Open Gastrectomy Group Research Articles

Surgical options and survival prognosis in geriatric patients beyond average lifespan with locally advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.

The appropriateness of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for super-geriatric patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) is inconclusive, and the prognostic factors are also yet to be elucidated. Herein, we aimed to investigate the surgical and oncological outcomes of LG versus open gastrectomy (OG) for geriatric patients with LAGC who have outlived the average lifespan of the Chinese population (≥ 78years). This is a monocentric, retrospective, comparative study. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to minimize selection bias and ensure well-balanced characteristics. The primary endpoint of interest was 3-year overall survival, while secondary endpoints included procedure-related variables, postoperative recovery indices, and complications. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to identify unfavorable prognostic factors. Of 196 eligible individuals, 107 underwent LG and 89 underwent OG, with a median age (interquartile range [IQR]) of 82 [79, 84] years. PSM yielded 61 matched pairs, with comparable demographic and tumor characteristics. The LG group had a significantly lower overall complication rate than the OG group (31.1% vs. 49.2%, P = 0.042), as well as shorter duration of postoperative hospital stay [12 (11, 13) vs. 13 (12, 15.5) d, P < 0. 001], less intraoperative blood loss [95 (75, 150) vs. 230 (195, 290) mL, P < 0.001], but a longer operative time [228 (210, 255.5) vs. 196 (180, 219.5) min, P < 0.001]. The times to first aerofluxus, defecation, liquid diet, and half-liquid diet were comparable. Kaplan-Meier analyses revealed no significant difference in 3-year overall survival between the groups, either in the entire cohort or in subgroups with different TNM staging. Moreover, Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index scores of > 6 [hazard ratio (HR) 4.003; P = 0.021] and pathologic TNM stage III (HR 3.816, P = 0.023) were independent unfavorable prognostic factors for long-term survival. LG performed by experienced surgeons offers the benefits of comparable or better surgical and oncological safety profiles than OG for super-geriatric patients with LAGC.

Cost Analysis for Robotic and Open Gastrectomy.

To determine the magnitude of the perioperative costs associated with robotic gastrectomy (RG). A robotic surgery platform has a high implementation cost and requires maintenance costs; however, whether the overall cost of RG, including all perioperative costs, is higher than conventional open gastrectomy (OG) remains unknown. Patients who underwent a major gastrectomy during February 2018 through December 2021 were retrospectively identified. We calculated the perioperative costs of RG and OG and compared them overall as well as in different phases, including intraoperative costs and 30-day postsurgery inpatient and outpatient costs. We investigated factors potentially associated with high cost and estimated the likelihood of RG to reduce overall cost under a Bayesian framework. All cost data were converted to ratios to the average cost of all operations performed at our center in year FY2021. We identified 119 patients who underwent gastrectomy. The incidence of postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo >IIIa; RG, 10% vs OG, 13%) did not significantly differ between approaches. The median length of stay was 3 days shorter for RG versus OG (4 vs 7 days, P < 0.001). Intraoperative cost ratios were significantly higher for RG (RG, 2.6 vs OG, 1.7; P < 0.001). However, postoperative hospitalization cost ratios were significantly lower for RG (RG, 2.8 vs OG, 3.9; P < 0.001). Total perioperative cost ratios were similar between groups (RG, 6.1 vs OG, 6.4; P = 0.534). The multiple Bayesian generalized linear analysis showed RG had 76.5% posterior probability of overall perioperative cost reduction (adjusted risk ratio of 0.95; 95% credible interval, 0.85-1.07). Despite increased intraoperative costs, total perioperative costs in the RG group were similar to those in the OG group because of reduced postoperative hospitalization costs.

