Laparoscopy-assisted Distal Gastrectomy Group Research Articles

Preservation of the celiac branch of the vagus nerve reduces the incidence of postoperative diarrhea in gastric cancer: a cohort study

BackgroundTo investigate the short-term and long-term outcomes of preserving the celiac branch of the vagus nerve during laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.MethodsA total of 149 patients with prospective diagnosis of gastric cancer who underwent laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) combined with Billroth-II anastomosis and D2 lymph node dissection between 2017 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into the preserved LADG group (P-LADG, n = 56) and the resected LADG group (R-LADG, n = 93) according to whether the vagus nerve celiac branch was preserved. We selected 56 patients (P-LADG, n = 56) with preservation of the celiac branch of the vagus nerve and 56 patients (R-LADG, n = 56) with removal of the celiac branch of the vagus nerve by propensity-matched score method. Postoperative nutritional status, weight change, short-term and long-term postoperative complications, and gallstone formation were evaluated in both groups at 5 years of postoperative follow-up. The status of residual gastritis and bile reflux was assessed endoscopically at 12 months postoperatively.ResultsThe incidence of diarrhea at 5 years postoperatively was lower in the P-LADG group than in the R-LADG group (p < 0.05). In the multivariate logistic analysis, the removal of vagus nerve celiac branch was an independent risk factor for the occurrence of postoperative diarrhea (odds ratio = 3.389, 95% confidential interval = 1.143-10.049, p = 0.028). In the multivariate logistic analysis, the removal of vagus nerve celiac branch was an independent risk factor for the occurrence of postoperative diarrhea (odds ratio = 4.371, 95% confidential interval = 1.418-13.479, p = 0.010).ConclusionsPreservation of the celiac branch of the vagus nerve in LADG reduced the incidence of postoperative diarrhea postoperatively in gastric cancer.Trial registrationThis study was registered with the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University in 2014 under the registration number: LCKY2014-04(X).

Five-Year Survival Outcomes of Laparoscopy-Assisted vs Open Distal Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer

Evidence of implementation of laparoscopic gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer is currently insufficient, as the primary end point in previous prospective studies was evaluated at a median follow-up time of 3 years. More robust evidence is necessary to verify noninferiority of laparoscopic gastrectomy. To compare 5-year survival outcomes between laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) and open distal gastrectomy (ODG) with D2 lymph node dissection for locally advanced gastric cancer. This was a multicenter, open-label, noninferiority, prospective randomized clinical trial. Between November 26, 2009, and July 29, 2016, eligible patients with histologically proven gastric carcinoma from 37 institutes in Japan were enrolled. Two interim analyses and final analysis were performed in October 2014, May 2018, and November 2021, respectively. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the ODG or LADG group. The procedures were performed exclusively by qualified surgeons. The primary end point was 5-year relapse-free survival, and the noninferiority margin for the hazard ratio (HR) was set at 1.31. The secondary end points were 5-year overall survival and safety. A total of 502 patients were included in the full-analysis set: 254 (50.6%) in the ODG group and 248 (49.4%) in the LADG group. Patients in the ODG group had a median (IQR) age of 67 (33-80) years and included 168 males (66.1%). Patients in the LADG group had a median (IQR) age of 64 (34-80) years and included 169 males (68.1%). No significant differences were observed in severe postoperative complications between the 2 groups in the safety analysis (ODG, 4.7% [11 of 233] vs LADG, 3.5% [8 of 227]; P = .64). The median (IQR) follow-up for all patients after randomization was 67.9 (60.3-92.0) months. The 5-year relapse-free survival was 73.9% (95% CI, 68.7%-79.5%) and 75.7% (95% CI, 70.5%-81.2%) for the ODG and LADG groups, respectively, and the HR was 0.96 (90% CI, 0.72-1.26; noninferiority 1-sided P = .03). Further, no significant difference was observed in overall survival time between the 2 groups, and the HR was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.57-1.21; P = .34). The pattern of recurrence was similar between the 2 groups. Results of this study show that on the basis of 5-year follow-up data, LADG with D2 lymph node dissection for locally advanced gastric cancer, when performed by qualified surgeons, was proved noninferior to ODG. This laparoscopic approach could become a standard treatment for locally advanced gastric cancer. UMIN Clinical Trial Registry: UMIN000003420.

