Entirely laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma: lymph node yield and resection margins

Importance of duodenal stump reinforcement to prevent stump leakage after gastrectomy: a large-scale multicenter retrospective study (KSCC DELICATE study)

BACKGROUND

The significance of reinforcement of the duodenal stump with seromuscular sutures and the effectiveness of reinforced staplers in preventing duodenal stump leakage remain unclear. We aimed to explore the importance of duodenal stump reinforcement and determine the optimal reinforcement method for preventing duodenal stump leakage.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2021, with data analyzed between December 1, 2022 and September 30, 2023. This multicenter study across 57 institutes in Japan included 16,475 patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomies. Elective open or minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) gastrectomy was performed in patients with gastric cancer.

RESULTS

Duodenal stump leakage occurred in 153 (0.93%) of 16,475 patients. The proportions of males, patients aged ≥ 75 years, and ≥ pN1 were higher in patients with duodenal stump leakage than in those without duodenal stump leakage. The incidence of duodenal stump leakage was significantly lower in the group treated with reinforcement by seromuscular sutures or using reinforced stapler than in the group without reinforcement (0.72% vs. 1.19%, p = 0.002). Duodenal stump leakage incidence was also significantly lower in high-volume institutions than in low-volume institutions (0.70% vs. 1.65%, p = 0.047). The rate of duodenal stump leakage-related mortality was 7.8% (12/153). In the multivariate analysis, preoperative asthma and duodenal invasion were identified as independent preoperative risk factors for duodenal stump leakage-related mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The duodenal stump should be reinforced to prevent duodenal stump leakage after radical gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer.

Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Gastric Cancer in Western Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes

Background. The advantages of a laparoscopic approach for the treatment of gastric cancer have already been demonstrated in Eastern Countries. This review and meta-analysis aims to merge all the western studies comparing laparoscopic (LG) versus open gastrectomies (OG) to provide pooled results and higher levels of evidence. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE(PubMed), Embase, WebOfScience and Scopus for studies comparing laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy in western centers from 1980 to 2021. Results. After screening 355 articles, 34 articles with a total of 24,098 patients undergoing LG (5445) or OG (18,653) in western centers were included. Compared to open gastrectomy, laparoscopic gastrectomy has a significantly longer operation time (WMD = 47.46 min; 95% CI = 31.83−63.09; p < 0.001), lower blood loss (WMD = −129.32 mL; 95% CI = −188.11 to −70.53; p < 0.0001), lower analgesic requirement (WMD = −1.824 days; 95% CI = −2.314 to −1.334; p < 0.0001), faster time to first oral intake (WMD = −1.501 days; 95% CI = −2.571 to −0.431; p = 0.0060), shorter hospital stay (WMD = −2.335; 95% CI = −3.061 to −1.609; p < 0.0001), lower mortality (logOR = −0.261; 95% the −0.446 to −0.076; p = 0.0056) and a better 3-year overall survival (logHR 0.245; 95% CI = 0.016−0.474; p = 0.0360). A slight significant difference in favor of laparoscopic gastrectomy was noted for the incidence of postoperative complications (logOR = −0.202; 95% CI = −0.403 to −0.000 the = 0.0499). No statistical difference was noted based on the number of harvested lymph nodes, the rate of major postoperative complication and 5-year overall survival. Conclusions. In Western centers, laparoscopic gastrectomy has better short-term and equivalent long-term outcomes compared with the open approach, but more high-quality studies on long-term outcomes are required.

[Evidence in minimally invasive oncological gastric surgery]

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to systematically review the current evidence on laparoscopic and robotic distal and total gastrectomy in comparison to open surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search of EMBASE and PubMed was conducted and 197 randomized (RCT) and non-randomized (non-RCT) studies were identified. An evaluation of early gastric cancer (EGC) and advanced (AGC) gastric cancer was carried out.

