Comparison of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: an updated meta-analysis

Laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer in patients among octogenarians: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Currently, there is no consensus regarding whether super-elderly (aged > 80 years) patients are suitable candidates for laparoscopic surgery. This study aimed to analyse the short-term outcomes and oncological prognosis of laparoscopic gastrectomy in super-elderly patients with gastric cancer (GC).

METHODS

Following PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 guidelines, we searched the Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Pubmed databases from inception until May 2024 and performed a meta-analysis. All published studies exploring the surgical outcomes and oncological prognosis of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy in super-elderly patients with GC were reviewed. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

A total of 1,085 studies were retrieved, eight of which were included in the meta-analysis, comprising 807 patients > 80 years of age with GC. The meta-analysis showed that compared with open gastrectomy, patients with GC > 80 years old who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy had a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 30.48, p < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -166.96, P < 0.001), shorter postoperative exhaust time (WMD =-0.83, p < 0.001), shorter length of stay (WMD = -0.78, p < 0.001), fewer overall complications (Odds ratio [OR] = 0.54, p = 0.003), higher 5-year overall survival rate (OR = 1.66, p = 0.03) and disease-specific survival rate (OR = 3.23, p < 0.001). Furthermore, laparoscopic gastrectomy did not significantly affect the number of lymph node dissections, the rate of D2 radical gastrectomy, major postoperative complications, or postoperative pneumonia.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to open gastrectomy, patients with GC aged > 80 years who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy may have better short-term outcomes. Age should not be a contraindication for minimally invasive surgery.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) is a well-established surgical technique in treating patients with early gastric cancer. However, the efficacy and safety of LAG versus open gastrectomy (OG) in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains unclear.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library in June 2023 for RCTs comparing LAG versus OG in patients with AGC. We pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary and continuous endpoints, respectively. We performed all statistical analyses using R software version 4.3.1 and a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs comprising 3827 patients were included. There were no differences in terms of intraoperative complications (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.82), number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD -0.54 lymph nodes; 95% CI -1.18 to 0.09), or mortality (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.30 to 2.83). LAG was associated with a longer operative time (MD 49.28 minutes; 95% CI 30.88 to 67.69), lower intraoperative blood loss (MD -51.24 milliliters; 95% CI -81.41 to -21.06), shorter length of stay (MD -0.83 days; 95% CI -1.60 to -0.06), and higher incidence of pancreatic fistula (RR 2.44; 95% CI 1.08 to 5.50). Postoperatively, LAG was also superior to OG in reducing bleeding rates (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.86) and time to first flatus (MD -0.27 days; 95% CI -0.47 to -0.07), with comparable results in anastomotic leakage, wound healing issues, major complications, time to ambulation, or time to first liquid intake. In the long-term analyses at 3 and 5 years, there were no significant differences between LAG and OG in terms of overall survival (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.03) or relapse-free survival (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.04).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of RCTs suggests that LAG may be an effective and safe alternative to OG for treating AGC; albeit, it may be associated with an increased risk for pancreatic fistula.

Perforated Gastric Cancer: A Case Report and Literature Review

Gastric cancer perforation is a rare but life-threatening complication of gastric cancer. We present the case of a 53-year-old male with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) who presented to the emergency department with severe abdominal pain, was found to have an acute abdomen, and was eventually diagnosed with gastric perforation due to metastatic gastric cancer. This case highlights the challenges in diagnosing and managing perforated gastric cancer and discusses the surgical management options, including the use of laparoscopic techniques and the role of chemotherapy, particularly hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC).

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A single cancer center experience

Objectives

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) was challenging to most surgeons due to the two-dimensional view, difficult manipulations of the instruments, ergonomic discomfort, and the associated muscular spasm and effort. Technological advances with improved surgical experience, have made LG a more feasible and favorable approach for gastric cancer (GC) patients.

Material and Methods

LG was performed in 44 patients with GC between July 2015 to June 2022, in the Department of Surgical Oncology, Oncology Center, Mansoura University, Egypt, and we assessed the surgical outcomes of this approach as an initial experience of a single cancer center.

Results

Twenty-seven patients underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, and seventeen underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy. Two cases had combined resection. Operative time was 339.2 ± 76.73 min, while blood loss was 153.86 ± 57.51 mL. The patients were ambulant on postoperative day 0, oral intake was started within three days (range 1-5 days) and the hospital stay was six days (range 3-9 days).

Conclusion

LG for GC is a feasible approach for both early and advanced GC patients as it allows for adequate diagnosis of the peritoneal disease, meticulous dissection, and identification of the lymph nodes with minimal blood loss and decrease surgery-related problems and encourage the early patients' discharge from hospital and return to daily life activities.

Long-Term Outcomes of Open Versus Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for T4a Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer (GC) has been applied more frequently worldwide but is still controversial for patients with serosal invasion (T4a). This study compared short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic distal radical gastrectomy (LDG) with open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for T4a GC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively studied 472 patients with T4a gastric adenocarcinoma in the lower or middle third of the stomach: 231 underwent LDG and 241 underwent ODG between 2013 and 2020. Short-term outcomes included operative characteristics and complications. Long-term outcomes included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was used to adjust for imbalances in baseline characteristics between groups.

RESULTS

The PSM strategy resulted in 294 patients (147 in each group). The LDG group had a significantly longer operating time (mean: 200 vs 190 min, p = 0.001) but reduced blood loss (mean: 50 vs 100 ml, p = 0.001). The LDG group had a higher rate of any postoperative complication (23.1% vs 12.2%, p = 0.021) but most were classified as grades I-II according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Grade III-V complications were similar between groups. Five-year OS was 69% versus 60% (p = 0.109) and 5-year DFS was 58% vs 53% (p = 0.3) in LDG and ODG groups, respectively. For tumor size < 5 cm, LDG was better in reduction of blood loss, postoperative hospital length of stay, and OS.