Effectiveness and safety of self-pulling and latter transected Roux-en-Y reconstruction in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

BackgroundSelf-pulling and latter transection (SPLT) reconstruction has been applied in total laparoscopic total gastrectomy and BI reconstruction (known as Delta SPLT) in total laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) in some previous studies. This approach can reduce the technical difficulty of the surgery as well as the quantity of cartridges required, with manageable safety. Here, we used SPLT to complete Roux-en-Y reconstruction in TLDG and evaluated the safety and effectiveness of this novel method by comparing it with conventional Roux-en-Y reconstruction in laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG).MethodsPatients with gastric cancer who underwent SPLT-TLDG or LADG between June 2019 and September 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline information and postoperative short-term surgical outcomes of the two groups were compared.ResultsA total of 114 patients with gastric cancer were included in the study. Patients underwent SPLT-TLDG (n = 73, 64.0%) or LADG (n = 41, 36.0%). No patient underwent open surgery. There were no differences in patient demographics or tumor characteristics between the two groups. The mean intraoperative blood loss was 47.1 ± 34.3 ml in the SPLT-TLDG group, which was significantly less than that in the LADG group (P = 0.022). There were no significant differences in operation time, harvested lymph nodes, time to first flatus, time to liquid intake, or postoperative hospital stay between the two groups. Nine and five patients had short-term postoperative complications in the SPLT-TLDG and LADG groups, respectively.ConclusionWe introduced a self-pulling and latter transected Roux-en-Y reconstruction (SPLT-RY) for use in TLDG. We showed that SPLT-RY reconstruction in TLDG is a safe and feasible surgical method in terms of short-term surgical outcomes and has the advantages of simplifying the reconstruction.

Surgical and short-term outcomes in robotic and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer with enhanced recovery after surgery protocol: A propensity score matching analysis.

ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) and robot-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) for gastric cancer (GC) with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols.MethodsWe reviewed the medical records of 202 patients undergoing radical distal gastrectomy; among them, 67 cases were assisted through RADG, while 135 cases were assisted through LADG along with ERAS. We retrospectively collected the medical records in succession from a database (January 2016–March 2019). We adopted propensity score matching to compare surgical and short-term outcomes of both groups.ResultsAfter the successful examination of 134 cases, including 67 receiving RADG and 67 undergoing LADG, the operative times were noted as 5.78 ± 0.96 h for the RADG group and 4.47 ± 1.01 h for the LADG group (P < 0.001). The blood loss was noted as 125.52 ± 101.18 ml in the RADG group and 164.93 ± 109.32 ml in the LADG group (P < 0.05). The shorter time to first flatus was 38.82 ± 10.56 h in the RADG group and 42.88 ± 11.25 h in the LADG group (P < 0.05). In contrast, shorter days of postoperative hospital stay were 5.94 ± 1.89 days in the RADG group and 6.64 ± 1.92 days in the LADG group (P < 0.05). Also, the RADG group (84483.03 ± 9487.37) was much more costly than the LADG group (65258.13 ± 8928.33) (P < 0.001). The postoperative overall complication rates, numbers of dissected lymph nodes, visual analogue scale (VAS), and time to start a liquid diet for the RADG group and the LADG group were similar.ConclusionsIn this research, we concluded that RADG provides surgical benefits and short-term outcomes compared to LADG for GC with ERAS.

Surgical and oncological outcomes of robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score‑matched analysis of 1164 patients

BackgroundStudies on surgical outcomes after robotic surgery are increasing; however, long-term oncological results of studies comparing robotic-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) are still limited. This study aimed to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of RADG and LADG for the treatment of AGC.MethodsA total of 1164 consecutive AGC patients undergoing RADG or LADG were enrolled between January 2015 and October 2021. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. The perioperative and oncological outcomes between the two groups were compared.ResultsPatient’s characteristics were comparable between the two groups after PSM. RADG group represented a longer operative time (205.2 ± 43.1 vs 185.3 ± 42.8 min, P < 0.001), less operative blood loss (139.3 ± 97.8 vs 167.3 ± 134.2 ml, P < 0.001), greater retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) number (31.4 ± 12.1 vs 29.4 ± 12.3, P = 0.015), more retrieved LNs in the supra-pancreatic areas (13.4 ± 5.0 vs 11.4 ± 5.1, P < 0.001), and higher medical costs (13,608 ± 4326 vs 10,925 ± US $3925, P < 0.001) than LADG group. The overall complication rate was 13.7% in the RADG group and 16.6% in the LADG group, respectively; the difference was not significantly different (P = 0.242). In the subgroup analysis, the benefits of RADG were more evident in high BMI patients. Moreover, the 3-year overall survival (75.5% vs 73.1%, P = 0.471) and 3-year disease-free survival (72.9% vs 71.4%, P = 0.763) were similar between the two groups.ConclusionRADG appears to be a safe and feasible procedure and could serve as an alternative treatment for AGC in experienced centers.