RESULTS

For EGC and laparoscopic distal resection (LDG) and total gastrectomy (LTG) a total of 10 RCT and 6 non-RCT, including 4329 patients (laparoscopic 2010 vs. open 2319) were identified. At a high evidence level (1+, 1++) there was no significant difference in terms of feasibility, intraoperative outcome and oncological quality, mortality and long-term oncological outcome compared to open gastrectomy (OG). After LDG and LTG patients showed a significantly faster early postoperative recovery and lower total morbidity. In contrast, the operation times were significant longer compared to ODG and OTG. For distal AGC and LDG in 6 RCT, including 2806 patients (LDG 1410 vs. ODG 1369) comparable results could be found also with a high evidence level (1++). The evidence for LTG in cases of AGC was lower (2-, 2+). Currently ,only 6 non-RCT with a total of 1090 patients (LTG 539 vs. OTG 551) are available, which showed comparable results to LDG but further high-quality RCTs are necessary. Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is currently being evaluated. According to the first studies RG for EGC seems to be equivalent to LDG; however, the evidence is currently low (3 to 2-).

Duodenal stump reinforcement might reduce both incidence and severity of duodenal stump leakage after laparoscopic gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Although duodenal stump leakage (DSL) is a relatively rare complication after gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y (R-Y) reconstruction, it is difficult to treat and can be fatal. We investigated the impact of duodenal stump reinforcement on DSL after laparoscopic gastrectomy with R-Y reconstruction for gastric cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study of 965 patients with gastric cancer who underwent laparoscopic distal or total gastrectomy (LDG or LTG) with R-Y reconstruction compared surgical outcomes between two groups, the duodenal stump reinforcement group (reinforcement group) (n = 895) and that without duodenal stump reinforcement (non-reinforcement group) (n = 70).

RESULTS

Mean operative duration was significantly longer in the reinforcement than in the non-reinforcement group (LDG; 291 min versus 258 min, p < 0.001, LTG; 325 min versus 285 min, p < 0.001). DSL occurred less frequently in the reinforcement than in the non-reinforcement group (0.67% vs. 5.71%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, non-reinforcement was an independent risk factor for DSL in multiple logistic regression analysis with adjustment for potential confounding factors. Patients with DSL in the non-reinforcement group all required re-operation, while all but one patient with DSL in the reinforcement group recovered with conservative management.

CONCLUSIONS

Duodenal stump reinforcement in laparoscopic gastrectomy with R-Y reconstruction may reduce the risk of DSL development and minimize its severity.

Laparoscopic Surgery for Gastric Cancer: The European Point of View

Objective

Multiple Asian studies have proved the feasibility of laparoscopic approach for surgical treatment of gastric cancer. The difference between Asian and European patients could limit their application in Europe. We reviewed the literature for European studies comparing open gastrectomy with laparoscopic approach in the treatment of gastric cancer.

Method

We searched the keywords gastric cancer and laparoscopy in MEDLINE and EMBASE. We included all studies published between 1990 and 2016 and conducted in Europe.

Result

We found 1 randomized and 13 cohort studies which compared laparoscopic with open gastrectomy. We found no mean difference in the number of lymph nodes harvested between laparoscopic and open group (mean difference: -0.49; 95% CI: -2.42; 1.44, p=0.62) and no difference of short-term or long-term mortality (short-term odds ratio: 0.74, p=0.47; long-term odds ratio: 0.65, p=0.11). We found a longer operative time in the laparoscopic group (mean difference: 35.75 minutes, p<0.01) but lesser reoperation rate than the open group (odds ratio: 1.55 p=0.01).

Conclusion

European based population studies found results comparable with their Asian counterpart. In the current state of evidence, minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer is safe and can achieve the same oncological results.

Laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma in a western country: Safety and oncological issues

Background

Laparoscopic total gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma is a widely diffused operation in eastern countries, but there are only a few reports from western centers. We assessed a single surgeon's experience at a single, nonacademic, community hospital.

Methods

Short-term outcome of patients undergoing laparoscopic total gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma (June 2005-March 2010) was assessed.

Results

Fourteen patients (5 males, 9 females; median age, 66.8 years [interquartile range, 59.7–71.8]) underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy. The median operative time was 240 min. There were five stage 1 patients, five stage 2, and four stage 3; R0 resection was obtained in all 14 patients, and the median number of lymph nodes retrieved was 38. Mortality and overall morbidity rates were 0% and 35.7%, respectively.

Conclusions

The outcomes of laparoscopic total gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma performed by a well-trained laparoscopic surgeon working in a community hospital are good in terms of safety for the patients and response to the oncological criteria used in open surgery.

Randomized Trial of Immediate Postoperative Pain Following Single-incision Versus Traditional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

We undertook a randomized controlled trial to ascertain if single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) was more beneficial for reducing postoperative pain than traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TLC). Moreover, the influencing factors of SILC were analyzed.