CONCLUSIONS

LDG is feasible and safe for patients with T4a GC and is comparable to ODG regarding short- and long-term outcomes. Furthermore, LDG can be a favorable option for T4a GC smaller than 5 cm.

Current standards of surgical management of gastric cancer: an appraisal

PURPOSE

Gastric cancer (GC) is the fifth most common malignancy worldwide and portends a grim prognosis due to a lack of appreciable improvement in 5-year survival. We aimed to analyze the available literature and summarize the current standards of surgical care for curative and palliative intent treatment of GC.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on the PubMed database for studies on the management of GC.

RESULTS

Endoscopic resection is an acceptable treatment option for T1a tumors. The role of optimal resection margin for GC remains unclear. D2 lymph node dissection remains the standard of care with splenectomy needed selectively for splenic hilum involvement. A distal pancreatic resection should be avoided. The advantage of bursectomy and omentectomy in GC surgery is not clear. Multi-visceral resection may be considered for locally advanced GC in carefully selected patients. Minimally invasive approaches are non-inferior to open surgery. Surgery should be abandoned prior even in metastatic GC within the frame of multimodal therapy approach.

CONCLUSION

Various trials have conclusively shown improved patient outcomes when well-established surgical standards are followed.

Global scientific trends in laparoscopy and gastric cancer in the 21st century: A bibliometric and visual mapping analysis

Aims

To use visual mapping and bibliometrics to analyze and summarize the valuable information on laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer (GC) obtained in the last 20 years, so as to determine the research hotspots and trends in this field.

Methods

We screened all literature on laparoscopic surgery for GC in the Web of Science published from 2000 to 2022 and analyzed the research hotspots and trends in this field using VOSviewer.

Results

A total of 2796 reports from 61 countries and regions were selected. Japanese researchers published the most papers (n=946), followed by those from China (n=747) and South Korea (n=557). Papers from Japan also had the most citations (n=21,836). Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques published the most reports on laparoscopic surgery for GC (n=386) and also had the highest total number of citations (n=11,076), making this journal the most authoritative in this field. Among the institutions, researchers from Seoul National University in South Korea had the highest numbers of published papers and citations. The keywords of the articles could be divided into five categories: surgical methods for GC, short-term and long-term efficacy of laparoscopic surgery, guiding role of laparoscopy in the treatment of advanced GC, diagnosis and treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC), and lymph node dissection. Keywords such as "laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy", "surgical outcomes", and "esophagogastric junction" have emerged recently, and relevant studies on laparoscopic surgery for adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction(AEG)have gradually become a hot topic and trend.

Conclusion

This study adopted bibliometric analysis to identify the current research hotspots and research trends in the field of laparoscopic surgery for GC. Five main research hotspots of laparoscopic surgery for GC were also identified. Laparoscopic surgery for AEG may become an important research focus in the future.

Laparoscopic vs. open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) with those of open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) who exclusively underwent distal gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Background

Data in published meta-analyses that included different gastrectomy types and mixed tumor stages prevented an accurate comparison between LDG and ODG. Recently, several RCTs that compared LDG with ODG included AGC patients specifically for distal gastrectomy, with D2 lymphadenectomy being reported and updated with the long-term outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify RCTs for comparing LDG with ODG for advanced distal gastric cancer. Short-term surgical outcomes and mortality, morbidity, and long-term survival were compared. The Cochrane tool and GRADE approach were used for evaluating the quality of evidence (Prospero registration ID: CRD42022301155).

Results

Five RCTs consisting of a total of 2,746 patients were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in terms of intraoperative complications, overall morbidity, severe postoperative complications, R0 resection, D2 lymphadenectomy, recurrence, 3-year disease-free survival, intraoperative blood transfusion, time to first liquid diet, time to first ambulation, distal margin, reoperation, mortality, or readmission between LDG and ODG. Operative times were significantly longer for LDG [weighted mean difference (WMD) 49.2 min, p < 0.05], whereas harvested lymph nodes, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, time to first flatus, and proximal margin were lower for LDG (WMD -1.3, p < 0.05; WMD -33.6 mL, p < 0.05; WMD -0.7 day, p < 0.05; WMD -0.2 day, p < 0.05; WMD -0.4 mm, p < 0.05). Intra-abdominal fluid collection and bleeding were found to be less after LDG. Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low.

Conclusions

Data from five RCTs suggest that LDG with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC has similar short-term surgical outcomes and long-term survival to ODG when performed by experienced surgeons in hospitals contending with high patient volumes. It can be concluded that RCTs should highlight the potential advantages of LDG for AGC.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO, registration number CRD42022301155.

Laparoscopic versus Open Total Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: Short and Long-Term Results

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for early gastric cancer is widely accepted and routinely performed. However, it is still debated whether the laparoscopic approach is a valid alternative to open gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The aim of this study is to compare short-and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic (LG) and open (OG) total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy in patients with AGC.

METHODS

A retrospective comparative study was conducted on patients who underwent LG and OG for ACG between January 2015 and December 2021. Primary endpoints were the following: recurrence rate, 3-year disease-free survival, 3-year and 5-year overall survival. Univariate and multivariate analysis was conducted to compare variables influencing outcomes and survival.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients included: fifty-three OG and thirty-nine LG. No difference in morbidity and mortality. LG was associated with lower recurrence rates (OG 22.6% versus LG 12.8%, p = 0.048). No differences in 3-year and 5-year overall survival; 3-year disease-free survival was improved in the LG group on the univariate analysis but not after the multivariate one. LG was associated with longer operative time, lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. Lymph node yield was higher in LG.

