospectively compared between the two groups. Furthermore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

The operation time and estimated blood loss were similar between the groups. There were no significant differences in first flatus, diet initiation, and postoperative hospital stay. The surgical complication rates were 17.2% (25/145) and 13.9% (15/108) in the LATG and TLTG groups, respectively. The meta-analysis also revealed no significant differences in the operation time, estimated blood loss, time to first flatus, length of hospital stay, overall, and anastomosis-related complications among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TLTG is a feasible choice for gastric cancer patients, with comparable results to the LATG approach.

Comparing the short-term outcomes of intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy with extracorporeal esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Background

Totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) using intracorporeal anastomosis has gradually developed due to advancements in laparoscopic surgical instruments. However, totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) with intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy (IE) is still uncommon because of technical difficulties. Herein, we evaluated various types of IE after TLTG in terms of the technical aspects. We compared the short-term operative outcomes between TLTG with IE and laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) with extracorporeal esophagojejunostomy (EE).

Methods

Between March 2006 and December 2014, a total of 213 patients with gastric cancer underwent TLTG and LATG. Overall, 92 patients underwent TLTG with IE, and 121 patients underwent LATG with EE. Generally, there are two methods of IE: mechanical staplers (circular or linear staplers) and hand-sewn sutures. Surgical efficiencies and outcomes were compared between two groups. We also described various types of IE using a subgroup analysis.

Results

The mean operation times were similar in the two groups, as was the number of retrieved lymph nodes. However, the mean estimated blood loss of TLTG was statistically lower than LATG. There were no significant differences in time to first flatus, the time to restart oral intake, the length of the hospital stay after operation, and postoperative complications. Four types of IE have been applied after TLTG, including 42 cases of hand-sewn IE. The overall mean operation time and the mean anastomotic time in TLTG were 279.5 ± 38.4 min and 52.6 ± 18.9 min respectively. There was no case of conversion to open procedure. Postoperative complication occurred in 16 patients (17.4 %) and no postoperative mortality occurred.

Conclusions

IE is a feasible procedure and can be safely performed for TLTG with the proper laparoscopic expertise. It is technically feasible to perform hand-sewn IE after TLTG, which can reduce the cost of the laparoscopic procedure.