METHODS

A total of 552 patients with symptomatic gallstones or polyps were allocated randomly to undergo SILC (n = 138) or TLC (n = 414). Data on postoperative pain score, operative time, complications, procedure conversion, and hospital costs were collected. After a 6-month follow-up, all data were analyzed using the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

Among SILC group, 4 (2.9%) cases required conversion to TLC. Mean operative time of SILC was significantly longer than that of TLC (58.97 ± 21.56 vs. 43.38 ± 19.02 min, P < 0.001). The two groups showed no significant differences in analgesic dose, duration of hospital stay, or cost. Median pain scores were similar between the two groups 7 days after surgery, but SILC-treated patients had a significantly lower median pain score 6 h after surgery (10-point scale: 3 [2, 4] vs. 4 [3, 5], P = 0.009). Importantly, subgroup analyses of operative time for SILC showed that a longer operative time was associated with greater prevalence of pain score >5 (≥100 min: 5/7 patients vs. <40 min, 3/16 patients, P = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

The primary benefit of SILC appears to be slightly less pain immediately after surgery. Surgeon training seems to be important because the shorter operative time for SILC may elicit less pain immediately after surgery.

Comparison Between Minimally Invasive and Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer in Europe: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

AIMS

We compared laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies with open gastrectomies and with each other that were held for gastric cancer in Europe.

METHODS

We searched for studies conducted in Europe and published up to 20 February 2015 in the PubMed database that compared laparoscopic or robotic with open gastrectomies for gastric cancer and with each other.

RESULTS

We found 18 original studies (laparoscopic vs open: 13; robotic vs open: 3; laparoscopic vs robotic: 2). Of these, 17 were non-randomized trials and only 1 was a randomized controlled trial. Only four studies had more than 50 patients in each arm. No significant differences were detected between minimally invasive and open approaches regarding the number of retrieved lymph nodes, anastomotic leakage, duodenal stump leakage, anastomotic stenosis, postoperative bleeding, reoperation rates, and intraoperative/postoperative mortality. Nevertheless, laparoscopic procedures provided higher overall morbidity rates when compared with open ones, but robotic approaches did not differ from open ones. On the contrary, blood loss was less and hospital stay was shorter in minimally invasive than in open approaches. However, the results were controversial concerning the duration of operations when comparing minimally invasive with open gastrectomies. Additionally, laparoscopic and robotic procedures provided equivalent results regarding resection margins, duodenal stump leakage, postoperative bleeding, intraoperative/postoperative mortality, and length of hospital stay. On the contrary, robotic operations had less blood loss, but lasted longer than laparoscopic ones. Finally, there were relatively low conversion rates in laparoscopic (0%-6.7%) and robotic gastrectomies (0%-5.6%) in most studies.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies may be considered alternative approaches to open gastrectomies for treating gastric cancer. Minimally invasive operations are characterized by less blood loss and shorter hospital stay than open ones. In addition, robotic procedures have less blood loss, but last longer than laparoscopic ones.

Totally laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery

AIM: To systematically review the surgical outcomes of totally laparoscopic gastrectomy (TLG) vs open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted. All original studies comparing TLG with OG were included for critical appraisal. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out using RevMan 5.1 software.

RESULTS: One RCT and 13 observational studies involving 1532 patients were included (721 TLG and 811 OG). TLG was associated with longer operation time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 58.04 min, 95%CI: 37.77-78.32, P < 0.001], less blood loss [WMD = -167.57 min, 95%CI: -208.79-(-126.34), P < 0.001], shorter hospital stay [WMD = -3.75 d, 95%CI: -4.88-(-2.63), P < 0.001] and fewer postoperative complications (RR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.58-0.86, P < 0.001). The number of harvested lymph nodes, surgical margin, mortality and cancer recurrence rate were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION: TLG may be a technically safe, feasible and favorable approach in terms of better cosmesis, less blood loss and faster recovery compared with OG.

Oncologic specimen from laparoscopic assisted gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma is comparable to D1-open surgery: the experience of a Canadian centre

BACKGROUND

The Eastern experience has reported the safety of laparoscopic assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for gastric cancer. Its use in Western countries is still debated owing to concerns about its oncologic equivalence to open gastrectomy (OG). We sought to review and compare their operative outcomes and oncologic specimen quality (number of harvested lymph nodes and surgical margins) for gastric adenocarcinoma (GA).