CONCLUSION

LG for AGC seems to provide satisfactory clinical and oncological outcomes in medium volume centers, improved postoperative results and possibly lower recurrence rates.

Implementation of Multimodality Therapy and Minimally Invasive Surgery: Short- and Long-term Outcomes of Gastric Cancer Surgery in Medium-Volume Center

BACKGROUND

Multimodal treatment of gastric cancer includes careful preoperative staging, perioperative oncological treatment, and selective minimally invasive approach. The aim was to evaluate whether this approach improves short- and long-term outcomes in operable gastric cancer.

METHODS

This study included 181 gastric cancer patients who underwent curative intent surgery in Central Finland Central Hospital between years 2005 and 2021 for gastric or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma. Those 65 patients in group 1 operated between years 2005-2010 had open surgery with possible adjuvant therapy. During the second period including 58 patients (2011-2015), perioperative chemotherapy and minimally invasive surgery were implemented. The period, when these treatments were standard practise, was years 2016-2021 including 58 patients (group 3). Outcomes were lymph node yield, major complications and 1- and 3-year survival rates.

RESULTS

Median lymph node yield increased from 17 in group 1 and 20 in group 2 to 23 in group 3 (p < 0.001). Major complication rates in groups 1-3 were 12.3%, 32.8%, and 15.5% (group 1 vs. group 2, p = 0.007; group 2 vs. group 3, p = 0.018), respectively. Overall 1-year survival rates between study groups 1-3 were 78.5% vs. 69.0% vs. 90.2% (p = 0.018) and 3-year rates 44.6% vs. 44.8% vs. 68.1% (p = 0.016), respectively. For overall 3-year mortality, adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 1.02 (95%CI 0.63-1.66) in group 2 and HR 0.37 (95%CI 0.20-0.68) in group 3 compared to group 1.

CONCLUSIONS

In medium-volume center, modern multimodal therapy in operable gastric cancer combined with minimally invasive surgery increased lymph node yield and improved long-term survival without increasing postoperative morbidity.

Laparoscopic distal gastric and D1 resection for large perforated duodenal bulb peptic ulcer, with intracorporeal antecolic gastrojejunal anastomosis

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer perforation is a common surgical emergency and a major cause of death especially in elderly patients, despite the fact of the presence of effective drug treatments and an increased understanding of its etiology. Giant duodenal perforations, in particular, pose a significant challenge and there is scarce data regarding their optimal management. Laparoscopic surgery is advocated in the surgical treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer disease, in experienced hands.

METHODS

Herein we present an 84-year-old man with past medical history of type II diabetes mellitus and hypertension who was admitted to our Department due to epigastric pain and diffuse peritonitis. CT scan revealed the presence of a significant amount of free air and fluid in the upper abdomen secondary to a duodenal perforation.

RESULTS

The patient was taken immediately to the theater for an urgent laparoscopy. Methylene blue via the NG tube better defined the extent of the duodenal perforation which was not amenable to a primary repair. Consequently, a decision was made for a laparoscopic pancreas-sparing, ampulla preserving gastroduodenectomy with intracorporeal Billroth II gastrojejunal anastomosis. The postoperative period was uneventful and the patient was discharged on the 13th postoperative day. Histopathology revealed a large benign duodenal ulcer.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the incidence of peptic ulcer disease is decreasing, it appears that the incidence of complications is rising. Laparoscopic approach, especially when performed by laparoscopic surgery experts, could be a treatment option for difficult duodenal ulcer perforations with less pain, shorter hospital stay and reduced morbidity.

The Comparison of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes for Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastrectomy for Patients With Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objectives

The effect of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to contrast the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus conventional open gastrectomy (OG) for patients with AGC.

Methods

Databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched until December 2021 for randomized controlled trial-enrolled patients undergoing LG or OG for the treatment of AGC. Short-term outcomes were overall postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, number of retrieved lymph node, surgical time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and short-term mortality. Long-term outcomes were survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years.

Results

A total of 12 trials involving 4,101 patients (2,059 in LG group, 2,042 in OG group) were included. No effect on overall postoperative complications (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05, p = 0.12, I² = 34%) and anastomotic leakage (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.95, p = 0.30, I² = 0%) was found. Compared with the open approach, patients receiving LG had fewer blood loss (MD -54.38, 95% CI -78.09 to -30.67, p < 0.00001, I² = 90%) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD -1.25, 95% CI -2.08 to -0.42, p = 0.003, I² = 86%). However, the LG was associated with a lower number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD -1.02, 95% CI -1.77 to -0.27, p = 0.008, I² = 0%) and longer surgical time (MD 40.87, 95% CI 20.37 to 54.44, p < 0.00001, I² = 94%). Furthermore, there were no differences between LG and OG groups in short-term mortality and survival rate at 1, 3, and 5 years.

Conclusions

LG offers improved short-term outcomes including shorter hospital stays and fewer blood loss, with comparable postoperative complications, short-term mortality, and survival rate at 1, 3, and 5 years when compared to the open approach. Our results support the implementation of LG in patients with AGC.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO (CRD 42021297141).