Disparities of tumour markers in intraperitoneal drainage fluid between laparoscopic and open radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Despite the remarkable progress in minimally invasive surgery, the potential association between laparoscopic gastrectomy and the risk of peritoneal metastasis remains uncertain. To investigate variations in tumour markers in intraperitoneal drainage fluid between laparoscopic radical gastrectomy and open radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. A total of 106 patients diagnosed with gastric cancer between July 2018 and November 2020 were included in this study, 45 of whom underwent laparoscopic radical gastrectomy (laparoscopic group) and 61 underwent open radical gastrectomy (open group). Variations in the levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen 125 (CA125), cancer antigen 199 (CA199), and α-fetoprotein (AFP) in the intraperitoneal drainage fluid were compared and analysed on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 2, 3, and 5 between the two groups. Additionally, the postoperative 3-year survival rates between the two groups were compared and analysed. No significant differences in CEA, CA199, and AFP levels in the intraperitoneal drainage fluid were observed between the two groups on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 2, 3, and 5 (p > 0.05). However, the level of CA125 in the intraperitoneal drainage fluid of the laparoscopic group was notably higher than that of the open group on POD 2 (p < 0.05); however, there were no significant differences between the two groups on PODs 1, 3, and 5 (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the 3-year postoperative survival rates between the two groups. There were no significant differences in CEA, CA125, CA199, and AFP levels in the intraperitoneal drainage fluid between laparoscopic radical gastrectomy and open radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer, confirming from another perspective that laparoscopic radical gastrectomy does not increase the risk of intraperitoneal metastasis.

Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is widely accepted as a minimally invasive approach for the treatment of early gastric cancer. However, its role in locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of LG vs open gastrectomy (OG) after NAT for the treatment of LAGC. AIM To compare the efficacy and safety of LG vs OG after NAT for LAGC. METHODS We conducted a prospective study of 76 patients with LAGC who underwent NAT followed by LG (n = 38) or OG (n = 38) between 2021 and 2023. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), surgical complications, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS The two groups had comparable baseline characteristics, with a median follow-up period of 24 mo. The 3-year OS rates in the LG and OG groups were 68.4% and 60.5%, respectively (P = 0.42). The 3-year DFS rates in the LG and OG groups were 57.9% and 50.0%, respectively (P = 0.51). The LG group had significantly less blood loss (P &lt; 0.001), a shorter hospital stay (P &lt; 0.001), and a lower incidence of surgical site infection (P = 0.04) than the OG group. There were no significant differences in other surgical complications between the groups, including anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, or wound dehiscence. The LG group had significantly better QOL scores than the OG group regarding physical functioning, role functioning, global health status, fatigue, pain, appetite loss, and body image at 6 months postoperatively (P &lt; 0.05). CONCLUSION LG after NAT is a viable and safe alternative to OG for the treatment of LAGC, with similar survival outcomes and superior short-term recovery and QOL. LG patients had less blood loss, shorter hospitalizations, and a lower incidence of surgical site infections than OG patients. Moreover, the LG group had better QOL scores in multiple domains 6 mo postoperatively. Therefore, LG should be considered a valid option for patients with LAGC who undergo NAT, particularly for those who prioritize postoperative recovery and QOL.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a comprehensive contrastive analysis with propensity score matching

BackgroundLaparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is increasingly applied in locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC). However, there is no study to comprehensively evaluate the clinicopathological, prognostic, and laboratory data such as nutrition, immune, inflammation-associated indexes, and tumor markers between LG and open gastrectomy (OG) for LAGC following NC.MethodsThe clinicopathological, prognostic, and laboratory data of LAGC patients with clinical stage of cT2-4aN1-3M0 who underwent gastrectomy after NC were retrospectively collected. The effects of LG and OG were compared after propensity score matching (PSM).ResultsThis study enrolled 148 cases, of which 110 cases were included after PSM. The LG group had a shorter length of incision (P < 0.001) and was superior to OG group in terms of blood loss (P < 0.001), postoperative first flatus time (P < 0.001), and postoperative first liquid diet time (P = 0.004). No significant difference was found in postoperative complications (P = 0.482). Laboratory results showed that LG group had less reduced red blood cells (P = 0.039), hemoglobin (P = 0.018), prealbumin (P = 0.010) in 3 days after surgery, and less reduced albumin in 1 day (P = 0.029), 3 days (P = 0.015), and 7 days (P = 0.035) after surgery than the OG group. The systemic immune-inflammation index and systemic inflammatory response index were not significantly different between the two groups. As for oncological outcomes, there were no significant differences in postoperative tumor markers of CEA (P = 0.791), CA199 (P = 0.499), and CA724 (P = 0.378). The 5-year relapse-free survival rates (P = 0.446) were 46.9% and 43.3% in the LG and OG groups, with the 5-year overall survival rates (P = 0.742) being 46.7% and 52.1%, respectively; the differences were not statistically significant. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that tumor size ≥ 4 cm (P = 0.021) and the absence of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (P = 0.012) were independent risk factors for overall survival.ConclusionsLG has faster gastrointestinal recovery, better postoperative nutritional status, and comparable oncological outcomes than OG, which can serve as an alternative surgical method for LAGC patients after NC.