METHODS

We reviewed the charts of all patients undergoing LAG (2007-2010) and OG (2000-2010) for GA in a single institution. Several surgeons performed the OGs, whereas 1 fellowship-trained laparoscopic surgeon performed LAGs. The primary outcome was quality of the surgical specimen, assessed by the number of harvested lymph nodes (LNs) and margin status. Secondary outcomes were perioperative events. Data were analyzed as intention to treat.

RESULTS

We retrieved 60 cases (47 OGs, 13 LAGs). The conversion rate was 23%. Mean operative time was 115 minutes longer and blood loss was 425 mL less (both p < 0.001) for LAGs. A mean of 14.4 (standard deviation [SD] 9.8) and 11.2 (SD 8.2) LNs were harvested for OGs and LAGs, respectively (p = 0.29). Negative margins were achieved for all patients. Mean length of stay was similar (LAG: 19 d v. OG: 18.9 d; p = 0.91). The groups did not differ on major postoperative complications (12.7% v. 23.1%; p = 0.39) or operative mortality (2.1% v. 7.7%; p = 0.32).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic assisted gastrectomy is a challenging but safe and feasible procedure in experienced hands. It offers the same radical resection as OG regarding negative margins and LN retrieval. Long-term follow-up is warranted.

[Laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy -- our experience]

Laparoscopic surgery gained significant popularity in the last two decades. In our department, laparoscopic gall bladder, hernia and large bowel surgeries are the most frequent ones. Recently we started to do laparoscopic surgery for early gastric cancer, too. Initially, wedge resections, distal gastrectomy and laparoscopically asssisted periventricular lymphadenectomies were carried out. Later on, laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy was also done. Therefore, we can provide three different ways of surgical treatment for gastric malignancies by now: wedge resection, intramucosal resection as well as subtotal gastrectomy. Four laparoscopic gastrectomies were carried out with D1 or D2 lypmhadenectomy - in case it was needed - in our department by the end of 2010. All patients' gastric cancer was less than 3 cm in size, and it was verified by preoperative histology (adenocarcinoma, T1b/N0/M0 or T2/N0/M0). The cancers were localized in the antrum or distally in the peripyloric region, and were ulcerated frequently. Subtotal gastrectomy with retrocolic gastroentero anastomosis was carried out in every case.Patient's age was not considered in patient selection. Surgical time was between two and four hours. We discuss our experience with laparoscopic gastric surgery and recommend its incorporation into practice.

Laparoscopic total gastrectomy in gastric cancer: our experience in 92 cases

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) is seldom used for gastric cancer because the complex vascularization and lymphatic drainage makes lymphadenectomy and esophagojejunal anastomosis difficult and requires special skills. Our aim was to demonstrate the feasibility and accuracy of LTG in gastric cancer with D2 lymphadenectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eighty-eight LTG and four laparoscopic remnant gastrectomies (LRGs) were performed over >12 years. The median patient age was 64 years, and the male/female ratio was 1.49/1. Eighty-seven patients had a D2 and only five patients had a D1 lymphadenectomy. We propose the retrospective analysis of intra- and perioperative mortality and morbidity.

RESULTS

In only four of 96 cases approached by laparoscopy, a conversion to laparotomy was needed. There were two (2.17%) perioperative deaths in 92 procedures and few complications. Histological data show 79 advanced gastric cancers (AGC), 11 early gastric cancers (EGC), and two gastric diffused lymphomas. The five-year Kaplan-Meier overall survival in patients with EGC and AGC was 100% and 58%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate the feasibility of an oncologically correct minimally invasive total gastrectomy. We would like to promote comparisons among different institutions to achieve better standardization of indications and techniques for a laparoscopic approach to gastric cancer.

Laparoscopic gastrectomies for cancer: The ACOI-IHTSC national guidelines

Guidelines for laparoscopy and cancer of stomach have been outlined by several scientific societies: The main recommendation being that laparoscopy should be used only by surgeons already highly skilled in gastric surgery. The laparoscopic approach to gastric cancer surgery has become more and more frequent in most Italian centers. On behalf of the Guideline Committee of the Italian Society of Hospital Surgeons and the Italian Hi-Tech Surgical Club, a panel of experts analyzed the highest evidence of all scientific papers focusing on laparoscopic gastrectomies for cancer and published from 2003 to 2011, and drew these national guidelines. Laparoscopic gastrectomy may be considered as a safe procedure with better short-term and comparable long-term results. compared to open gastrectomy (Grade A). There is a general agreement that a laparoscopic approach to the treatment of gastric cancer should be chosen only by surgeons already highly skilled in gastric surgery and other advanced laparoscopic interventions. Furthermore, the first procedures should be carried out during a tutoring program. Diagnostic laparoscopy is strongly recommended as the first step of laparoscopic as well as laparotomic gastrectomies (Grade B). Additional randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compare and investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic assisted gastrectomy are required.