Laparoscopic vs. Open Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Case-Control Study

Introduction: Minimally invasive surgery has been increasingly used in the treatment of gastric cancer. While laparoscopic gastrectomy has become standard therapy for early-stage gastric cancer, especially in Asian countries, the use of minimally invasive techniques has not attained the same widespread acceptance for the treatment of more advanced tumours, principally due to existing concerns about its feasibility and oncological adequacy. We aimed to examine the safety and oncological effectiveness of laparoscopic technique with radical intent for the treatment of patients with locally advanced gastric cancer by comparing short-term surgical and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy at two Western regional institutions. Methods: The trial was designed as a retrospective comparative matched case-control study for postoperative pathological diagnoses of locally advanced gastric carcinoma. Between January 2015 and September 2021, 120 consecutive patients who underwent curative-intent laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection were retrospectively recruited and compared with 120 patients who received open gastrectomy. In order to obtain a comparison that was as homogeneous as possible, the equal control group of pairing (1:1) patients submitted to open gastrectomy who matched those of the laparoscopic group was statistically generated by using a propensity matched score method. The following potential confounder factors were aligned: age, gender, Body Mass Index (BMI), comorbidity, ASA, adjuvant therapy, tumour location, type of gastrectomy, and pT stage. Patient demographics, operative findings, pathologic characteristics, and short-term outcomes were analyzed. Results: In the case-control study, the two groups were clearly comparable with respect to matched variables, as was expected given the intentional primary selective criteria. No statistically significant differences were revealed in overall complications (16.7% vs. 20.8%, p = 0.489), rate of reoperation (3.3% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.714), and mortality (4.2% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.987) within 30 days. Pulmonary infection and wound complications were observed more frequently in the OG group (0.8% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.01, for each of these two categories). Anastomotic and duodenal stump leakage occurred in 5.8% of the patients after laparoscopic gastrectomy and in 3.3% after open procedure (p = 0.072). The laparoscopic approach was associated with a significantly longer operative time (212 vs. 192 min, p < 0.05) but shorter postoperative length of stay (9.1 vs. 11.6 days, p < 0.001). The mean number of resected lymph nodes after D2 dissection (31.4 vs. 33.3, p = 0.134) and clearance of surgical margins (97.5% vs. 95.8%, p = 0.432) were equivalent between the groups. Conclusion: Laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 nodal dissection appears to be safe and feasible in terms of perioperative morbidity for locally advanced gastric cancer, with comparable oncological equivalency with respect to traditional open surgery.

Minimally invasive surgery in advanced gastric cancer

Since Dr. Kitano introduced laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer in 1994, there have been remarkable advances in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gastric cancer, including robotic surgery. With the efforts of many clinical researchers and consenting patients, medical knowledge and evidence for laparoscopic surgery in gastric cancer have accumulated. Although many gastric surgeons are comfortable with the clinical application of laparoscopic surgery for early gastric cancer, the adoption of MISs for advanced gastric cancer remains controversial. In this review article, we describe the current status and evidence of MIS from an evidence‐based medicine viewpoint and explore the feasibility and effectiveness of MIS for advanced gastric cancer in the real world.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: has the time come for considered it a standard procedure?

Radical gastrectomy with an adequate lymphadenectomy is the main procedure which makes it possible to cure patients with resectable gastric cancer. A number of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis provide phase III evidence that laparoscopic gastrectomy is technically safe and that it yields better short-term outcomes than conventional open gastrectomy for early-stage gastric cancer. At present, laparoscopic gastrectomy is considered a standard procedure for early-stage gastric cancer, especially in Asian countries. On the other hand, the use of minimally invasive techniques is still controversial for the treatment of more advanced tumours, principally due to existing concerns about its oncological adequacy and capacity to carry out an adequately extended lymphadenectomy. Additional high-quality studies comparing laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer have been recently published, in particular concerning the latest results obtained by laparoscopic approach to advanced gastric cancer. It seems very useful to update the review of literature in light of these new evidences for this subject and draw some considerations.

Safety and Efficacy of Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastrectomy in Patients With Advanced Gastric Cancer Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Given the expanding clinical applications of laparoscopic surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer treatment, there is an emerging need to summarize the few evidences that evaluated the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

METHODS

From January 1 to 2, 2021, we searched Ovid Embase, PubMed, Cochrane central register Trials (Ovid), and web of science to find relevant studies published in English, and two authors independently performed literature screening, quality assessment of the included studies, data extraction, and data analysis. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021228845).

RESULTS

The initial search retrieved 1567 articles, and 6 studies were finally included in the meta-analysis review, which comprised 2 randomized control trials and 4 observational studies involving 288 laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and 416 open gastrectomy (OG) AGC patients treated with NAC. For intraoperative conditions, R0 resection rate, blood transfusion, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph nodes dissected, proximal margin, and distal margin were comparable between LG group and open OG group. For postoperative short-term clinical outcomes, LG has significantly less postoperative complications (OR = 0.65, 95%CI: 0.42-1.00, p = 0.05) and shorter postoperative time to first aerofluxus (WMD = -0.57d, 95%CI: -0.89-0.25, p = 0.0004) than OG, and anastomotic leakage, pulmonary infection, pleural effusion, surgical site infection, thrombosis, intestinal obstruction, peritoneal effusion or abscess formation, postoperative time to first defecation, postoperative time to first liquid diet, and postoperative length of stay were comparable between the two groups. For postoperative survival outcomes, there were no significant differences in disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The available evidences indicated that LG is an effective and feasible technology for the treatment of AGC patients treated with NAC, and LG patients have much less postoperative complications and faster bowel function recovery than OG patients.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO database (identifier, CRD42021228845).

Perforated gastric cancer: a critical appraisal

Gastric cancer perforation is a life-threatening condition that accounts for less than 5% of all gastric cancer patients and typically requires emergency surgery. However, preoperative diagnosis is difficult and management has a dual purpose: to treat peritonitis and to achieve a curative resection. The optimal surgical strategy is still unclear and prognosis remains poor. A search of the literature was performed using MEDLINE databases (Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane) using terms such as "perforated gastric cancer", "perforated gastric cancer and surgery", "perforated gastric tumour" and "gastric cancer perforated". Case reports, other reviews, non-english written papers and papers written before 2010 were excluded. Eight articles published between 2010 and 2020 matched the inclusion criteria for this review. Perforated gastric cancer was more prevalent in elderly males. Distal stomach was most frequently involved. Preoperative diagnosis was uncommon. Mortality rates ranged from 2 to 46%. Patients able to receive an R0 resection demonstrated better long-term survival compared with patients who had simple closure procedures. Laparoscopic procedure was mentioned only in one study. In an emergency situation, curative RO resection should always be offered in patients without multiple adverse factors. A surgical strategy using laparoscopic local repair as first step of surgery to resolve the peritonitis followed by a radical open or laparoscopic gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy could be considered. A balance between emergency and oncological needs should drive the surgical choice on a case by case basis.