Comparison of complications between laparoscopic and open gastrectomies for early gastric cancer by a nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study

The safety of laparoscopic gastrectomy compared with that of open surgery for the treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC) is unidentified on a national scale. We aimed to compare the morbidity between laparoscopic and open gastrectomies for pathological T1 gastric cancer based on nationwide survey data. Data of 14,076 patients who underwent gastric cancer surgery obtained from the 2019 Korean Gastric Cancer Association-led nationwide survey were used. For patients with pathological T1 gastric cancer, the clinical characteristics were compared between the laparoscopic and open gastrectomy groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to match the baseline characteristics of the groups. Among the 7765 patients with pathological T1 gastric cancer who underwent open or laparoscopic gastrectomy, 612 pairs were matched. After balancing the baseline characteristics, the laparoscopic gastrectomy group had a significantly longer operative time, less blood loss, greater number of harvested lymph nodes, shorter hospital stays, and comparable morbidity, compared with the open gastrectomy group (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.001, and P = 0.709, respectively). The surgical approach was not a risk factor for postoperative complication in logistic regression analysis. The PSM analysis with the 2019 Korean nationwide survey data demonstrated that laparoscopic gastrectomy showed comparable morbidity with open gastrectomy for EGC.

The Effect of Surgical Approach on Clinical Outcomes in 535 Patients with Remnant Gastric Cancer.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and open gastrectomy (OG) on clinical outcomes in patients with remnant gastric cancer (RGC). Materials and Methods: The databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were used to search for eligible studies from inception to April 1st, 2023. Hazard ratios (HRs), mean difference (MD), odds ratios (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled up to analyze. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) scores were used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. This study was performed with RevMan 5.3 (The Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom) software. Results: A total of 11 studies involving 535 RGC patients were included in this study. In terms of basic information, we found that the OG group had a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade (≥2) (OR = 0.24, I2 = 54%, 95% CI = 0.08-0.71, P = .01) than the LG group. In terms of postoperative outcomes, we found that the LG group had longer operative time (MD = 33.95, I2 = 58%, 95% CI = 15.05-52.85, P < .01), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = 5.08, I2 = 84%, 95% CI = -9.74 to -0.42, P = .03), shorter length of incision (MD = -7.15, I2 = 94%, 95% CI = -10.99 to -3.31, P < .01), earlier food intake (MD = -3.09, I2 = 76%, 95% CI = -4.84 to -1.35, P < .01), and earlier time to first flatus (MD = -0.84, I2 = 0%, 95% CI = -1.09 to -0.59, P < .01). We found that there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival (HR = 0.96, I2 = 0%, 95% CI = 0.48-1.93, P = .92) between the LG group and the OG group. Conclusion: LG for RGC patients had longer surgical time, shorter postoperative hospital stay, shorter length of incision, earlier food intake, and earlier time to first flatus.

Risk factors for hypokalemia and its association with postoperative recovery in patients scheduled for radical gastrectomy: a retrospective study