Comparing short-term outcomes after totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy and laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with Billroth I anastomosis: early experience of a single institution.

PurposeTo determine the safety and feasibility of totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) with modified delta-shaped anastomosis, we compared the short-term outcomes of TLDG to those of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with Billroth I anastomosis.MethodsWe analyzed the characteristics of 85 patients with gastric cancer who underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with Billroth I anastomosis between January 2013 and December 2018. After propensity score matching, each group had 35 patients.ResultsOf these 85 patients, 44 underwent TLDG and 41 underwent LADG. Propensity score matching was performed with three covariates (age, underlying disease, and hypertension), and 35 patients from each group were matched 11. After matching, the TLDG group was older than the LADG group (64.5 ± 10.6 years vs. 56.3 ± 11.2 years, p = 0.003) and had more patients with hypertension (57.1% vs. 22.9%, p = 0.003). Tumors were larger in the TLDG group than in the LADG group (23.4 ± 16.2 mm vs. 16.0 ± 7.9 mm, p = 0.018). A greater proportion of patients had fever in the TLDG group than the LADG group (42.9% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.039), and C-reactive protein from postoperative days 3 to 6 was greater in the TLDG group (11.4 ± 5.7 mg/dL vs. 7.0 ± 5.0 mg/dL, p = 0.001).ConclusionAlthough our data represent only our early experience performing TLDG with modified delta-shaped anastomosis, this procedure is relatively safe and feasible. Nevertheless, compared to LADG, which is the conventional method, the operative time for TLDG was longer. Surgeons must also watch out for anastomotic complications.

Quality of life after laparoscopic sentinel node navigation surgery in early gastric cancer: a single-center cohort study.

To investigate the quality of life (QOL) of patients after laparoscopic sentinel node navigation surgery (SNNS) compared to conventional laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) in early gastric cancer patients. Patients recruited for laparoscopic SNNS surgery between July 2010 and April 2013 were assessed for their QOL. A historical control group was established, consisting of patients who underwent conventional LADG with radical lymphadenectomy from the same institution. QOL questionnaire was taken serially from preoperative week 1 until 12months postoperatively (1, 3, 6, and 12months) using the Korean version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QOL questionnaire-core (QLQ-C30) and gastric cancer-specific questionnaire (STO22). A total of 80 prospectively gathered patients who received SNNS were categorized into the comparison group (SNNS group). The QOL was compared with 78 patients identified to have received LADG from the gastric cancer database of our institution and were sorted into the control group (LADG group). In QLQ-C30, SNNS group showed better functioning scales in all except role functioning and better scores from the symptom scales in fatigue, insomnia, and diarrhea compared to the LADG group. In QLQ-STO22, scores on dysphagia, eating restriction, anxiety, and body image disturbance were better in SNNS group. Postoperative QOL in laparoscopic gastrectomy combined with SNNS is superior compared to conventional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in patients with stage I gastric cancer.

Robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer based on propensity score matching: short-term outcomes at a high-capacity center

Reports in the field of robotic surgery for gastric cancer are increasing. However, studies only on patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) are lacking. This retrospective study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) and laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC. From December 2014 to November 2019, 683 consecutive patients with AGC underwent mini-invasive assisted distal gastrectomy. Propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to reduce patient selection bias. Short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. The clinical features were well matched in the PSM cohort. Compared with the LADG group, the RADG group was associated with less operative blood loss, a lower rate of postoperative blood transfusion, less volume of abdominal drainage, less time to remove abdominal drainage tube, retrieved more lymph node, and lower rates of surgical complications and pancreatic fistula (P <0.05). However, the time to recovery bowel function, the length of postoperative stay, the rates of other subgroups of complications and unplanned readmission were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05). This study suggests that RADG is a safe and feasible technique with better short-term outcomes than LADG for AGC.