Long-term oncologic result of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

Background

Laparoscopic gastrectomy is an acceptable procedure for early-stage gastric cancer; however, most patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage and older age in Taiwan. The feasibility and safety of applying laparoscopic gastrectomy in daily practice remain unclear. This study aimed to examine the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open procedures.

Methods

From 2007 to 2015, 192 patients who underwent open gastrectomy and 189 patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer at a single center were included. Propensity score matching analysis was used to adjust selection biases associated with age, preoperative hemoglobin, the extent of resection, tumor size, and stage of the disease. The demographics, perioperative parameters, short-term postoperative results, and 5-year survival data were analyzed.

Results

Open gastrectomy was more frequently performed in the elderly, larger tumor size, advanced stage of the disease, and disease requiring total gastrectomy or combined organ resection. After propensity score matching, 108 patients with laparoscopic gastrectomy were compared to 108 patients with open gastrectomy. The morbidity rates were not different in both groups (25.9%), while hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (16.0 vs. 18.8 days, p = 0.04). The 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival were superior in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.03 and p = 0.01, respectively); however, the survival differences were not significant in the subgroup analysis by stage. Laparoscopic gastrectomy had fewer recurrences than open gastrectomy. The pattern of recurrence was not different between the groups.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic gastrectomy can be safely applied in both early and locally advanced gastric cancer without compromising oncologic outcomes.

Trial registration

Retrospective registration.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for serosa-invasive gastric cancer: A single-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Whether laparoscopic gastrectomy is suitable for patients with serosa-invasive gastric cancer remains controversial. We performed this study to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic gastrectomy compared with after open gastrectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 906 consecutive patients with serosa-invasive gastric cancer from January 2004 to December 2014 in our center, who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy or open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy. After propensity score matching, 334 patients were included in each group. Surgical conditions and short- and long-term results were compared.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic gastrectomy was associated with less estimated blood loss and longer operation time, while the number of harvested lymph nodes was not significantly different between laparoscopic gastrectomy and open gastrectomy. Patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy had an earlier time to first flatus, first diet, and first ambulation and were discharged earlier. Overall and pulmonary postoperative complication rates were lower in the laparoscopic gastrectomy group. With a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the 5-year overall survival was 39.3% in the laparoscopic gastrectomy group and 34.3% in the open gastrectomy group, and the 5-year disease-free survival was 36.4% in the laparoscopic gastrectomy group and 32.7% in the open gastrectomy group. Laparoscopic gastrectomy was associated with better 5-year overall survival in patients aged ≥60 years. The overall recurrence rates and patterns were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic gastrectomy is an alternative surgical approach for patients with serosa-invasive gastric cancer in terms of short-term outcomes and long-term survival, and it might be more advantageous for certain populations.

Long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy for grossly early gastric cancer-mimicking advanced gastric cancer: Propensity score matching analysis

Laparoscopic gastrectomy became an option in the treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC) in clinical practice. However, whether laparoscopic surgery for grossly EGC-mimicking advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients is oncologically safe long-term is still controversial.We retrospectively analyzed 472 patients with AGC who were diagnosed as clinical EGC. Patients received laparoscopic or open gastrectomy with standard lymph node (LN) dissection from January 2007 to February 2015. We used a 1:3 propensity score matching method for the analysis. The matching factors were age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and pathologic stage. After the matching process, we evaluated the 5-year overall survival and the cumulative incidence curve of recurrence.All of the analyzed patients were pathologically diagnosed with AGC after surgery (grossly EGC-mimicking AGC). The median (range) duration of follow-up was 58.0 (0-132) months. After propensity score matching, 31.5% of patients in the laparoscopy group had D1+ LN dissection and 99.2% of patients in the open group had D2 LN dissection. The 5-year overall survival rate between the laparoscopy (n = 92) and open groups (n = 244) were not significantly different (95.3% versus 91.4%, P = .224). There was no significant difference between the cumulative recurrence incidence curves of the matched groups (P = .319).Laparoscopic surgery for grossly EGC-mimicking AGC might be safe in terms of long-term survival outcome. After confirming grossly EGC-mimicking AGC in the final pathology report, no additional surgery might be required.

Early Red Flags Associated with Delayed Discharge in Patients Undergoing Gastrectomy: Analysis of Perioperative Variables and ERAS Protocol Items

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) perioperative pathways are safe and effective for patients undergoing gastrectomy. However, adherence to these protocols varies and is generally underreported. This retrospective study aimed to assess whether perioperative variables or deviation from ERAS items is associated with delayed discharge after gastrectomy.

METHODS

All patients undergoing gastrectomy at our institution were managed with a standardised perioperative pathway according to ERAS principles. The target length of stay was set as the ninth post-operative day (POD). All significant variables were derived from a bivariate analysis and were entered into a logistic regression to confirm their statistical value.

RESULTS

The study included 180 patients. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that incomplete immunonutrition, failure to extubate the patient at the end of surgery, intraoperative crystalloids >2150 ml and blood transfusion >268 ml, surgery duration >195 min, and failure to mobilise patients within 24 h from surgery were associated with delayed discharge. The logistic regression model was statistically significant (p < 0.001) and correctly classified 73.6% of cases. Sensitivity and specificity were 74.1% and 73.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These results seem clinically significant and consistent with those of previous studies. The reported perioperative variables showed a strong relationship with the length of hospital stay.