BackgroundHypokalemia is common in patients of various operations, especially gastrointestinal surgery, which seriously affects the safety and enhanced recovery after surgery. Our study aims to explore the risk factors of preoperative hypokalemia of radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer and analyze its impact on postoperative recovery.MethodsA total of 122 patients scheduled for radical gastrectomy from September, 2022 to December, 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the serum potassium level before skin incision, patients were divided into hypokalemia group (n = 64) and normokalemia group (n = 58). Factors including age, gender, BMI, ASA classification, glutamic pyruvic transaminase (ALT), glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (AST), creatinine, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), albumin, hypertension history, whether taking calcium channel blockers, β-receptor blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor antagonist (ARB), thiazide diuretics and other drugs, anemia history, diabetes mellitus history, inability to eat or intestinal obstruction, vomiting, diarrhea, hypokalemia on admission and whether under cooperation with clinical nurse specialist were compared between groups. Univariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine risk factors for hypokalemia with p < 0.2 included as a cutoff. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the influencing factors of preoperative hypokalemia for the indicators with differences. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the efficacy of the regression model. Primary exhaust time and defecation time after surgery were compared between the two groups.ResultsThe use of ACEI or ARB [OR 0.08, 95% CI (0.01 to 0.58), p = 0.012] and thiazide diuretics [OR 8.31, 95% CI (1.31 to 52.68), p = 0.025], inability to eat for more than 3 days or intestinal obstruction [OR 17.96, 95% CI (2.16 to 149.43), p = 0.008], diarrhea for more than 48 h [OR 6.21, 95% CI (1.18 to 32.61), p = 0.031] and hypokalemia on admission [OR 8.97, 95% CI (1.05 to 77.04), p = 0.046] were independent influencing factors of hypokalemia before skin incision. Primary postoperative exhaust time and defecation time was significantly longer in the hypokalemia group than in the normokalemia group, no matter after laparoscopic radical gastrectomy (p = 0.044, p = 0.045, respectively) or open radical gastrectomy (p = 0.033, p = 0.019, respectively).ConclusionEarly attention and management of serum potassium in patients undergoing radical gastrectomy can better reduce perioperative adverse reactions and promote recovery of gastrointestinal function.

Comparison of the clinical and prognosis risk factors between endoscopic resection and radical gastrectomy for early-stage gastric cancer

AimThis study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection (ESD/EMR), laparoscopic-assisted radical gastrectomy (LARG), and open radical gastrectomy (ORG) in early-stage gastric cancer.MethodsA total of 417 patients with early-stage gastric cancer who were admitted in two hospitals from January 1, 2014 to July 31, 2017 were selected; the patients were divided into the ESD/EMR group (139 cases), LARG group (108 cases), and ORG group (170 cases) according to the operation methods used. The baseline data, economic cost of health, oncologic characteristics, postoperative complications, 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival, and risk factors of death were compared and analyzed.ResultsNo significant difference was observed in the baseline data among the three patient groups (P > 0.05). The total hospitalization days, operation time, postoperative fluid intake time, hospitalization expenses, and proportion of antibiotic use rate in the ESD/EMR group were lesser than those in other groups (P < 0.05). The LARG group has a longer operation time and higher hospitalization expenses compared with the ORG group (P < 0.05), but the total hospitalization days, postoperative fluid intake time, proportion of antibiotic use, and lung infection status were consistent. The ESD/EMR group had a lower incidence of incision site infection and postoperative abdominal distension compared with that of the surgery groups (P < 0.05). Five patients required radical surgery after undergoing ESD/EMR (The patients had residual tissue margin cancer), while none of the patients had switched to ORG during LARG. Surgery had advantages over ESD/EMR in terms of lymph node dissection (P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in the postoperative complications such as upper gastrointestinal bleeding, perforation, incision hernia, reoperation and recurrence (P > 0.05). The 5-year postoperative survival rates of patients in the three groups were 94.2% (ESD/EMR), 93.5% (LARG), and 94.7% (ORG), respectively, with no significant differences (P > 0.05). The binary logistics multivariate analysis showed that the tumor size, invasion depth, vascular invasion, and differentiated degree were risk factors for death in patients with gastric cancer.ConclusionsNo significant difference was observed between ESD/EMR and radical surgery. However, standardized criteria for excluding metastatic lymph nodes should be established to promote ESD/EMR.

Clinical Impact of Laparoscopic Surgery on the Long-term Survival of Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients With Regard to Facilitating Doublet Adjuvant Chemotherapy.

