Laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy with a new marking technique, endoscopic cautery marking: preservation of the stomach in patients with upper early gastric cancer

Long-term Results of Totally Laparoscopic Near-total Gastrectomy for Middle-third Gastric Cancer

PURPOSE

In recent years, laparoscopic near-total gastrectomy (LnTG) has emerged as a surgical option for gastric cancer in the middle-third of the stomach. However, its application in locally advanced stages presents technical challenges. This study aims to provide a detailed analysis of the operative outcomes and long-term functional and oncological results of totally LnTG in combination with D2 lymphadenectomy for middle-third gastric cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

A prospective study was conducted on 79 patients who underwent totally LnTG and D2 lymphadenectomy for middle-third gastric cancer between January 2017 and December 2021. Short-term outcomes included operative characteristics, and the evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux and gastric remnant condition using endoscopy based on the Los Angeles (LA) and Residue-Gastritis-Bile classifications. Long-term oncological outcomes included overall survival and disease-free survival.

RESULTS

Totally LnTG was successfully performed in 98.7% of patients without intraoperative complications or conversions to laparotomy. The mean operation time was 202.2±43.0 min, and the median blood loss was 50 (50;100) mL. The overall incidence of postoperative morbidities was 16.5%, with one patient experiencing a narrowing of the gastrojejunostomy, successfully treated by endoscopic balloon dilation. All patients had tumor-free resection margins, and there were no mortalities. The 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were 80% and 55%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Totally LnTG is an effective and feasible approach for gastric cancer in the middle-third of the stomach, yielding favorable short-term outcomes and acceptable long-term results. Routine application of totally LnTG for middle-third gastric cancer is practical and promising.

Efficacy and safety of anastomotic leak testing in gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Anastomosis-related complications such as bleeding, leakage, and strictures, continue to be serious complications of gastric cancer surgery. Presently, these complications have yet to be reliably prevented. Here we design a comprehensive leak testing procedure which combines gastroscopy, air, and methylene blue (GAM) leak testing. We aimed to evaluated the efficacy and safety of the GAM procedure in patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

Patients aged 18-85 years without an unresectable factor as confirmed via CT were enrolled in a prospective randomized clinical trial at a tertiary referral teaching hospital and were randomly assigned to two groups: intraoperative leak testing group (IOLT) and no intraoperative leak testing group (NIOLT). The primary endpoint was the incidence of postoperative anastomosis-related complications in the two groups.

RESULTS

148 patients were initially randomly assigned to the IOLT group (n = 74) and to the NIOLT group (n = 74) between September 2018 and September 2022. After exclusions, 70 remained in the IOLT group and 68 in the NIOLT group. In the IOLT group, 5 patients (7.1%) were found to have anastomotic defects intraoperatively, which included anastomotic discontinuity, bleeding, and strictures. The NIOLT group had a higher incidence of postoperative anastomotic leakage compared to the IOLT group: 4 patients (5.8%) vs 0 patients (0%), respectively. No GAM-related complications were observed.

CONCLUSION

The GAM procedure is an intraoperative leak test that can be performed safely and efficiently after a laparoscopic total gastrectomy. GAM anastomotic leak testing may effectively prevent technical defect-related anastomotic complications in patients with gastric cancer who undergo a gastrectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT04292496.

A systematic review of minimal length of lroximal margin in gastric adenocarcinoma resection

For early distal gastric cancers, a proximal margin (PM) > 2-3 cm might probably be sufficient. For advanced tumors, many confounding factors have a prognostic impact on survival and recurrence and negative margin involvement may be more relevant than negative margin length.

INTRODUCTION

In gastric cancer surgery, microscopic positive margin is a poor prognostic factor whereas complete resection with tumor-free margins remains a challenging issue. European guidelines recommended a macroscopic margin of 5 or even 8 cm for diffuse-type cancers to achieve R0 resection. However, it is unclear if the length of negative proximal margin (PM) could have a prognostic impact on survival. We aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature analyzing PM length and its prognostic impact in gastric adenocarcinoma.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pubmed and Embase databases were searched for "gastric cancer" or "gastric adenocarcinoma," combined with "proximal margin," between January 1990 and June 2021. English-written studies that specified PM length were included. Survival data, in relation to PM, were extracted.