Caracterización del cáncer gástrico abordado por laparoscopia en un centro del caribe colombiano

Introducción. El cáncer gástrico es una enfermedad con gran carga de salud a nivel mundial, con altas cifras de incidencia y prevalencia, por lo cual requiere de tratamiento seguros que permitan una baja morbilidad, una mejor sobrevida y calidad de vida. Dentro de los tratamientos disponibles actualmente, la gastrectomía laparoscópica se plantea como un procedimiento menos mórbido, seguro y con buenos resultados oncológicos. Métodos. Estudio observacional descriptivo que incluyó pacientes con cáncer gástrico sometidos a gastrectomía por vía laparoscópica en el Hospital Universitario del Caribe durante un periodo de 5 años. Resultados. En la población total la edad fue del 68,3 ± 11,4 años, el índice de masa corporal de 23,6 ± 2,6 kg/m2 y la estancia hospitalaria de 18,7 ± 11,7 días. El 60 % de los pacientes eran hombres y 55 % del régimen contributivo, provenientes del servicio de urgencias en 77,5 %, con hipertensión arterial en 62,5 %, diabetes mellitus en 40,0 % y otras alteraciones cardiovasculares en un 7,5 %. En cuanto al acto quirúrgico, 35 % ingresaron con riesgo prequirúrgico bajo y 7 pacientes (17,5 %) requirieron transfusión prequirúrgica. Se realizó gastrectomía total en la mitad y subtotal en la otra mitad de los pacientes, con anestesia general. La lesión macroscópica se halló en un 30 % en el cuerpo gástrico, 30 % en el fondo y 30 % en el antro, siendo adenocarcinoma en un 87,5 %. Los tipos más comunes según la clasificación de Bormann fueron el IV en el 55 % y el III en el 27,5 %, con estadiaje IIIB en un 37,5 % y IIB en un 40 %. Discusión. La gastrectomía laparoscopia en el Hospital Universitario del Caribe, Cartagena, Colombia, presenta buen perfil de seguridad, con igual tendencia que el perfil epidemiológico reportado a nivel mundial.

Effects of early oral feeding after radical total gastrectomy in gastric cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer (GC) is a heavy burden in China. Nutritional support for GC patients is closely related to postoperative rehabilitation. However, the role of early oral feeding after laparoscopic radical total gastrectomy in GC patients is unclear and high-quality research evidence is scarce.

AIM

To prospectively explore the safety, feasibility and short-term clinical outcomes of early oral feeding after laparoscopic radical total gastrectomy for GC patients.

METHODS

This study was a prospective cohort study conducted between January 2018 and December 2019 based in a high-volume tertiary hospital in China. A total of 206 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical total gastrectomy for GC were enrolled. Of which, 105 patients were given early oral feeding (EOF group) after surgery, and the other 101 patients were given the traditional feeding strategy (control group) after surgery. Perioperative clinical data were recorded and analyzed. The primary endpoints were gastrointestinal function recovery time and postoperative complications, and the secondary endpoints were postoperative nutritional status, length of hospital stay and expenses, etc.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, patients in the EOF group had a significantly shorter postoperative first exhaust time (2.48 ± 1.17 d vs 3.37 ± 1.42 d, P = 0.001) and first defecation time (3.83 ± 2.41 d vs 5.32 ± 2.70 d, P = 0. 004). In addition, the EOF group had a significant shorter postoperative hospitalization duration (5.85 ± 1.53 d vs 7.71 ± 1.56 d, P < 0.001) and lower postoperative hospitalization expenses (16.60 ± 5.10 K¥ vs 21.00 ± 7.50 K¥, P = 0.014). On the 5^th day after surgery, serum prealbumin level (214.52 ± 22.47 mg/L vs 204.17 ± 20.62 mg/L, P = 0.018), serum gastrin level (246.30 ± 57.10 ng/L vs 223.60 ± 55.70 ng/L, P = 0.001) and serum motilin level (424.60 ± 68.30 ng/L vs 409.30 ± 61.70 ng/L, P = 0.002) were higher in the EOF group. However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of total postoperative complications between the two groups (P = 0.507).

CONCLUSION

Early oral feeding after laparoscopic radical total gastrectomy can promote the recovery of gastrointestinal function, improve postoperative nutritional status, reduce length of hospital stay and expenses while not increasing the incidence of related complications, which indicates its safety, feasibility and potential benefits for gastric cancer patients.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for elderly gastric-cancer patients: comparisons with laparoscopic gastrectomy in non-elderly patients and open gastrectomy in the elderly

Background

The benefits of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in elderly gastric-cancer patients still remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LG in elderly gastric-cancer patients.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent LG or open gastrectomy (OG) between June 2009 and July 2015 in a single high-volume center. We compared surgical, short-term, and long-term survival outcomes among an elderly (≥70 years old) LG (ELG) group (n = 114), a non-elderly (<70 years old) LG (NLG) group (n = 740), and an elderly OG (EOG) group (n = 383).

Results

Except for extended time to first flatus, the surgical and short-term outcomes of the ELG group were similar to those of the NLG group. The ELG group revealed comparable disease-specific survival (DSS) rates to the NLG group (64.9% vs 66.2%, P = 0.476), although the overall survival (OS) rate was lower (57.0% vs 65.5%, P < 0.001) in the ELG group than in the NLG group. The ELG group showed longer operation time than the EOG group (236.4 ± 77.3 vs 179 ± 52.2 min, P < 0.001). The ELG group had less estimated blood loss (174.0 ± 88.4 vs 209.3 ± 133.8, P = 0.008) and shorter post-operative hospital stay (8.3 ± 2.5 vs 9.2 ± 4.5, P = 0.048) than the EOG group. The severity of complications was similar between the ELG and NLG groups. Multivariate analysis confirmed that LG was not a risk factor for post-operative complications.