Survival outcomes after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy versus open distal gastrectomy with nodal dissection for clinical stage IA or IB gastric cancer (JCOG0912): a multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 randomised controlled trial

Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) is increasingly being used as an alternative to open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for gastric cancer treatment. Retrospective studies have shown equivalent survival with the two procedures, but these studies are limited by selection bias because LADG is more technically difficult than ODG. We aimed to evaluate whether LADG was non-inferior to ODG in terms of long-term survival outcomes. We did an open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 randomised controlled trial at 33 institutions in Japan. Patients aged 20-80 years with histologically confirmed gastric adenocarcinoma (T1N0, T1N1, or T2[MP]N0), clinical stage I, in the middle or lower third of the stomach, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, with a body-mass index of less than 30 kg/m2, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ODG or LADG. Randomisation was done by telephone, fax, or with a web-based system in the Japan Clinical Oncology Group Data Center; a minimisation method with a random component was used to adjust for institution and clinical stage (IA or IB). Only study-accredited surgeons performed ODG and LADG. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival and was analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The non-inferiority margin (LADG vs ODG) was set at a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·54. The trial was registered with the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000003319. Between March 15, 2010, and Nov 29, 2013, 921 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ODG (n=459) or LADG (n=462). 912 (99%) participants had the assigned surgery. 5-year relapse-free survival was 94·0% (95% CI 91·4-95·9) in the ODG group and 95·1% (92·7-96·8) in the LADG group. LADG was non-inferior to ODG for relapse-free survival (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·56-1·27]), p=0·0075). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event was bowel obstruction, occurring in 11 (2%) of 455 patients in the ODG group and five (1%) of 457 patients in the LADG group. There were no treatment-related deaths. This trial supports the non-inferiority of LADG compared with ODG for clinical stage I gastric cancer relapse-free survival, suggesting that LADG should be considered a standard treatment option when performed by experienced surgeons. Japan National Cancer Center, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development.

Recent Status of Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy in Korea: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study (Pre-study Survey of KLASS-07 Trial).

Purpose: To analyze the surgical trend and brief postoperative results of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) in Korea on the basis of a multicenter cohort.Materials and Methods: Data of 812 patients who underwent LDG between January and December 2016 were collected from 14 surgeons at 7 institutions. Patients were divided into laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) group and totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) group. Perioperative and clinicopathologic outcomes were compared retrospectively.Results: Among the patients [n = 222 (27.3%) LADG; n = 590 (72.7%) TLDG], there are no significant differences in patient's demographics (sex, age, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score). Billroth-I anastomosis (84.7%) was most performed in the LADG group, but Billroth-II anastomosis (59.0%) in the TLDG group (p < 0.001). The mean operative time was longer in the TLDG group (197.3 ± 44.4 min vs. 222.0 ± 60.2 min, p < 0.001), and there was no statistical difference in the hospital stay between the two groups (9.6 ± 4.8 days vs. 8.9 ± 7.1 days, p = 0.149). There were no significant differences in morbidity and mortality between the two groups. The length of proximal margin was longer in the TLDG group (4.3 ± 3.1 cm vs. 6.0 ± 3.4 cm, p < 0.001), but the distal margin was longer in the LADG group (6.5 ± 3.7 cm vs. 5.5 ± 3.1 cm, p < 0.001). The distribution of operations among each institution was shown very heterogeneously.Conclusion: There was no significant difference related to surgical outcome between LADG and TLDG in pre-study survey prior to KLASS-07 trial. Therefore, to obtain more reliable data, well designed prospective randomized controlled study is needed.

