Comparative study of laparoscopy-assisted versus open subtotal gastrectomy for pT2 gastric cancer

Comparison of estimated treatment effects between randomized controlled trials, case-matched, and cohort studies on laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

In actual surgical research, case-matched studies are frequently conducted as an alternative to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, it is still unclear what differences there are between RCTs and case-matched studies in upper gastrointestinal surgery, and clarifying them is a very important clinical issue. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate estimated treatment effects between RCTs, case-matched studies, and cohort studies regarding laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science databases for studies that compared LDG versus open distal gastrectomy for AGC published from the inception of the databases until July 2021. A meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager version 5.3 software program from the Cochrane Collaboration, and six short-term outcomes and three long-term outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies with 13698 patients were included. There was no difference in estimated treatment effects between RCTs and case-matched studies for all outcomes except for the number of retrieved lymph nodes and postoperative complications. In terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, number of retrieved lymph nodes, and recurrence, observational studies tended to overestimate the treatment effects.

CONCLUSION

The estimated treatment effects of LDG for AGC in the case-matched study were almost the same as in the RCTs. However, to assess the true magnitude of the treatment effect, the design and actual implementation of the analysis must be critically evaluated.

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.

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.

Long-term oncological outcomes in laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A meta-analysis of high-quality nonrandomized studies

BACKGROUND

Multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and several meta-analyses have confirmed that laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is a safe and feasible procedure for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) in terms of short-term outcomes. However, the long-term oncological outcomes of LG for AGC are still needed for further evaluation. This study aimed to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of LG with open gastrectomy (OG) for patients with AGC.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in various databases from January 1997 to August 2018. Studies comparing the long-term oncological outcomes between LG with OG were evaluated and data were extracted accordingly. We performed the meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies with 4494 patients (2273 in LG group and 2221 in OG group) were included. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05, P = 0.28), disease-free survival (DFS) rate (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06, P = 0.27), and recurrence rate (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.04, P = 0.13) were comparable in LG and OG. Subgroup analysis showed the publication year, study region, sample size, extent of resection, extent of lymphadenectomy, retrieved lymph nodes, proportion of stage III, and patients with serosa-positive (pT4a) did not influence the estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with AGC, LG is a feasible surgical procedure alternative to OG in terms of long-term oncological outcomes.

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.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been used as an alternative to open gastrectomy (OG) to treat early gastric cancer. However, the use of LG for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) has been in debate.

METHODS

Literature retrieval was performed by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library up to July 2014. Potential studies comparing the surgical effects between LG with OG were evaluated and data were extracted accordingly. Meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan. The pooled risk ratio and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, 26 studies were included in this meta-analysis. LG had some advantages over OG, including shorter hospitalization (WMD, -3.63, 95 % CI, -4.66 to -2.60; P < 0.01), less blood loss (WMD, -161.37, 95 % CI, -192.55 to -130.18; P < 0.01), faster bowel recovery (WMD, -0.78, 95 % CI, -1.05 to -0.50; P < 0.01), and earlier ambulation (WMD, -0.95, 95 % CI, -1.47 to -0.44; P < 0.01). In terms of surgical and oncological safety, LG could achieve similar lymph nodes (WMD, -0.49, 95 % CI, -1.78 to 0.81; P = 0.46), a lower complication rate [odds ratio (OR), 0.71, 95 % CI, 0.59 to 0.87; P < 0.01], and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) comparable to OG.

CONCLUSIONS

For AGCs, LG appeared comparable with OG in short- and long-term results. Although more time was needed to perform LG, it had some advantages over OG in achieving faster postoperative recovery. Ongoing trials and future studies could help to clarify this controversial issue.

Oncologic value of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND:

The oncologic validity of laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains controversial. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available evidence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A comprehensive search was performed between 2008 and 2014 to identify comparative studies evaluating morbidity/mortality, oncologic surgery-related outcomes, recurrence and survival rates. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out using RevMan 5.2 software.