Conclusions

LG is a feasible and safe procedure for elderly patients with acceptable short- and long-term survival outcomes.

FLOT Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Laparoscopic D2 Gastrectomy in the Treatment of Locally Resectable Advanced Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of patients with advanced gastric cancer remains unsatisfactory, highlighting the need for improved therapeutic strategies. We analyzed 23 resectable advanced gastric cancer patients who received FLOT followed by laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy to evaluate the efficacy and safety.

METHODS

Patients aged 18-75 years with gastric adenocarcinoma (stage cT3-4 and/or N + M0) underwent neoadjuvant FLOT therapy (four preoperative and four postoperative 2-week cycles) at Shanghai East Hospital. Laparoscopic gastrectomy was scheduled 3-4 weeks after completion of the last cycle of preoperative chemotherapy. The type of surgical procedure was determined by the location and extent of the primary tumor.

RESULTS

23 patients were reviewed in the study. 20 patients (81.2%) received four courses of FOLT therapy, while 3 patients (18.8%) received three courses of treatment. There were 3 (13.0%) complete responses, 13 (56.5%) partial responses, 4 (26.1%) of stable disease, and 1 (4.3%) of progressive disease. The clinical efficacy response rate was 69.6%. The R0 resection rate was 91.3%. Only one patient exhibited grade III postoperative complications. The pathologic complete remission was 13%. The common grade 3/4 adverse events from chemotherapy were leucopenia (17.4%), neutropenia (30.4%), anemia (13%), anorexia (13%), and nausea (17.4%). Postoperative complications occurred in 5 patients (26.1%). There was no treatment-related mortality or reoperation. The most reason for not completing chemotherapy was the patient's request.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that FLOT neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy, is effective and safe in advanced, resectable advanced gastric cancer.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy and metastasectomy for stage IV gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The standard recommended treatment of stage IV gastric cancer is palliative chemotherapy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the role of radical gastrectomy with metastasectomy in these patients, as well as to explore the feasibility and safety of a laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

117 consecutive patients with pathologically proven Stage IV gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy with metastasectomy were enrolled in this study. We evaluated short-term and long-term outcomes, comparing laparoscopic surgery with open surgery by propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The 5-year overall survival rate (OSR) was 23.2% and the median survival time (MST) was 19.8 months. After propensity scoring matching, the 5-year OSR and MST of laparoscopy group was 23.4%, 17.9 months and in the open group, it was 25.0%, 22.8 months (p = 0.882). The complication rate was 5.6% in the laparoscopy group and 23.4% in the open group (p = 0.069). In multivariate analysis, adjuvant chemotherapy, chemotherapy cycle, and postoperative complication were independent prognostic factors of overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Radical gastrectomy with metastasectomy could have a potential role in stage IV gastric cancer. Laparoscopic gastrectomy with metastasectomy in selected stage IV gastric cancer patients is safe and feasible.

Laparoscopic Versus Open D2 Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Case-Matched Comparative Study

Background: The role of the laparoscopic approach to D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the operative and short-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open resections. Methods: Patients who underwent potentially curative D2 gastrectomy between 2017 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were randomly matched on 1:1 basis for age and extent of surgery (total versus subtotal gastrectomy, and additional organ resection). Exclusions included emergency or palliative surgery. The learning curve for laparoscopic resections was included. Analysis was conducted on intention to treat basis. The outcomes were reported as median (range) or per cent as appropriate. Results: Among 78 patients who had undergone potentially curative gastrectomy 36 were matched. The groups were comparable for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, preoperative serum albumin and hemoglobin, body mass index, frequency of previous abdominal surgery, anatomic distribution of disease, extent of gastrectomy, need for additional resection, and disease stage. There was one conversion to open surgery. Although laparoscopic surgery required longer operating time (393 versus 218 minutes, P < .001), it was associated with less blood loss (100 versus 200 mL, P = .001) and shorter hospital stay (3.0 versus 7.5 days, P < .001). There were no significant differences in the rates of clinically significant complications, mortality, readmissions, reoperations, lymph node retrieval, and R₁ resections. Conclusions: The laparoscopic approach to potentially curative D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer is associated with less operative trauma and quicker recovery while offering an equivalent oncologic resection.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The potential advantages of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) compared with open gastrectomy (OG) for Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) have not been fully clarified. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LG for Siewert type II/III AEG, compared with OG.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed in various medical databases up to December 30, 2018. Seven non-randomized controlled trials comparing LG and OG for Siewert type II/III AEG were included. Outcomes evaluated including operation time, estimated blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs), post-operation complications, postoperative hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to ambulation, and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Seven studies of 1915 patients were included for meta-analysis. The estimated blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) = - 77.49, 95%CI - 111.84 to - 43.15; P < 0.00001] was significantly less and the postoperative hospital stay (WMD = - 1.98, 95%CI - 2.14 to - 1.83; P < 0.00001) was significantly shorter in the LG group than in the OG group, while the operation time, number of retrieved LNs, time to first flatus, and time to ambulation showed no significant difference between LG and OG groups. The overall postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) 0.78, 95%CI 0.60-1.02; P = 0.07] in LG group were less than those in OG group, although the difference was not significant between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

LG can achieve short-term surgical outcomes comparable to OG, with respect to safety and efficiency in treatment of Siewert type II/III AEG.