Assessment of Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer

Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy are increasingly used to treat locally advanced gastric cancer. However, the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic procedure after neoadjuvant chemotherapy remain unclear. To evaluate the short-term outcomes of patients with locally advanced gastric cancer who received either laparoscopic distal gastrectomy or open distal gastrectomy. Between April 23, 2015, and November 16, 2017, a phase 2, open-label, noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Gastrointestinal Cancer Center of Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute in Beijing, China. Patients (n = 96) between 18 and 80 years of age with locally advanced gastric cancer (cT2-4aN+M0) who were receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy were enrolled and randomized. An as-treated population and a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population were defined for the data analysis. Patients were randomized to undergo either laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with D2 lymphadenectomy or open distal gastrectomy (ODG) with D2 lymphadenectomy. The primary end point was 3-year recurrence-free survival rate. Secondary end points were surgical radicality, 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality, 2-week postoperative recovery indexes, and adjuvant chemotherapy completion status. In total, 95 patients were eligible for as-treated analyses (LADG: 45, of whom 13 were female [29%], with a median [interquartile range (IQR)] age of 59 [52-65] years; ODG: 50, of whom 16 were female [32%], with a median [IQR] age of 61 [55-64] years) and mITT analyses (LADG: 47, of whom 14 were female [30%], with a median [IQR] age of 59 [52-65] years; ODG: 48, of whom 15 were female [31%], with a median [IQR] age of 61 [55-64] years). In the as-treated analyses, the LADG group had a significantly lower postoperative complication rate than the ODG group (20% vs 46%; P = .007). The postoperative visual analog scale score for pain was 1.2 units lower on postoperative day 2 only in the LADG group (95% CI, -2.1 to -0.3; P = .008). Patients in the LADG group had better adjuvant chemotherapy completion (adjusted odds ratio, 4.39; 95% CI, 1.63-11.80; P = .003) and were less likely to terminate adjuvant chemotherapy because of adverse effects (10 [22%] vs 21 [42%]; P = .04). The mITT analyses showed similar results to as-treated analyses. This trial found that LADG appears to offer the benefits of better postoperative safety and adjuvant chemotherapy tolerance compared with ODG for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02404753.

Laparoscopy Assisted Distal Gastrectomy Versus Open Distal Gastrectomy for Patients with Gastric Cancer in A Middle Resources Country

Background:Laparoscopic surgery with a small laparotomy has several advantages over conventional open surgery, including less invasiveness, less pain, earlier recovery, and better cosmoses. The aim of this study was to compare technical feasibility and early clinical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy in comparison with open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer in a developing country. Patients and methods :In this retrospective study, patients with distal gastric cancer were divided into two groups (a) patients underwent laparoscopy assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) (21 patients) and (b) open distal gastrectomy (ODG) (21 patients). For the postoperative pathologic results, the tumor-nodal-metastasis (TNM) stage, grade of tumor differentiation, distal and proximal margins, the number of harvested lymph nodes were evaluated. Staging was done according to the 7th edition of the UICC tumor, node, and metastasis (TNM) classification. D1/D2 lymphadenectomy with curative R0 intention was attempted in all cases. Perioperative mortality and morbidity were assessed. Results:The time to initiate oral intake, and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the LADG group than in the ODG group (P &lt; 0.001). The operative time in the LADG group was significantly less than that of the ODG group (P = 0.05). Blood loss and blood transfusion frequency were significantly lower (P &lt; 0.0001) in the LADG group in comparison to ODG group. Conclusion:Laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy for distal gastric cancer could be safe and feasible technique alternative to open gastrectomy in a middle income country, with at least similar short term surgical and oncological results. However, laparoscopic gastric surgery is in need to adequate training and technical support especially in D2 lymphadenectomy.

Comparison of Postoperative Pain in Laparoscopy-Assisted Distal Gastrectomy and Totally Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy by Location of Mini-Laparotomy Site

PurposeWe aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and determine the degree of postoperative pain associated with the location of mini-laparotomy sites in gastric cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) or totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG).MethodsBetween November 2011 and December 2016, 153 patients who underwent surgery for gastric cancer at Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong were reviewed retrospectively. We divided the patients into LADG with epigastric incision, TLDG with umbilical incision (TLDG_U), and TLDG with Pfannenstiel incision (TLDG_P) groups according to the location of incision for anastomosis and specimen removal. There were 37 cases in the LADG group, 85 in the TLDG_U group, and 31 in the TLDG_P group. The clinical characteristics, numeric rating scale (NRS) scores, and postoperative analgesic usage for 7 days of the three groups were compared.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference in clinical characteristics including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), TNM staging, and complications among the three groups. There was no significant difference in the amount of total analgesics received; however, the TLDG_P group received more analgesics (5.26±5.053, p=0.412) during the first 7 postoperative days. The TLDG_P group showed higher NRS scores on postoperative days 0, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (p=0.04, 0.001, 0.003, 0.006, and 0.002 respectively).ConclusionLaparoscopic distal gastrectomy can be performed through various incision sites for increasing the safety of mini-laparotomy. However, a Pfannenstiel incision was shown to be more painful than other incisions.