RESULTS:

Eight studies with a total of 1456 patients were included in this analysis. The complication rate was lower in LADG [odds ratio (OR) 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.42-0.83; P < 0.002]. The in-hospital mortality rate was comparable (OR 1.22; 95% CI = 0.28-5-29, P = 0.79). There was no significant difference in the number of harvested lymph nodes, resection margins, cancer recurrence rate, cancer-related mortality or overall and disease-free survival (OS and DFS, respectively) rates between the laparoscopic and the open groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION:

The current study supports the view that LADG for AGC is a feasible, safe and effective procedure in selected patients. Adequate lymphadenectomy, resection margins, recurrence, cancer-related mortality and long-term outcomes appear equivalent to open distal gastrectomy (ODG).

Laparoscopic Versus Open Distal Gastrectomy With D2 Lymph Node Dissection for cT2 Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes

The purpose of this study was to determine whether laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LDG) with D2 lymphadenectomy could be a standard treatment for cT2N0-1 gastric cancer. There have been few reports regarding the long-term outcomes of patients with advanced gastric cancer who underwent LDG with D2 lymphadenectomy. The study included 32 patients who underwent LDG with D2 lymphadenectomy and 44 patients who underwent open distal gastrectomy (ODG) with D2 lymphadenectomy. There was no clinicopathologic difference in patient background between the groups. Operative duration was significantly longer in the LDG group than in the ODG group (297 ± 12 minutes versus 226 ± 10 minutes; P &lt; 0.001). However, blood loss was significantly less (90 ± 27 mL versus 314 ± 23 mL; P &lt; 0.001) and the number of days to assisted ambulation significantly shorter (1.1 ± 0.1 days versus 1.5 ± 0.1 days; P = 0.010) in the LDG group than in the ODG group. Median follow-up period was 60 months. The 5-year overall survival rates for the LDG group and the ODG group were 89.5% and 97.1%, respectively. The 5-year relapse-free survival rates for the LDG group and the ODG group were 88.0% and 97.7%, respectively. There were no significant differences in overall and relapse-free survival rates between the groups. LDG with D2 lymphadenectomy for cT2N0-1 gastric cancer is oncologically and technically safe and feasible, and is an option in the surgeon's arsenal. Randomized controlled study including the investigation of cost-effectiveness should be conducted.

A comparison of surgical procedures and postoperative cares for minimally invasive laparoscopic gastrectomy and open gastrectomy in gastric cancer

Minimally invasive, laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has assumed an ever-expanding role in gastric cancer treatment. Accumulating data so far seem to suggest that LG is at least a viable alternative of conventional open gastrectomy (OG) in different contexts. However, even though reviews and meta-analyses have compared the advantages and limitations of each option, it is still controversial whether LG is a better alternative to OG, especially in advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The major goal of this study is to evaluate the readouts of LG, in comparison with OG. A literature search was performed for studies published from 2009 to 2013. Medical records of 20868 gastric cancer patients from 32 independent studies were reviewed and analyzed. All 32 studies concluded that LG is at least comparable with OG. LG is superior to OG in offering less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and lower risk of complications, although LG is probably inferior in operative time, and not different from OG in mortality. Considering the merits and the potential future technical improvement, it is reasonable to speculate that LG may eventually replace OG in most clinical contexts.

Laparoscopic-assisted versus open distal gastrectomy with D2 lymph node resection for advanced gastric cancer: effect of learning curve on short-term outcomes. a meta-analysis

Laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with D2 resection is gradually being performed for treating advanced gastric cancer. This meta-analysis aims to compare the clinical outcomes between LADG and open distal gastrectomy (ODG) when considering the impact of the learning curve. The PubMed, Embase, and ISI databases and the Cochrane Library were electronically searched. Randomized controlled trails and retrospective comparative studies published between 1994 and 2013 were collected. We divided the included studies into two subgroups according to whether the authors had experience of at least or fewer than 40 cases of LADG with D2 resection and then compared the operative time, intraoperative bleeding, the amount of resected lymph nodes, short-term recovery parameters, and complications between LADG and ODG groups. Ten comparative studies including 1100 patients were selected. Meta-analysis showed that when LADG was compared with ODG, surgeons with experience of at least 40 cases could achieve more resected lymph nodes (P=.002), reduced time to flatus (P<.0001), shortened time to liquid diet (P<.00001), and lower complication rates (P=.02). However, the above advantages of LADG faded in the subgroup of surgeons with experience of fewer than 40 cases. Our meta-analysis suggested that the learning curve has significant effects on most of the important surgical and short-term recovery outcome parameters. Accomplishment of 40 cases of LADG with D2 lymphadenectomy is required to achieve optimum proficiency.

Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy reduced surgical site infection as compared with open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer in a meta-analysis of both randomized controlled and case-controlled studies

BACKGROUND

In some meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), laparoscopic or laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LDG) had several short-term advantages. However, several specific postoperative complications (PCs) were not analyzed sufficiently.

METHODS

RCTs and case-controlled studies (CCSs) comparing postoperative complications between LDG and open distal gastrectomy (ODG) were identified in PubMed and Embase. Studies in which patients' status, extent of lymph-node dissection, or reconstruction procedures were matched between the groups were included in a meta-analysis. Postoperative complications such as surgical-site infection (SSI; which included wound infection and intra-abdominal abscess), leakage, anastomotic stenosis, bleeding, ileus, delayed gastric emptying, pneumonia were evaluated in a meta-analysis performed using Review Manager version 5.2 software.

RESULT

This meta-analysis included a total of 2144 patients (1065 underwent LDG and 1079 underwent ODG) from 5 RCTs and 13 CCSs. SSI and wound infections were reported in 14 studies, and the incidences were significantly lower in LDG than in ODG (n = 1737; odds ratio [OR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.85, P = 0.01, I(2) = 0%, and OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24-0.88, P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%). There were no significant differences in intra-abdominal abscess or other specific complications between the procedures.

CONCLUSION

LDG was associated with a lower incidence of SSI, especially wound infection, as compared with ODG in a meta-analysis of both RCTs and CCSs.

Long-term survival outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Many meta-analyses have confirmed the technical feasibility and favorable short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer patients, but the long-term survival outcome of LG remains controversial compared with open gastrectomy (OG). This study aimed to compare the 5-year overall survival (OS), recurrence, and gastric cancer-related death of LG with OG among gastric cancer patients. PubMed was searched to February 2014. The resectable gastric cancer patients who underwent curative LG or OG were eligible. The studies that compared 5-year OS, recurrence, or gastric cancer-related death in the LG and OG groups were included. A meta-analysis, meta-regression, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and stage-specific analysis were performed to estimate the survival outcome between the two groups and identify the potential confounders. Quality assessment was based on a tailored comparability scoring system. Twenty-three studies with 7336 patients were included. The score of comparability between two groups and the extent of lymphadenectomy were two independent confounders. Based on the well-balanced studies, the 5-year OS (OR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.90-1.28, P = 0.45), recurrence (OR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.68-1.02, P = 0.08), and gastric cancer-related death (OR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.65-1.13, P = 0.28) rates were comparable in LG and OG. Several subsets such as the publication year, study region, sample size, gastrectomy pattern, extent of lymphadenectomy, number of nodes harvested, and proportion of T1-2 or N0-1 did not influence the estimates, if they were well balanced. Particularly, the stage-specific estimates obtained comparable results between the two groups. Randomized controlled trials comparing LG with OG remain sparse to assess their long-term survival outcomes. The major contributions of this systematic review compared with other meta-analyses are a comprehensive collection of available long-term survival outcomes within a much larger number of observations and a more precise consideration of confounders. Current knowledge indicates that the long-term survival outcome of laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery is comparable to that of open surgery among early or advanced stage gastric cancer patients, and LG is acceptable with regard to oncologic safety.

