Intracorporeal overlap gastro-gastrostomy for solo single-incision pylorus-preserving gastrectomy in early gastric cancer

Comparison of Reduced Port Gastrectomy and Multiport Gastrectomy in Korea: Ad Hoc Analysis and Nationwide Survey on Gastric Cancer 2019

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and current status of reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RLDG) compared with multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) based on a 2019 nationwide survey of surgical gastric cancer treatments by the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted retrospectively from March to December 2020 using data from the 2019 KGCA nationwide survey database. To compare RLDG and MLDG based on age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histological type, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis, propensity score matching was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 14,076 registered patients with gastric cancer, the five-port approach was the most favored for multiport gastrectomy, accounting for 6,396 (70.9%) cases, followed by the four-port approach, with 1,462 (16.2%) cases. The single-port approach was used in 303 (3.4%) cases, the two-port approach in 95 (1.1%) cases, and the three-port approach in 731 (8.1%) cases. RLDG was performed in 805 patients (6.4%), MLDG was conducted in 4,831 patients (34.3%), and 804 patients were 1:1 matched in each group. The average operation time was shorter in the RLDG (168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P<0.001). No significant difference was found in blood loss (84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, P=0.152), overall complication rates (11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254), or complications ≥ to grade IIIa (3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that RLDG is a safe and effective surgical option for gastric cancer with the potential to offer shorter operation times without increasing the risk of complications.

Feasibility and Safety of ArtiSential for Minimally Invasive Surgery in Early-stage Gynecologic Cancer: Results from the KGOG 4002/GYANT Study

Objectives

The objective is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of ArtiSential for performing minimally invasive surgeries for gynecological cancers.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a prospective observational study at 10 Tertiary Institutional Hospitals in Korea between November 2021 and April 2022. Eligible patients were 18 years or older and planned to undergo minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic cancer. We collected baseline characteristics, surgical information, and postoperative outcomes. The primary endpoint was to compare the operation time required for gynecologic cancer surgery using ArtiSential with the reported operation time for surgery using conventional laparoscopic instruments or robots. The secondary endpoints were to evaluate the surgical outcomes of gynecologic cancer surgery using ArtiSential compared to conventional laparoscopic instruments or robots and collect operator feedback on equipment improvements during surgery.

Results

Forty patients were enrolled in this study, including 19 with endometrial cancer, 15 with cervical cancer, and 6 with ovarian cancer. The average operation time was 187.0 ± 49.2 min, with no complications encountered during surgery. Pelvic lymph nodes were assessed in 34 patients, with the ArtiSential device utilized in 22 (64.7%) of these patients, at an average assessment time of 40.3 ± 19.4 min. Most surgeons using the ArtiSential device reported that it performed slightly better than conventional laparoscopic instruments.

Conclusion

The use of the ArtiSential device in minimally invasive surgery has been demonstrated to be both feasible and safe for the treatment of early-stage gynecologic cancer.

Intracorporeal hand-sewn anastomosis following pylorus-preserving gastrectomy: surgical technique and short-term surgical outcome

BACKGROUND

Although several procedures for mechanical anastomosis have recently been reported, intracorporeal manually hand-sewn anastomosis for totally laparoscopic pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (TLPPG) is considered technically difficult. Here, we report a new technique for laparoscopic reconstruction using hand-sewn sutures.

METHODS

Together with a proper lymphadenectomy, the stomach was detached and resected using separate two-layer incisions, similar to the original laparotomy method. An approximately 5-cm antral cuff was left in place. The essential concept of this new method was to align the anastomotic site by rotating each clamped gastric stump. This allowed us to perform a secure, hand-sewn, two-layer anastomosis successfully. The short-term surgical outcome after TLPPG was retrospectively compared with that for patients who underwent a conventional laparoscopy-assisted procedure (LAPPG).

RESULTS

Of the 20 consecutive patients who underwent pylorus-preserving gastrectomy in our department between 2014 and 2021, the first 8 patients and the subsequent 12 patients underwent LAPPG and TLPPG, respectively. The operation time was significantly longer in the TLPPG group (median, 302 vs. 269 min). The morbidity was comparable (8.3% in TLPPG vs. 12.5% in LAPPG). Postoperative delayed gastric emptying was only observed in one patient in the LAPPG group. TLPPG reduced the cost of the operation by reducing the number of linear stapler cartridges required.

CONCLUSION

A purely hand-sewn gastrogastrostomy is safe, feasible, and cost-effective, and it omits the need for a mini-laparotomy in the upper abdomen.

Long-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Distal Gastrectomy Compared with Conventional Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is gaining more attention due to advancements in surgical devices and techniques. Ten years have passed since the first report of single-incision distal gastrectomy. This study aims to analyze the long-term oncological safety of single-incision distal gastrectomy by comparing it with multiport distal gastrectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients diagnosed with gastric cancer who underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy from January 2010 to December 2017 were enrolled. Palliative surgery, history of other malignancy, preoperative chemotherapy, and distant metastasis were excluded. The 5-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival were set as coprimary endpoints. Operative time, blood loss, postoperative outcome, and risk factors for survival were secondary endpoints. Propensity score matching of 1:1 ratio was performed to adjust for age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, tumor size, operation history, and clinical stage.

RESULTS

A total of 3,097 patients were enrolled. After propensity score matching, 378 patients were allocated to each group. There was no difference in patient demographics after matching. Operation time was faster (170.8 ± 65.3 minutes vs 147.2 ± 44.1 minutes, p < 0.001), with less blood loss in the single-port group (84.1 ± 87.6 mL vs 34.9 ± 49.9 mL, p < 0.001). Administration of additional intravenous analgesics was less frequent in the single-port group (p = 0.043). There was no difference in long-term survival (5-year overall survival: multiport 94.2%, single-port 95.8%, p = 0.43; 5-year disease-free survival: multiport 94.1%, single-port 95.8%, p = 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision distal gastrectomy is safe and feasible with good long-term outcomes and less use of additional analgesics for patients diagnosed with early gastric cancer.