A propensity score-matched comparison of laparoscopic distal versus total gastrectomy for middle-third advanced gastric cancer

BackgroundThe optimal resection extent for middle-third advanced gastric cancer (AGC) still remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) versus laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for middle-third AGC. MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from 464 patients who underwent LADG or LATG between September 2007 and March 2013. Propensity score matching (PSM) were used for reducing the confounding effects to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes between two groups. Cox regression analysis was performed to clarify the prognostic factors. ResultsAfter PSM was performed, a well-balanced cohort of 376 patients (188 LADG and 188 LATG) was further analyzed. Of interest, the LADG group had a significantly shorter operative time (244.6 ± 28.0 vs. 259.1 ± 30.1, P < 0.0001), less operative blood loss (142.9 ± 50.9 vs. 157.8 ± 54.1, P = 0.006), earlier day of first flatus (2.6 ± 0.8 vs. 2.9 ± 0.9, P = 0.014), fewer number of retrieved lymph nodes (36.5 ± 7.9 vs. 41.4 ± 9.8, P < 0.0001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (9.7 ± 1.3 vs. 10.7 ± 1.4, P < 0.0001) than the LATG group. However, no significant differences were observed in days of eating liquid diet (P = 0.626) and days of eating soft diet (P = 0.353). The incidence of overall and severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa) following the LADG group were significantly fewer than the LATG group (overall, 24.5% vs. 34.6%, P = 0.032; severe, 4.8% vs. 11.2%, P = 0.022). In addition, the LADG group had significantly more favorable overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates than the LATG group (5-year OS rate, 55.6% vs. 41.8%, P = 0.002; 5-year DFS rate, 45.9% vs. 32.8%, P < 0.001). In multivariate analyses, resection extent was not an independent prognostic factor for OS and DFS. ConclusionsThis PSM cohort analysis has indicated LADG with D2 lymphadenectomy appeared to be safe and reasonable option for patients with middle-third AGC in general. LADG could contribute to improved survival.

Effectiveness and safety of total laparoscopic distal gastrectomy versus laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A retrospective cohort study

AimTo compare the results of total laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) and laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) and explore the safety and feasibility of TLDG. MethodsData were collected and analyzed from patients underwent TLDG and LADG from January 2009 to December 2011 at our institution. Results127 LADG cases and 104 TLDG cases were included and balanced for age, sex, BMI, ASA scores, and CEA level in this study. A decrease in postoperative pain (P < 0.001), wound infection rate (P = 0.013), and hospitalization time after surgery (P < 0.001) was found in the TLDG group. Compared with the LADG group, there was no increase in operative time (P = 0.084), intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.061), or anastomotic fistula rate (P = 0.473). Statistical differences did not exist in recurrence and (or) metastasis (P = 0.204), 5-years disease-free survival (DFS) rate and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.570 and 0.560, respectively). ConclusionAs long as it follows the surgical principles of malignant tumor, TLDG can achieve the same therapeutic effect as LADG does. TLDG is safe and feasible for gastric cancer patients though further studies are needed.

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

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. 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. 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 30days showed no significant difference between the groups (LADG 15.7% vs. ODG 13.0%; p = 0.281). Age over 65years old, blood loss > 200ml, postoperative complication, and advanced T and N stage were identified as independent risk factors for DFS and OS. 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.

Feasibility of Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Stage I Gastric Cancer in Patients Outside of Clinical Trials

BackgroundRandomized controlled trials, including the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) 0912 trial, have shown the safety of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for select healthy patients. It is unclear whether LADG is feasible in patients who do not meet trial eligibility criteria. MethodsThe present study retrospectively reviewed 547 patients with clinical stage I gastric cancer who underwent distal or pylorus-preserving gastrectomy. Of these, 185 were identified as not fulfilling the eligibility criteria of JCOG 0912; the short-term surgical outcomes between LADG and open distal gastrectomy (ODG) were compared in this group before and after propensity score matching. ResultsPatients who were not eligible for inclusion in the trial comprised 33.8% of the total. After matching, there were 59 patients each in the LADG and ODG groups, with an improved balance of confounding factors between the two groups. LADG was associated with significantly longer operation time, less blood loss, and shorter postoperative hospital stay than ODG. The rate of overall postoperative complications of Clavien–Dindo Grade II or higher did not differ significantly between the LADG and ODG groups (23.7 vs. 18.6%, respectively; p=0.653). The incidence of pneumonia (6.8 vs. 5.1%), intra-abdominal infectious complications (5.1 vs. 3.4%), and stasis syndrome (5.1 vs. 3.4%) was also comparable between the two groups. ConclusionLADG was as safe as ODG in patients who did not meet the eligibility criteria of JCOG 0912. LADG could be a standard treatment option for patients with stage I gastric cancer, regardless of their general condition.