RESULTS

Twelve retrospective studies, with a total number of 10,067 patients, met inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Mean length of proximal margin on the whole population varied from 2.6 to 5.29 cm. Three studies found minimal PM cut-off to improve overall survival in univariate analysis. Concerning recurrence-free survival analysis, only 2 series showed better results with PM > 2 or > 3 cm, using Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate analysis demonstrated an independent impact of PM on overall survival in 2 studies.

CONCLUSION

For early distal gastric cancers, a PM > 2-3 cm might probably be sufficient. For advanced or proximal tumors, many confounding factors have a prognostic impact on survival and recurrence and negative margin involvement may be more relevant than negative margin length.

Laparoscopic Function-Preserving Gastrectomy for Proximal Gastric Cancer or Esophagogastric Junction Cancer: A Narrative Review

Function-preserving procedures to maintain postoperative quality of life are an important aspect of treatment for early gastric cancer. Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with a small remnant stomach, namely laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (LsTG), are alternative function-preserving procedures for laparoscopic total gastrectomy of early proximal gastric cancer. In LPG, esophagogastrostomy with techniques to prevent reflux and double-tract and jejunal interposition including esophagojejunostomy is usually chosen for reconstruction. The double-flap technique is currently a preferred reconstruction technique in Japan as an esophagogastrostomy approach to prevent reflux esophagitis. However, standardized reconstruction methods after LPG have not yet been established. In LsTG, preservation of the esophagogastric junction and the fundus prevents reflux and malnutrition, which may maintain quality of life. However, whether LsTG is an oncologically and nutritionally acceptable procedure compared with laparoscopic total gastrectomy or LPG is a concern. In this review, we summarize the status of reconstruction in LPG and the oncological and nutritional aspects of LsTG as a function-preserving gastrectomy for early proximal gastric or esophagogastric junction cancer.

Advantages of Function-Preserving Gastrectomy for Older Patients With Upper-Third Early Gastric Cancer: Maintenance of Nutritional Status and Favorable Survival

PURPOSE

The incidence of early gastric cancer is increasing in older patients alongside life expectancy. For early gastric cancer of the upper third of the stomach, laparoscopic function-preserving gastrectomy (LFPG), including laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) and laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (LSTG), is expected to be an alternative to laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG). However, whether LFPG has advantages over LTG in older patients remains unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data of consecutive patients aged ≥75 years who underwent LTG, LPG, or LSTG for cT1N0M0 gastric cancer between 2005 and 2019. Surgical and nutritional outcomes, including blood parameters, percentage body weight (%BW) and percentage skeletal muscle index (%SMI) were compared between LTG and LPG or LSTG. Survival outcomes were also compared between LTG and LFPG groups.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients who underwent LTG (n=39), LPG (n=48), and LSTG (n=24) were enrolled in this study. To match the surgical indications, LTG was further categorized into "LTG for LPG" (LTG-P) and "LTG for LSTG" (LTG-S). No significant differences were identified in the incidence of postoperative complications among the procedures. Postoperative nutritional parameters, %BW and %SMI were better after LPG and LSTG than after LTG-P and LTG-S, respectively. The survival outcomes of LFPG were better than those of LTG.

CONCLUSIONS

LFPG is safe for older patients and has advantages over LTG in terms of postoperative nutritional parameters, body weight, skeletal muscle-sparing, and survival. Therefore, LFPG for upper early gastric cancer should be considered in older patients.

