Prospective randomized controlled study for comparison of 2-dimensional versus 3-dimensional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma

Long-term oncological outcomes of 3D versus 2D laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LG) is rapidly gaining popularity owing to its minimal invasiveness. Previous studies have found that compared with two-dimensional (2D)-LG, three-dimensional (3D)-LG showed better short-term outcomes. However, the long-term oncological outcomes in patients with locally resectable gastric cancer (GC) remain controversial.

METHODS

In this noninferiority, open-label, randomized clinical trial, a total of 438 eligible GC participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either 3D-LG or 2D-LG from January 2015 to April 2016. The primary endpoint was operating time, while the secondary endpoints included 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence pattern.

RESULTS

Data from 401 participants were included in the per-protocol analysis, with 204 patients in the 3D group and 197 patients in the 2D group. The 5-year OS and DFS rates were comparable between the 3D and 2D groups (5-year OS: 70.6% vs. 71.1%, Log-rank P = 0.743; 5-year DFS: 68.1% vs. 69.0%, log-rank P = 0.712). No significant differences were observed between the 3D and 2D groups in the 5-year recurrence rate (28.9% vs. 28.9%, P = 0.958) or recurrence time (mean time, 22.6 vs. 20.5 months, P = 0.412). Further stratified analysis based on the type of gastrectomy, postoperative pathological staging, and preoperative BMI showed that the 5-year OS, DFS, and recurrence rates of the 3D group in each subgroup were similar to those of the 2D group (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with locally resectable GC, 3D-LG performed by experienced surgeons in high-volume professional institutions can achieve long-term oncological outcomes comparable to those of 2D-LG.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02327481 ( http://clinicaltrials.gov ).

3D versus 2D laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While laparoscopic gastrectomy is a prominent therapeutic approach for distal gastric cancer, the clinical benefits of 3D laparoscopy over 2D laparoscopy remain unclear. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of 3D laparoscopy and 2D laparoscopy for distal gastric cancer resection through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published from inception through January 2023, according to the PRISMA guidelines. The MD or RR was used to compare 3D and 2D distal gastrectomy. Random-effects meta-analysis was estimated using the inverse variance and Mantel-Haenszel method for binary outcomes and the DerSimonian-Laird estimator for continuous outcomes.

RESULTS

After reviewing 559 studies, 6 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria. The analysis included 689 patients, with 348 (50.5%) in the 3D group and 341 (49.5%) in the 2D group. 3D laparoscopic gastrectomy reduces the operative time (WMD - 28.57 min, 95% CI - 50.70 to - 6.44, p = 0.011), intraoperative blood loss (WMD - 6.69 mL, 95% CI - 8.09 to - 5.29, p < 0.001), and postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.92 days, 95% CI - 1.43 to - 0.42, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in time to first postoperative flatus (WMD - 0.22 days, 95% CI - 0.50 to 0.05, p = 0.110), postoperative complications (Relative Risk 0.56, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.41, p = 0.217), and the number of retrieved lymph nodes (WMD 1.25, 95% CI - 0.54 to 3.03, p = 0.172) between 3 and 2D laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the potential advantages of 3D laparoscopy in distal gastrectomy, including shorter operative time, postoperative hospital stay, and decreased intraoperative blood loss.

Safety of Three-Dimensional versus Two-Dimensional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy during the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a significant decrease in the number of surgical procedures performed. Therefore, it is important to use surgical methods that carry the lowest possible risk of virus transmission between the patient and the operating theater staff.

AIM

Safety evaluation of three-dimensional (3D) versus two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic hysterectomy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

44 patients were assigned to a prospective case-control study. They were divided either to 3D (n = 22) or 2D laparoscopic hysterectomy (n = 22). Fourteen laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomies (LASH) and eight total laparoscopic hysterectomies (TLH) were performed in every group. The demographic data, operating time, change in patients' hemoglobin level and other surgical outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

3D laparoscopy was associated with a significantly shorter operating time than 2D. (3D vs. 2D LASH 70 ± 23 min vs. 90 ± 20 min, p = 0.0086; 3D vs. 2D TLH 72 ± 9 min vs. 85 ± 9 min, p = 0.0089). The 3D and 2D groups were not significantly different in terms of change in serum hemoglobin level and other surgical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to a shorter operating time, 3D laparoscopic hysterectomy seems to be a safer method both for both the surgeon and the patient. Regarding terms of possible virus transmission, it may be particularly considered the first-choice method during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Two- and three-dimensional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparative study of a single-center experience

Background

This is the first report on three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic donor nephrectomy performed in the Central Asian region and Commonwealth of Independent States countries. This study presents the results of our initial experiences of 3D hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (3D-HALDN) in comparison with the outcomes of two-dimensional hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (2D-HALDN) at a single center.

Methods

From 2015 to 2019, 19 3D-HALDN and 19 2D-HALDN procedures were performed at the same center by two surgeons. All 38 procedures used identical techniques. Between-group differences were considered statistically significant at P<0.05.

Results

The baseline characteristics in both groups were statistically comparable (P>0.05). All donors underwent left nephrectomy. Donors who underwent 3D-HALDN had better outcomes than those who underwent 2D-HALDN, as shown by a shorter warm ischemic time (P<0.05), a shorter operative time (P<0.05), and less blood loss (P<0.05). There were no conversions or major complications (according to the Clavien-Dindo classification) in either group. The average drainage duration and postoperative hospitalization were significantly shorter in the 3D-HALDN group (P<0.05). The between-group differences in the mean postoperative creatinine level and glomerular filtration rate were not significant.

Conclusions

The 3D-HALDN approach is more beneficial than traditional 2D-HALDN by providing a shorter warm ischemic time, less blood loss, and shorter durations of drainage and postoperative hospitalization. Postoperative complications and the functional condition of the kidney in donors in the early and late postoperative periods did not depend on the type of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Usefulness of articulating laparoscopic instruments during laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE

Conventional straight-shaped laparoscopic surgical instruments have limitations that, unlike robotic surgery, the wrist joint cannot be used. This study aimed to analyze the short-term safety and feasibility of ArtiSential (Livsmed), a new articulating laparoscopic instrument, which obviates the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery and allows the wrist joint to be used freely over 360° as in robotic surgery.

METHODS

The study included patients who underwent conventional laparoscopy or laparoscopy with the ArtiSential instrument. Patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy for primary gastric adenocarcinoma in our institution were retrospectively reviewed. The groups were propensity score matched in a 11 ratio. Primary endpoint was incidence of early postoperative complication (postoperative 30-day morbidity and mortality) and secondary endpoints were operative outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 327 patients (147 of the conventional group and 180 of the ArtiSential group) were propensity score matched. After propensity score matching was performed, each group comprised of 122 patients. Both groups were comparable with regard to operation time, estimated blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes, and length of hospital stay. The ArtiSential group had a faster time to a fluid diet (2.6 ± 1.3 days vs. 2.3 ± 0.6 days, p = 0.015). There was no statistically significant difference in early postoperative complications between the two groups (the conventional group, 23.0%; the ArtiSential group, 26.2%; p = 0.656).

CONCLUSION

The current study showed that the use of ArtiSential is a safe and feasible option without increasing operation time, length of hospital stay, and intraoperative bleeding.