The Artisential® Articulated Laparoscopic Forceps: A Dry Lab Study to Examine Dexterity and Learning Effects in Operators with Different Levels of Laparoscopic Experience

PURPOSE

The advent of robotic surgery has highlighted the advantages of articulation. This dry-lab study examined the dexterity and learning effect of a new articulated laparoscopic instrument: the ArtiSential® forceps (LIVSMED, Seongnam, Republic of Korea).

METHODS

A peg board task was designed. Three groups of volunteers with varying levels of laparoscopic expertise were organized to perform the task: expert, intermediate and novice. The participants performed the task using articulated and straight instruments, once before a 30-min training session and once afterwards. The times required to perform the task were recorded. The performances were analyzed and compared between the groups as well as between the straight and articulated instruments.

RESULTS

The experts were significantly faster than the novices with both instruments before the 30-min training session (p = 0.0317 for each instrument). No significant time difference was found among the three groups after the 30-min training session. The decrease in the time required to perform the peg-transfer task with the articulated instrument was significantly greater in the novice and intermediate groups (p = 0.0159 for each group). No significant difference in time reduction was observed between the groups with the straight instrument. Regardless of the user, the articulated device was associated with faster task performance than the straight device after 8 hours of training (p = 0.0039).

CONCLUSION

The ArtiSential® articulated device can improve dexterity. A significantly greater learning effect was observed in the novice and intermediate groups in comparison with experts. A plateau in the learning curve was observed after a few hours of training.

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.

Laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: Current status and future direction

Gastric cancer is still a major cause of death worldwide. While laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has gained evidence as a standard treatment for early gastric cancer in the distal stomach, there are still concerns regarding its application for gastric cancer in the upper stomach and advanced gastric cancer. Nevertheless, LG has shown to have faster recovery, shorter hospital stay, less pain, and less blood loss in many retrospective and prospective studies. The application of LG has now extended from conventional radical gastrectomy to novel approaches such as function-preserving gastrectomy and sentinel-node navigated surgery. Studies on the use of laparoscopy in treatment for stage IV gastric cancer are rare, but show that there may be some roles of LG in selected cases. With the development of new laparoscopic tools that augment human ability, the future of LG should move on from proving non-inferiority to demonstrating superiority compared to the traditional open gastrectomy.

Single-Incision Proximal Gastrectomy With Double-Flap Esophagogastrostomy Using Novel Laparoscopic Instruments

Background. The optimal type of anastomosis after proximal gastrectomy (PG) is still controversial. A novel technique termed "double-flap" esophagogastrostomy (EG) has been introduced. The application of this technique after PG is reported to have little gastroesophageal reflux without the need of creating an esophagojejunostomy. However, this procedure is technically challenging and hence difficult to apply in laparoscopic PG. This technical report describes in detail how to perform single-incision proximal gastrectomy (SIPG) with double-flap EG with the use of novel laparoscopic instruments. Methods. Two patients diagnosed with early gastric cancer underwent SIPG. A 2.5 cm incision was made, and a scope holder was used in place of a scopist. After performing PG with D1+ lymphadenectomy, double seromuscular flaps were created on the anterior wall of the stomach. After tagging the esophagus to the inferior edge of the flap window, the stomach and esophagus were opened through electrocautery. EG was performed intracorporeally using continuous barbed sutures, and the flap is then secured to the anastomosis. To facilitate this procedure, an intra-abdominal organ retractor and an articulating needle holder were used. The supplementary video illustrates in detail how these devices are used to perform the technique. Results. Total operation times were 190 and 110 minutes each, and anastomosis took 75 and 46 minutes each. Patients had no complications and were both discharged on postoperative day 6. Conclusion. Double-flap PG is technically feasible through a single incision with the use of articulating laparoscopic devices and intra-abdominal organ retractors to assist in intracorporeal anastomosis.

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

BACKGROUND

Due to the technological advance in resolution and stereoscopic depth, the 3-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic system has been widely used in real surgery. However, there have been few studies to confirm the clinical usefulness of the 3D laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG). This study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes between the 2-dimensional (2D) and 3D LDG for gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized controlled, single-center, and superiority trial. This study was carried in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Patients with histologically confirmed gastric adenocarcinoma which could be radically resected by LDG were randomly assigned (1:1) to the 2D or 3D group. From October 2016 to August 2018, 84 patients were included in this study and randomly assigned into the 2D group (44 patients) or the 3D group (40 patients). A total of 5 patients were excluded; 3 in the 2D group and 2 were in the 3D group. Consequently, the data from 79 patients were analyzed (2D: 41 cases; 3D: 38 cases). For the LDG procedure, 3D and 2D camera and display system were applied according to the assigned group. The primary end point was the duration of total laparoscopic operation time. Secondary end points included the amount of intraoperative blood loss (IBL), the number of harvested lymph nodes, postoperative complications and open conversion rate.

RESULTS

There were no differences between 2 and 3D groups with respect to clinicopathologic characteristics. The total operation time in 3D groups was significantly shorter than 2D group (122 [106.5-161] versus 101 [77.75-125.5] minutes; P = 0.001). The postoperative complication rates in the 3D groups was significantly lower than 2D group (24.4% versus 7.9%, respectively; P = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

3D LDG shorten the operation time compared with 2D LDG in gastric cancer patients. And 3D laparoscopy provided the benefit of less postoperative complications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

cris.nih.go.kr number KCT0003717.