Comparative analysis of station-specific lymph node yield in laparoscopic and open distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials and cohort studies show that laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) achieves similar oncological results to open distal gastrectomy (ODG). However, studies have consistently demonstrated lower lymph node yield (LNY) for laparoscopic lymphadenectomy. Analysis of station-specific LNY may be useful in evaluating the reasons behind this difference.

OBJECTIVES

Comparison of station-specific LNY, surgical, and oncological outcomes between LDG and ODG for early gastric cancer.

METHODS

Patients who underwent R0 distal gastrectomy with histologically confirmed early gastric cancer were eligible for the study. All consecutive cases of LDG since the beginning of our experience with laparoscopic gastrectomy and synchronous cases of ODG with R0 resection were included in the study. Demographic, operative, histopathologic, and follow-up data were recorded in all patients.

RESULTS

A total of 259 cases of LDG and 95 cases of ODG were performed between 2000 and 2009. Patients undergoing LDG had longer operations but less bleeding (P<0.05). Postoperative complications were similar in both groups. The preoperatively planned extent of lymphadenectomy was D1 (stations 1, 3, 4sb, 4d, 5, 6, and 7), D1+ (D1with stations 8a and 9), or D2 (D1+ with stations 11p and 12a). During surgery, dissection of stations 3, 4d, 5, 6, and 7 was performed in all cases of LDG and ODG. Dissection of stations 1, 4sb, 8a, 9, 11p, and 12a was performed more frequently during ODG than during LDG. Consequently, the total LNY was 26.71 and 31.43 for LDG and ODG, respectively. Station-specific LNY was significantly lower for LDG than for ODG in the common hepatic artery nodes only (P<0.05). The mean follow-up was 43.6 months. Lymph node metastases, metastatic-to-resected lymph node ratio, recurrence, and cancer-related deaths were similar for LDG and ODG.

CONCLUSIONS

LDG was associated with less extensive lymph node dissection compared with ODG. Station-specific LNY was similar in all nodal stations except for the common hepatic artery nodes. In our experience, laparoscopic sub-D2 lymphadenectomy was adequate in the context of early gastric cancer and represents the future of gastric cancer resection in Japan.

Totally laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: meta-analysis of short-term outcomes

INTRODUCTION

We present a review of the literature, together with a meta-analysis of short-term outcomes of totally laparoscopic gastrectomy (TLG) compared with open gastrectomy (OG).

MATERIAL & METHODS

We carried out a search in the Pubmed and Cochrane databases from September 2003 to May 2009. Controlled studies on early outcomes were included, both prospective and retrospective, randomized and non-randomized.

RESULTS

We found nine eligible studies, one of which was a randomized controlled trial (RCT), while eight were series of patients (three consecutive). The study group consisted of 1,492 patients, 828 of whom had been treated with TLG and 664 treated with OG. TLG for gastric cancer shows a 32.5% (p < 0.001) longer operative time than OG, whereas TLG demonstrated a 44% (p < 0.001) reduction in blood loss, a 34% (p < 0.001) reduction time to first flatus and a 33.7% reduced (p < 0.001) hospital stay. No notable differences were registered regarding morbidity and mortality rates, and no significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding the extent of the lymphadenectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a longer operative time for TLG, with a gastrointestinal recovery rate faster than the OG one for gastric cancer results, no notable differences were recorded between the two techniques for the morbidity and mortality rates and in the spread of the lymphadenectomy.

Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a case-control study

In a non-specialized setting, laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) for locally advanced diseases remains controversial, particularly given to the technical demands of the learning curve required to perform an adequate resection with D2 lymph node dissection. Inclusion criteria for this statistically generated matching controlled study were all patients who underwent subtotal laparoscopic gastrectomies from January 2006 until September 2009 for locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma (stage II-IIIb), compared with matched patients who underwent the same procedure in an open fashion during the same period. Sixty case-matched patients were evaluated (30 laparoscopic vs. 30 open). Operative time was significantly longer (p < 0.05) for LDG. Benefits for LDG (p < 0.05) were observed among surgical short-term outcome (postoperative hospital stay, ambulation, first bowel movement, first flatus, first stool, first eating and use of analgesic drugs) and postoperative non-surgical site complications (cardiopulmonary, urinary, etc.). The 42 months' overall survival was similar (p = 0.646). Laparoscopic gastrectomy is a safe technique in a non-academic hospital setting for locally advanced gastric cancer; it seems to be adequate in terms of margin status and adequate lymph node retrieval and is associated with additional benefits as a decreased length of hospital stay, a decreased narcotic use and fewer complications.

Full robotic gastrectomy with extended (D2) lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: surgical technique and preliminary results

BACKGROUND

Widespread diffusion of minimally-invasive surgery for gastric cancer treatment is limited by the complexity of performing an extended D2-lymphadenectomy. This surgical step can be facilitated by using robot-assisted surgery. The aim of this study is to describe our technique and short-term results of a consecutive series of full robotic gastrectomies with D2-lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer, using the da Vinci Surgical System.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between May 2004 and December 2009, we performed 24 consecutive full robot-assisted total and subtotal gastrectomies with extended D2-lymphadenectomy for histologically-proven gastric adenocarcinoma. Data referring to 11 robot-assisted total gastrectomies and 13 subtotal gastrectomies were collected in a database and analyzed.

RESULTS

Median operative time was 267.50 min (255-305). Median intraoperative blood loss was 30 mL. Median number of harvested lymph nodes was 28 (23-34). Resection margins were negative in all cases. No conversions occurred. Surgery-related morbidity was 8%. Thirty-day mortality was 0%. Liquid diet started on postoperative d 5 (2-5). Median length of stay was 6 d (5-8).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted gastrectomy with D2-lymphadenectomy is a safe technique and allows achieving an adequate lymph node harvest and optimal R0-resection rates with low postoperative morbidity and the learning curve appears to be shorter than in laparoscopic surgery. Longer follow-up and randomized clinical trials are needed to define the role of robot-assistance in gastric cancer surgery.

Subtotal gastrectomy with D2 dissection by minimally invasive surgery for distal adenocarcinoma of the stomach: results and 5-year survival

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to assess outcomes and 5-year survival after subtotal gastrectomy (SG) for early and advanced distal adenocarcinoma with D2 dissection performed by minimally invasive surgery (MIS).

METHODS

From June 2000 to October 2009 a total of 70 patients with adenocarcinoma of the lower third of the stomach underwent SG with D2 nodal clearance by MIS. This series enrolled 37 patients with early gastric cancer (EGC) and 33 with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). SG was attempted by conventional laparoscopy (CL) in 52 cases and by robot-assisted (RA) technique in 18. Clinical and histopathologic results with 5-year survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

No intraoperative complication was registered. Conversion to laparotomy was required in five patients. Overall, the mean operating time for SG was 254 min (range = 145-460) and estimated mean blood loss was 146 ml (range = 45-250). Postoperative complications occurred in seven patients, including two duodenal leakages none of which required laparotomy. There were two postoperative deaths, one caused by hepatic failure and one by hemorrhagic stroke. Preoperative understaging occurred in ten cases (three were AGC). On average, 30 ± 8 lymph nodes were collected. The distance of proximal resection margin was 6.6 cm (range = 4-8.5 cm). Short-term results were equal with those of laparoscopic and RA gastrectomy. The mean hospital stay of all patients was 10 days (range = 7-24). The mean follow-up span was 53 months (range = 3-112). Relapse of disease occurred in 12 patients, 10 of whom died from the disease and their mean survival was 25 months (range = 12-38). The overall 3-year survival was 85% for CL gastrectomy and 78% for RA gastrectomy, but this difference was not significant with the log rank test (p > 0.05). The overall 5-year survival was 81% (97% for EGC and 67% for AGC).

CONCLUSION

D2 subtotal gastrectomy performed by MIS is reproducible and safe. The long-term outcomes and 5-year survival are acceptable. Extended lymphadenectomy was carried out for both EGC and AGC so as to ensure adequate nodal clearance and compensate preoperative underestimation.