A comparative study of totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy in gastric cancer patients: Short-term operative outcomes at a high-volume center.

ObjectiveLaparoscopic gastrectomy has been established as a standard treatment for early gastric cancer, and its use is increasing recently. Compared with the conventional laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG), totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) involves intracorporeal reconstruction, which can avoid the additional incision, resulting in pain reduction and early recovery. This study aimed to compare the short-term postoperative outcomes of TLDG vs. LADG in gastric cancer in a high-volume center. MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted on 1,322 patients who underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy from June 2012 to June 2017 at the National Cancer Center, Korea. LADG was performed in the early period before July 2015, and TLDG was applied in the later period. Postoperative short-term outcomes were compared in terms of complication and clinical course between the two groups. Pain score was measured by rating the pain intensity from 0 to 10 points on postoperative day (POD) 1 and 3.ResultsA total of 667 patients underwent LADG and 655 patients underwent TLDG. Clinicopathologic characteristics were not different in both groups. Intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL) was significantly lower in the TLDG group (P<0.001). Postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the TLDG group than in the LADG group on POD 1 (5.1±1.5vs. 4.8±1.4, P=0.015). First flatus passage after operation was significantly earlier in the TLDG group (3.4±0.8 d vs. 3.2±0.6 d, P<0.001). There were no differences in postoperative complications and hospital stay between the two groups. ConclusionsBased on the reported short-term postoperative outcomes, TLDG is safe and feasible as well as LADG. Moreover, compared with LADG, TLDG can reduce intraoperative EBL and postoperative pain and enhance the bowel motility in gastric cancer surgery.

A propensity score matched case-control comparative study of totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy and laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer

Intracorporeal anastomosis remains a difficult procedure. This study was designed to clarify the advantage of totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) compared with laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) regarding short-term surgical outcomes. We retrospectively identified 273 patients who were preoperatively diagnosed with early gastric cancer and underwent LADG or TLDG between March 2010 and May 2016. A propensity score matching analysis was used to create patient groups matched for sex, age, body mass index, previous abdominal surgery history, and American Society of Anesthesiologist score. The TLDG group showed statistically shorter operative time (250.9 ± 4.6 min vs. 281.8 ± 7.3 min, p = 0.000), lower estimated blood loss (77.6 ± 3.3 ml vs. 122.4 ± 6.2 ml, p = 0.000), and shorter time to first flatus after surgery (2.9 ± 0.1 days vs. 3.2 ± 0.1 days, p = 0.001) compared with the LADG group. However, there was no specific superiority in terms of the inflammatory profiles on postoperative days 1, 2, 4, and 7 between the two groups. Complication rates were also similar in the two groups (13.3% LADG vs. 6.1% TLDG). This study shows that TLDG for early gastric cancer is a safe surgical procedure and superior in cosmesis compared with LADG.

Short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted versus totally laparoscopic Billroth-II gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a matched-cohort study

BackgroundTo evaluate feasibility and benefits of intracorporeal anastomosis, we compared short-term surgical outcomes between laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) and totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) with Billroth-II (B-II) anastomosis for gastric cancer.MethodsSixty patients underwent attempted B-II TLDG from 2011 through 2013. Patients who underwent B-II LADG prior to 2011 were matched to TLDG cases for demographics, comorbidities, tumor characteristics, and TNM stage. Perioperative and short-term surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups.ResultsClinicopathological characteristics of both groups were comparable. The B-II TLDG group had a shorter hospital stay (9.4 vs. 12.0 days, P = 0.038) and average incision size was smaller (3.5 vs. 5.4 cm, P = 0.030) than in the B-II LADG group. Anastomotic leakage was not recorded in either group, and there were no differences in the rates of perioperative complications and in inflammatory parameters between the two groups.ConclusionsThis study suggests that B-II TLDG is feasible, compared to B-II LADG, and that it has several advantages over LADG, including a smaller incision, a shorter hospital stay, and more convenience during surgery. However, prospective randomized controlled studies are still needed to confirm that B-II TLDG can be used as a standard procedure for LDG.