Current status of function-preserving gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Early gastric cancer (EGC) has excellent postoperative survival outcomes; thus, one of the recent keywords in the treatment of EGC is "function-preserving gastrectomy (FPG)." FPG reduces the extent of lymphadenectomy and gastric resection without compromising the long-term prognosis. Proximal gastrectomy (PG) is an alternative to total gastrectomy (TG) for EGC in the upper-third of the stomach, in which the gastric reservoir, gastric acid secretion, and intrinsic factors are maintained. Distal gastrectomy (DG) with a small remnant stomach, namely subtotal gastrectomy (STG), is another option for upper EGC, where the function of the cardia and fundus is preserved. Pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) is a good alternative to DG for EGC in the middle-third of the stomach, where pyloric function is preserved. Following elucidation of the markedly low incidences of possible metastasis to lymph node stations where dissection is omitted, the oncological safety of these FPG procedures was clarified. Nutritional advantages of PG or STG over TG have been reported; however, the standardized reconstruction methods after PG are yet to be established, and it is important to devise methods to prevent postoperative gastroesophageal reflux and anastomotic complications regardless of the reconstruction method. Nutritional benefits of PPG compared with DG have also been clarified, in which reducing postoperative gastric stasis is important. For the further spread of these FPG procedures, several issues, such as precise evaluation of preserved function, confirmation of oncological safety, and standardization of the technique, should be addressed in future prospective randomized controlled trials.

Proximal Anterior-Antrum Posterior (PAAP) Overlapping Anastomosis in Minimally Invasive Pylorus-Preserving Gastrectomy for Early Gastric Cancer Located in the High Body and Posterior Wall of the Stomach

Purpose

To evaluate the feasibility and safety of intracorporeal overlapping gastrogastrostomy between the proximal anterior wall and antrum posterior wall (PAAP; PAAP anastomosis) of the stomach in minimally invasive pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) for early gastric cancer (EGC).

Materials and Methods

From December 2016 to December 2019, 17 patients underwent minimally invasive PPG with PAAP anastomosis for EGC in the high body and posterior wall of the stomach. Intraoperative gastroscopy was performed with the rotation maneuver during proximal transection. A longer antral cuff (>4-5 cm) was created for PAAP than for conventional PPG (≤3 cm) at the point where a safe distal margin and good vascular perfusion were secured. Because the posterior wall of the proximal remnant stomach was insufficient for intracorporeal anastomosis, the anterior wall was used to create an overlapping anastomosis with the posterior wall of the remnant antrum. The surgical and oncological outcomes were analyzed, and the stomach volume was measured in patients who completed the 6-month follow-up. The results were compared to those after conventional PPG (n=11 each).

Results

PAAP anastomosis was successfully performed in 17 patients. The proximal and distal resection margins were 2.4±1.9 cm and 4.0±2.6 cm, respectively. No postoperative complications were observed during the 1-year follow-up esophagogastroduodenoscopy (n=10). The postoperative remnant stomach (n=11) was significantly larger with PAAP than with conventional PPG (225.6±118.3 vs. 99.1±63.2 mL; P=0.001). The stomach length from the anastomosis to the pylorus was 4.9±2.4 cm after PAAP.

Conclusions

PAAP anastomosis is a feasible alternative for intracorporeal anastomosis in minimally invasive PPG for highly posteriorly located EGC.

Safety and efficacy of post-anastomotic intraoperative endoscopy to avoid early anastomotic complications during gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic complications such as leaks, bleeding, and stricture remain the most serious complications of surgery for gastric cancer. No perfect method exists for an accurate and reliable prevention of these complications. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of post-anastomotic intraoperative endoscopy (PAIOE) for avoidance of early anastomotic complications during gastrectomy in gastric cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective case-control study enrolled patients from a tertiary care, academic medical center. Routine PAIOE was performed on 319 patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer between 2015 and 2016. As controls, without PAIOE 270 patients from 2013 to 2014 were used for comparison. Early anastomotic complications and outcomes after PAIOE were determined.