The impact of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), a standard gastric cancer (GC) management strategy, in advanced GC cases involving doublet adjuvant chemotherapy remains unclear. This study was aimed at comparing short- and long-term LG and open gastrectomy (OG) results. Patients who underwent gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for stage II/III GC between 2013 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups: patients undergoing LG (n=96, LG-group) and OG (n=148, OG-group). The primary outcome was relapse-free survival (RFS). Compared with the OG group, the LG group was associated with a longer operation time (373 vs. 314 min, p<0.001), less blood loss (50 vs. 448 ml, p<0.001), fewer grade 3-4 complications (5.2 vs. 17.1%, p=0.005), and a shorter hospital stay (12 vs. 15 days, p<0.001). More lymph nodes were dissected in the LG group (49 vs. 40, p<0.001). The intergroup difference in prognosis was insignificant [5-year RFS: 60.4% (LG) vs. 63.1% (OG), p=0.825]. The LG group more frequently received doublet adjuvant chemotherapy (46.8 vs. 12.7%, p<0.001) and started treatments within 6 weeks after surgery (71.1% vs. 38.9%, p=0.017), and the completion rate of doublet AC was significantly higher in the LG group (85.4% vs. 58.8%, p=0.027). Compared to OG, LG for stage III GC tended to be associated with improved prognosis (HR=0.61, 95%CI=0.33-1.09, p=0.096). LG for advanced GC may facilitate doublet regimens due to favorable postoperative outcomes and its intervention may contribute to survival benefits.

Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a propensity score matching analysis.

This study was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in patients with locallyadvanced gastric cancer(LAGC) who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent gastrectomy for LAGC (cT2-4aN+M0) after NACT from January 2015 to December 2019. The patients were divided into a LG group and an open gastrectomy (OG) group. The short- and long-term outcomes in both groups were examined following propensity score matching. We retrospectively reviewed 288 patients with LAGC who underwent gastrectomy following NACT. Of these 288 patients, 218 were enrolled; after 1:1 propensity score matching, each group comprised 81 patients. The LG group had significantly lower estimated blood loss than the OG group [80 (50-110) vs. 280 (210-320) mL, P < 0.001) but a longer operation time [205 (186.5-222.5) vs. 182 (170-190) min, P < 0.001], a lower postoperative complication rate (24.7% vs. 42.0%, P = 0.002), and a shorter postoperative hospitalization period [8 (7-10) vs. 10 (8-11.5) days, P = 0.001]. Subgroup analysis revealed that patients who underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy had a lower rate of postoperative complications than patients in the OG group (18.8% vs. 38.6%, P = 0.034); however, such a pattern was not seen in patients who underwent total gastrectomy (32.3% vs. 45.9%, P = 0.251). The 3-year matched cohort analysis showed no significant difference in overall survival or recurrence-free survival (log-rank P = 0.816 and P = 0.726, respectively) (71.3% and 65.0% in OG vs. 69.1% and 61.7% in LG, respectively). In the short term, LG following NACT is safer and more effective than OG. However, the long-term results are comparable.

Comparison of laparoscopic and open radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients with GLIM-defined malnutrition.

Malnutrition is common in the patients with gastric cancer. Radical gastrectomy remained the primary strategy of curable treatment for gastric cancer. This study is performed to explore the effect of laparoscopic radical gastrectomy on clinical outcomes in gastric cancer patients with malnutrition. Gastric cancer patients with GLIM-defined malnutrition between 2014 and 2019at our center were enrolled. The patients were divided into two groups according to the different type of surgery. Propensity score match analysis was used to balance the clinicopathologic characteristics of two groups. Postoperative outcomes and survival were compared. Multivariate analysis was used to independent risk factors of complication, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Compared with patients underwent open radical gastrectomy, patients who underwent laparoscopic radical gastrectomy had lower rate of total, surgical and severe complications. They also had shorter postoperative hospital stay with better OS and DFS. Hypoalbuminemia (P=0.003) was the independent risk factor of complications. Old age (≥75, P=0.035) and TNM stage (III: P<0.001, II: P=0.015) were the independent risk factors of OS. Combined resection (P=0.003) and TNM stage (III: P<0.001, II: P=0.001) posed independent risk factors of lacking DFS. Laparoscopic surgery proved to be the independent protective factor of complications (P=0.014), OS (P<0.001) and DFS (P<0.001). Laparoscopic radical gastrectomy was relative safe and showed favorable outcomes in malnourished gastric cancer patients.