How much progress has been made in minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer in Korea?: a viewpoint from Korean prospective clinical trials

Gastric cancer is the most common cancer in Korea. Because the incidence of gastric cancer is still high even with early detection and because of developments in surgical instruments and technological advances, minimally invasive surgery has rapidly become an accepted treatment for gastric cancer in Korea. Many Korean gastric surgeons have contributed to the rapid adaptation of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: not only the Korean Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery Study (KLASS) group, but also other expert surgeons after the 2000s. Thanks to their vigorous efforts involving active learning, education, workshops, academic communications, and international communications with active laparoscopic gastric surgeons in Korea, numerous results and well-designed large-scale clinical studies have been published or are actively ongoing, thus increasing its wide acceptance as an option for gastric cancer. Now, Korea has become one of the leading countries using minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of gastric cancer. This review article will summarize the current status and issues, as well as the clinical trials that have finished or are ongoing, regarding minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer in Korea.

Quality of D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer: is laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy as effective as open distal gastrectomy?

OBJECTIVE

To determine by meta-analysis, whether D2 lymphadenectomy at laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) is as effective as that during open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

DATA SOURCES AND REVIEW METHODS

All clinical trials that compared laparoscopic with open D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC published in English from January 1995 to June 2013 were identified in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library searches. A modified scale was used to assess the quality of the literature. We analyzed the number of harvested lymph nodes (HLNs), body mass index (BMI), tumor size, serosa invasion status, and positive lymph node rate. Meta-analyses were performed using weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous variables, and risk differences (RD) or odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous variables.

RESULTS

No eligible randomized trials were identified, but eight non-randomized trials were analyzed. In the pooled data of 677 patients who underwent LADG and 687 ODG, there were no significant differences the number of HLN (WMD: -0.98, 95 % confidence interval, CI -3.21 to 1.26), BMI (WMD: -1.20, 95 % CI -2.64 to 0.24), tumor size (WMD: -0.30, 95 % CI -0.65 to 0.05), serosa invasion status (RD: 0.04, 95 % CI -0.03 to 0.11), and positive lymph node rate (OR: 0.66, 95 % CI -0.44 to 1.01) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that for patients with comparable BMI and tumor status, surgical technique did not significantly influence the number of HLNs, suggesting that D2 lymphadenectomy performed laparoscopically is as effective as an open procedure in AGC.

"Fast track" rehabilitation after gastric cancer resection: experience with 80 consecutive cases

Background

To evaluate the safety, efficacy and outcomes of fast-track rehabilitation applied to gastric cancer proximal, distal and total gastrectomy.

Methods

Eighty consecutive patients undergoing gastric cancer resection performed by a single surgeon, received perioperative multimodal rehabilitation. Demographic and operative data, gastrointestinal function, postoperative hospital stays, surgical and general complications and mortality were assessed prospectively.

Results

Of the 80 patients (mean age 56.3 years), 10 (12.5%) received proximal subtotal gastrectomy (Billroth I), 38 (47.5%) received distal (Billroth II), and 32 (40%) received total gastrectomy (Roux-en-Y). Mean operative time was 104.9 minutes and intraoperative blood loss was 281.9 ml. Time to first flatus was 2.8 ± 0.5 postoperative days. Patients were discharged at a mean of 5.3 ± 2.2 postoperative days; 30-day readmission rate was 3.8%. In-hospital mortality was 0%; general and surgical complications were both 5%.

Conclusions

Fast-track multimodal rehabilitation is feasible and safe in patients undergoing gastric cancer resection and may reduce time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stays.

Laparoscopy-assisted versus open total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) is a safe or better alternative to open total gastrectomy (OTG) for the treatment of gastric cancer. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LATG by pooling comparative studies of LATG and OTG in a meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Original articles comparing LATG and OTG for gastric cancer, published in the English language since 1990, were searched for in PubMed, Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library. The outcome variables analyzed were number of harvested lymph nodes, postoperative complications, postoperative mortality, 5-year survival, operative time, blood loss, time of analgesic use, first flatus day, and postoperative hospital stay.