RESULTS

Although there were no differences between the PAIOE and non-PAIOE group in terms of overall complication rates (20.1% vs 26.7%; P > 0.05), there were fewer complications related to anastomosis (3.4% vs 8.9%; P < 0.01) in the PAIOE group. The PAIOE group had rates of 2.5% for anastomotic leakage, 0.9% for intra-luminal bleeding, and 0% for anastomotic stenosis, while the non-PAIOE group exhibited rates of 5.6%, 2.6%, and 0.7%, respectively. Thirty-one abnormalities were detected in 26 PAIOE patients (9.71%) (20 venous bleeding, 7 mucosal tearing, 2 air leaks, 1 arterial bleeding, and 1 anastomotic stricture). All abnormalities were corrected by proper interventions (13 reinforced additional suture, 13 endoscopic hemostasis, and 2 re-anastomosis). There were no morbidities associated with PAIOE.

CONCLUSIONS

PAIOE appears to be a safe and reliable procedure to evaluate the stability of gastrointestinal anastomosis for gastric cancer patients. Further data collection and a well-designed prospective study are needed to confirm the validity of PAIOE.

Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double-flap technique versus laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy for proximal early gastric cancer

Background

Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double‐flap technique (LPG‐DFT) and laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (LSTG) may replace laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) for proximal early gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate short‐ and long‐term outcomes after LPG‐DFT and LSTG.

Methods

Patients who underwent LPG‐DFT or LSTG at the Cancer Institute Hospital in Tokyo between January 2006 and April 2015 were included in this retrospective study. Operative procedures were selected based on the distance from the cardia to the proximal boundary of the tumour, tumour location and predicted remnant stomach volume. Patient characteristics, surgical data, markers of postoperative nutritional status, such as blood chemistry and bodyweight loss, and endoscopic findings were compared between procedures. The main study outcome was nutritional status.

Results

A total of 161 patients (LPG‐DFT 51, LSTG 110) were included. Types of postoperative complication occurring more than 30 days after surgery differed between the two procedures. Remnant stomach ulcers, including anastomotic ulcers, were observed only after LPG‐DFT, whereas complications involving the small intestine, such as internal hernia or small bowel obstruction, occurred more frequently after LSTG. Values for total protein, albumin, prealbumin and bodyweight loss were comparable between the two procedures at 36 months after surgery. Haemoglobin concentrations were higher after LPG‐DFT than after LSTG at 24 months (13·4 versus 12·8 g/dl respectively; P = 0·045) and 36 months (13·5 versus 12·8 g/dl; P = 0·007) after surgery. The rate of Los Angeles grade B or more severe reflux oesophagitis was comparable.

Conclusion

LPG‐DFT and LSTG for proximal early gastric cancer have similar outcomes, but different types of complication.

Oncological feasibility of laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy compared with laparoscopic proximal or total gastrectomy for cT1N0M0 gastric cancer in the upper gastric body

BACKGROUND

The upper gastric body is of particular interest in relation to gastrectomy because this area includes a border; that is, both distal and proximal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer can involve this area. Laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (LsTG) is reported to be suitable procedure compared with laparoscopic proximal and total gastrectomy (LPG, LTG), regarding postoperative nutritional status and surgical safety. However, whether LsTG is an oncologically acceptable procedure for early gastric cancer in the upper gastric body is unclear.

METHODS

We analyzed 215 patients with cT1N0M0 gastric cancer limitedly located in the upper gastric body. The frequency of conversion from each intended procedure to an alternative procedure, the width of the pathological margin, the incidence of lymph node metastasis at each station and the 3-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were evaluated.

RESULTS

LsTG was planned for 65 patients, and LPG for 72 and LTG for 78, respectively. Conversion to other procedures was required in about 10% of patients for whom LsTG or LPG was planned. The width of the pathological margin in patients who underwent LsTG was significantly shorter than patients who underwent the others. No patients who underwent LsTG, LPG or LTG had metastases in station no. 2 or 4sa lymph node. The 3-year OS and RFS rates of patients for whom each procedure was planned were not different.

CONCLUSIONS

LsTG could be an oncologically acceptable procedure for cT1N0M0 gastric cancer in the upper gastric body. LsTG could be one option for such disease.