Laparoscopic versus Open Approach for Siewert Type II/III Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Due to the specific location, the potential advantages of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) compared with open gastrectomy (OG) for Siewert II/III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) remain uncertain. The current study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LG versus OG in treating Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE (hosted by Ovid), and the Cochrane Library for publications till July 2022 and then used the RevMan 5.3 software for statistical analysis. Results: Ten publications from 10 medical centers were included, with 1,516 cases from the LG group and 1,219 from the OG group. Meta-analysis results showed that the LG group was superior to the OG group in intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, lymph nodes retrieved, time to ambulation, time to first flatus, time to diet, 5-year overall survival, and 5-year disease-free survival. There was no significant difference between the two groups in operative time, overall complications, proximal margin, distal margin, pulmonary infection, anastomotic leakage, mortality, ileus, or absolute infection. Conclusions: Compared with OG, LG is associated with better surgical and long-term outcomes in Siewert type II/III AEG. LG is a safe and feasible option for treating Siewert type II/III AEG. However, studies with large sample sizes, long follow-up periods, and rigorous designs are needed for verification.

Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Gastrectomy for Patients With Gastric Cancer Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Multicenter Retrospective Study Based on the Korean Gastric Cancer Association Nationwide Survey.

Despite scientific evidence regarding laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for advanced gastric cancer treatment, its application in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy remains uncertain. We used the 2019 Korean Gastric Cancer Association nationwide survey database to extract data from 489 patients with primary gastric cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. After propensity score matching analysis, we compared the surgical outcomes of 97 patients who underwent LG and 97 patients who underwent open gastrectomy (OG). We investigated the risk factors for postoperative complications using multivariate analysis. The operative time was significantly shorter in the OG group. Patients in the LG group had significantly less blood loss than those in the OG group. Hospital stay and overall postoperative complications were similar between the two groups. The incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications in the LG group was comparable with that in the OG group (1.03% vs. 4.12%, P=0.215). No statistically significant difference was observed in the number of harvested lymph nodes between the two groups (38.60 vs. 35.79, P=0.182). Multivariate analysis identified body mass index (odds ratio [OR], 1.824; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.029-3.234; P=0.040) and extent of resection (OR, 3.154; 95% CI, 1.084-9.174; P=0.035) as independent risk factors for overall postoperative complications. Using a large nationwide multicenter survey database, we demonstrated that LG and OG had comparable short-term outcomes in patients with gastric cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

1228. Comparison of surgical site infection between open and robotic-assisted gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer

Abstract Background Surgical site infection is a clinically significant postoperative complication and a major cost burden of healthcare-associated infections. Although many studies compare minimally invasive surgery and open surgery, few studies have focused on surgical site infection. This study aimed to investigate the differences in the incidence of surgical site infection after open and robotic-assisted gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer. Methods We retrospectively reviewed adult patients with gastric cancer who underwent open and robotic-assisted gastrectomy at a 2,400-bed tertiary hospital in Seoul from January 2015 to December 2015. Postoperative outcomes, including surgical site infection between open and robotic-assisted gastrectomy, were compared. Risk factors of surgical site infection were analyzed by logistic regression multivariable analysis. Results A total of 684 patients, including 448 patients who underwent open gastrectomy and 236 patients who underwent robotic-assisted gastrectomy, were enrolled. The median age was 58 years. The overall incidence of surgical site infection was 7.6%. The incidence of surgical site infection was significantly lower in the robotic-assisted gastrectomy group than in the open gastrectomy group (9.2% vs. 4.7%, p=0.035). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the robotic-assisted gastrectomy group than in the open gastrectomy group (5 vs. 8 days, p&amp;lt; 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression revealed that the operative time, history of smoking, and open gastrectomy were independent risk factors influencing the incidence of surgical site infection. Conclusion Robotic-assisted gastrectomy is a good multimodality treatment option for gastric cancer in terms of reduced length of hospital stay and incidence of surgical site infection. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery in Patients Undergoing Open Radical Gastrectomy in a Low-Middle-Income Country Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery in Patients Undergoing Open Radical Gastrectomy in a Low-Middle-Income Country Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Short-Term Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Gastrectomy Compared to Open Gastrectomy for Patients with Gastric Cancer: a Randomized Trial