RESULTS

Eight studies were considered suitable for the meta-analysis, for a total of 1161 patients (409 LATG and 752 OTG). Compared with OTG, LATG showed a similar number of lymph nodes harvested, morbidity, and postoperative mortality. There was also no difference in 5-year overall and disease-specific survival between groups, according to two enrolled studies where such data were available. LATG required longer operative times than OTG but also resulted in significantly less blood loss, earlier return of bowel function, less time of analgesics use, and shorter postoperative hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that LATG in the treatment of gastric cancer is similar in safety and efficacy to OTG. LATG has the advantages of less blood loss and faster postoperative recovery, at the expense of a longer operative time.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic and open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer

Background

The use of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains a controversial topic, mainly because of doubts about its oncologic validity. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available evidence.

Methods

A comprehensive search was performed until June 2013 to identify comparative studies evaluating survival rates, recurrence rates, surgical outcomes and complications. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the random effects model. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out using RevMan 5.1 software.

Results

Fifteen trials were involved in this analysis. Compared to open gastrectomy (OG), LG involved a longer operating time (WMD = 48.67 min, 95% CI 34.09 to 63.26, P < 0.001); less blood loss (WMD = −139.01 ml, 95% CI −174.57 to −103.44, P < 0.001); earlier time to flatus (WMD = −0.79 days, 95% CI −1.14 to −0.44, P < 0.001); shorter hospital stay (WMD = −3.11 days, 95% CI −4.13 to −2.09, P < 0.001); and a decrease in complications (RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.90, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference in the number of harvested lymph nodes, margin distance, mortality, cancer recurrence rate and long-term survival rate between the AGC patients treated with LG or OG (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Despite a longer operation, LG is a safe technical alternative to OG for AGC with a lower complication rate and enhanced postoperative recovery. Moreover, there were similar outcomes between both approaches in terms of cancer recurrence and the long-term survival rate. Because of the limitation of this study, methodologically high-quality studies are needed for further evaluation.

Case-matched comparison of laparoscopy-assisted and open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer

AIM: To compare short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted and open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS: A retrospective study was performed by comparing the outcomes of 54 patients who underwent laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with those of 54 patients who underwent open distal gastrectomy (ODG) between October 2004 and October 2007. The patients’ demographic data (age and gender), date of surgery, extent of lymphadenectomy, and differentiation and tumor-node-metastasis stage of the tumor were examined. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, complications, pathological findings, and follow-up data were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: The mean operative time was significantly longer in the LADG group than in the ODG group (259.3 ± 46.2 min vs 199.8 ± 40.85 min; P < 0.05), whereas intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complications were significantly lower (160.2 ± 85.9 mL vs 257.8 ± 151.0 mL; 13.0% vs 24.1%, respectively, P < 0.05). In addition, the time to first flatus, time to initiate oral intake, and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the LADG group than in the ODG group (3.9 ± 1.4 d vs 4.4 ± 1.5 d; 4.6 ± 1.2 d vs 5.6 ± 2.1 d; and 9.5 ± 2.7 d vs 11.1 ± 4.1 d, respectively; P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the LADG group and ODG group with regard to the number of harvested lymph nodes. The median follow-up was 60 mo (range, 5-97 mo). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 94.3%, 90.2%, and 76.7%, respectively, in the LADG group and 89.5%, 84.7%, and 82.3%, respectively, in the ODG group. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 98.0%, 91.9%, and 81.1%, respectively, in the LADG group and 91.5%, 86.9%, and 82.1%, respectively, in the ODG group. There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the survival rate.

CONCLUSION: LADG is suitable and minimally invasive for treating distal gastric cancer and can achieve similar long-term results to ODG.