BackgroundRobotic gastrectomy (RG) has been shown to be a safe and feasible method in gastric cancer (GC) treatment. However, most studies are in Eastern cohorts and there is great interest in knowing whether the method can be used routinely, especially in the West. ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the short-term surgical outcomes of D2-gastrectomy by RG versus open gastrectomy (OG). MethodsSingle-institution, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized clinical trial performed between 2015 and 2020. GC patients were randomized (1:1 allocation) to surgical treatment by RG or OG. Da Vinci Si platform was used. Inclusion criteria: gastric adenocarcinoma, stage cT2-4 cN0-1, potentially curative surgery, age 18–80 years, and ECOG performance status 0–1. Exclusion criteria: emergency surgery and previous gastric or major abdominal surgery. Primary endpoint was short-term surgical outcomes. The study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02292914). ResultsOf 65 randomized patients, 5 were excluded (3 palliatives, 1 obstruction and emergency surgery, and 1 for material shortage). Consequently, 31 and 29 patients were included for final analysis in the OG and RG groups, respectively. No differences were observed between groups regarding age, sex, BMI, comorbidities, ASA, and frequency of total gastrectomy. RG had similar mean number of harvested lymph nodes (p = 0.805), longer surgical time (p < 0.001), and less bleeding (p < 0.001) compared to OG. Postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and readmissions in 30 days were equivalent between OG and RG. ConclusionsRG reduces operative bleeding by more than 50%. The short-term outcomes were non-inferior to OG, although surgical time was longer in RG.

3D laparoscopic-assisted vs open gastrectomy for carcinoma in the remnant stomach: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUNDThree-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic technique has gradually been applied to the treatment of carcinoma in the remnant stomach (CRS), but its clinical efficacy remains controversial.AIMTo compare the short-term and long-term results of 3D laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (3DLAG) with open gastrectomy (OG) for CRS.METHODSThe clinical data of patients diagnosed with CRS and admitted to the First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital from January 2016 to January 2021 were retrospectively collected. A total of 84 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled. All their clinical data were collected and a database was established. All patients were treated with 3DLAG or OG by experienced surgeons and were divided into two groups based on the different surgical methods mentioned above. By using outpatient and telephone follow-up, we were able to determine postoperative survival and tumor status. The postoperative short-term efficacy and 1-year and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were compared between the two groups.RESULTSAmong 84 patients with CRS, 48 were treated with OG and 36 with 3DLAG. All patients successfully completed surgery. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index, ASA score, initial disease state (benign or malignant), primary surgical anastomosis method, interval time of carcinogenesis, and tumorigenesis site. Patients in the 3DLAG group experienced less intraoperative blood loss (188.33 ± 191.35 mL vs 305.83 ± 303.66 mL; P = 0.045) and smaller incision (10.86 ± 3.18 cm vs 20.06 ± 5.17 cm; P < 0.001) than those in the OG group. 3DLAGC was a more minimally invasive method. 3DLAGC retrieved significantly more lymph nodes than OG (14.0 ± 7.17 vs 10.73 ± 6.82; P = 0.036), whereas the number of positive lymph nodes did not differ between the two groups (1.56 ± 2.84 vs 2.35 ± 5.28; P = 0.413). The complication rate (8.3% vs 20.8%; P = 0.207) and intensive care unit admission rate (5.6% vs 14.5%; P = 0.372) were equivalent between the two groups. In terms of postoperative recovery, the 3DLAGC group had a lower visual analog score, shorter indwelling time of gastric and drainage tubes, shorter time of early off-bed motivation, shorter time of postoperative initial flatus and initial soft diet intake, shorter postoperative hospital stay and total hospital stay, and there were significant differences, showing better short-term efficacy. The 1-year and 3-year OS rates of OG group were 83.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 72.4%-95.6%] and 73.3% (95%CI: 60.0%-89.5%) respectively. The 1-year and 3-year OS rates of the 3DLAG group were 87.3% (95%CI: 76.4%-99.8%) and 75.6% (95%CI: 59.0%-97.0%), respectively. However, the 1-year and 3-year OS rates were similar between the two groups, which suggested that long-term survival results were comparable between the two groups (P = 0.68).CONCLUSIONCompared with OG, 3DLAG for CRS achieved better short-term efficacy and equivalent oncological results without increasing clinical complications. 3DLAG for CRS can be promoted safely and effectively in selected patients.

Laparoscopic vs Open Distal Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer

The long-term safety of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains uncertain given the lack of 5-year follow-up results. To compare the 5-year follow-up results in patients with clinically AGC enrolled in the Korean Laparoendoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery Study (KLASS)-02 randomized clinical trial who underwent laparoscopic or open distal gastrectomy. The KLASS-02, a multicenter randomized clinical trial, showed that laparoscopic surgery was noninferior to open surgery for patients with locally AGC. The present study assessed the 5-year follow-up results, including 5-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) rates and long-term complications, in patients enrolled in KLASS-02. From November 21, 2011, to April 29, 2015, patients aged 20 to 80 years diagnosed preoperatively with locally AGC were enrolled. Final follow-up was on June 15, 2021. Data were analyzed June 24 to September 9, 2021. Patients were treated with R0 resection either by laparoscopic gastrectomy or open gastrectomy as the full analysis set of the KLASS-02 trial. Five-year OS and RFS rates, recurrence patterns, and long-term surgical complications were evaluated. This study enrolled a total of 1050 patients. A total of 974 patients were treated with R0 resection; 492 (50.5%) in the laparoscopic gastrectomy group (mean [SD] age, 59.8 [11.0] years; 351 men [71.3%]) and 482 (49.5%) in the open gastrectomy group (mean [SD] age, 59.4 [11.5] years; 335 men [69.5%]). In patients who underwent laparoscopic and open distal gastrectomy, the 5-year OS (88.9% vs 88.7%) and RFS (79.5% vs 81.1%) rates did not differ significantly. The most common types of recurrence were peritoneal carcinomatosis (73 of 173 [42.1%]), hematogenous metastases (36 of 173 [20.8%]), and locoregional recurrence (23 of 173 [13.2%]), with no between-group differences in types of recurrence at each cancer stage. The correlation between 3-year RFS and 5-year OS at the individual level was highest in patients with stage III gastric cancer (ρ = 0.720). The late complication rate was significantly lower in the laparoscopic than in the open surgery group (32 of 492 [6.5%] vs 53 of 482 [11.0%]). The most common type of complication in both groups was intestinal obstruction (13 of 492 [2.6%] vs 24 of 482 [5.0%]). The 5-year outcomes of the KLASS-02 trial support the 3-year results, which is the noninferiority of laparoscopic surgery compared with open gastrectomy for locally AGC. The laparoscopic approach can be recommended in patients with locally AGC to achieve the benefit of low incidence of late complications. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01456598.

Benefit of laparoscopic compared to standard open gastric cancer surgery for sarcopenic patients: a propensity score-matching analysis.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is performed widely, but whether LG is the optimal treatment for sarcopenic gastric cancer patients is unclear. This study aimed to determine whether LG is particularly beneficial for gastric cancer patients with sarcopenia. We collected data concerning 604 consecutive patients who underwent gastrectomy for gastric cancer between January 2003 and December 2019. After adjustment using one-to-one propensity score matching, short-term and long-term outcomes were compared between LG and open gastrectomy (OG) groups among patients with sarcopenia and those without. Among patients with and without sarcopenia, the LG group had a significantly longer operative time but less blood loss than the OG group. The two groups showed no significant differences regarding complications. Although 5-year overall and disease-specific survival were similar between LG and OG groups among patients with and without sarcopenia, LG was associated with greater 5-year non-gastric cancer-related survival than OG among patients with sarcopenia (88.3% vs. 78.1%, P = 0.048), but not those without. LG for resectable gastric cancer was not inferior to OG regarding complications and outcomes in patients with or without sarcopenia. No difference in overall survival was evident between these approaches, but LG may lessen mortality from conditions unrelated to gastric cancer in sarcopenic patients.