Short-term and Long-term Outcomes Following Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer Compared With Open Gastrectomy

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the oncological feasibility and technical safety of laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

A total of 186 advanced gastric cancer patients treated by gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy were eligible for inclusion including those with invasion into the muscularis propria, subserosa, and serosa without involvement of other organs, and stages N0-2 and M0. We retrospectively compared the short-term and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic gastrectomy and open gastrectomy.

RESULTS

We analyzed short-term outcomes by comparing distal with total gastrectomy results. We found no significant difference for distal gastrectomy for postoperative morbidity [laparoscopic vs. open: n=4 (4.6%) vs. n=1 (3.6%); P=1.00]. We also found no significant difference in postoperative morbidity for total gastrectomy [laparoscopic vs. open: n=2 (4.0%) vs. n=1 (4.0%); P=1.00]. No deaths occurred in any group.The entire cohort analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in overall-free or recurrence-free survival between the laparoscopic and open groups. For overall survival, there were no significant differences between open and laparoscopic groups for clinical stage II or III (P=0.29 and 0.27, respectively), and for pathologic stage II or III (P=0.88 and 0.86, respectively). For recurrence-free survival, there were no significant differences between open and laparoscopic groups for clinical stage II or III (P=0.63 and 0.60, respectively), and for pathologic stage II or III (P=0.98 and 0.72, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Laparscopic gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer compared favorably with open gastrectomy regarding short-term and long-term outcomes.

Dealing with the gray zones in the management of gastric cancer: The consensus statement of the İstanbul Group

The geographical location and differences in tumor biology significantly change the management of gastric cancer. The prevalence of gastric cancer ranks fifth and sixth among men and women, respectively, in Turkey. The international guidelines from the Eastern and Western countries fail to manage a considerable amount of inconclusive issues in the management of gastric cancer. The uncertainties lead to significant heterogeneities in clinical practice, lack of homogeneous data collection, and subsequently, diverse outcomes. The physicians who are professionally involved in the management of gastric cancer at two institutions in Istanbul, Turkey, organized a consensus meeting to address current problems and plan feasible, logical, measurable, and collective solutions in their clinical practice for this challenging disease. The evidence-based data and current guidelines were reviewed. The gray zones in the management of gastric cancer were determined in the first session of this consensus meeting. The second session was constructed to discuss, vote, and ratify the ultimate decisions. The identification of the T stage, the esophagogastric area, imaging algorithm for proper staging and follow-up, timing and patient selection for neoadjuvant treatment, and management of advanced and metastatic disease have been accepted as the major issues in the management of gastric cancer. The recommendations are presented with the percentage of supporting votes in the results section with related data.

Perforated Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review

Background: Although gastric carcinoma is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer, optimal treatment of perforated cancer remains debated. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted according to the guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. An electronic systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science) by matching the terms "perforated gastric cancer," "gastric cancer perforated," "perforation AND gastric cancer," and "perforated gastric tumor." Results: Fifteen studies published between 1995 and 2018 and including 964 patients matched the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. There were 4 publications from Japan, 3 from Turkey, and 1 from China, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Nepal, Serbia, South Korea, and Taiwan, respectively. The sample size of the individual studies ranged from 8 to 514 patients. Perforated gastric carcinoma was rare and more prevalent in elderly males, preoperative diagnosis was uncommon, and the distal stomach was most frequently involved. Mortality was 11.4% and 1.9%, respectively, in one-stage versus two-stage gastrectomy (P = .010). Curative treatment by omental patch repair and staged gastrectomy yielded acceptable 5-year survival rates. There were no significant differences in the recurrence rate and pattern between perforated and nonperforated gastric cancer if a curative operation was performed. Use of laparoscopy was mentioned only in one study. Conclusions: Future studies should evaluate the role of laparoscopic surgery and clarify the indications for hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and extensive peritoneal lavage protocols to decrease gastric cancer cell shed in the surgical field and increase long-term survival.

C-reactive protein elevation ratio as an early predictor of postoperative severe complications after laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective study

Background

In gastrectomy, postoperative elevation of C-reactive protein (CRP) is thought to be useful for predicting complications. Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is less invasive than laparotomy and the elevation of CRP is also mild. Postoperative complications such as anastomotic leakage not only increase the severity of the condition, but also carry a poor prognosis when treatment is delayed. Early treatment is therefore necessary.

Method

This retrospective study examined the relationship between occurrence of complications and the ratio of CRP levels on postoperative days 1 and 3 (CRP ratio) for 449 gastric cancer patients who underwent LG in the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery at Osaka City University Hospital between 2006 and 2016.

Results

We observed that factors associated with postoperative complications were preoperative renal failure and CRP ratio. No significant associations with surgical procedure, operation time, bleeding volume, age, obesity, measured CRP concentration, or white blood cell count were evident. The optimal cut-off for CRP ratio to predict postoperative complications from the receiver operating characteristic curve was 2.13.

Conclusion

Our results suggested that the risk of severe postoperative complications after LG could be predicted using the CRP ratio.

Laparoscopic Management of Boerhaave's syndrome: a case report with an intraoperative video

Background

Boerhaave’s syndrome involves a sudden elevation in the intraluminal pressure of the esophagus, causing a transmural perforation. It is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Its treatment is challenging, and early surgical intervention is the most crucial prognostic element.

Case presentation

We present a case of a 32 year-old male who presented after severe emesis with an acute onset of epigastric pain. He was diagnosed with Boerhaave’s syndrome. Displaying signs of shock mandated immediate surgical exploration with laparoscopic primary repair.

Conclusion

The golden period of the first 24 hrs of the event still applies to cases of esophageal perforation. The scarcity of these cases makes a comparison between the various treatment methods difficult. Our data support the use of laparoscopic intervention with primary repair as the mainstay of treatment for the management of esophageal perforation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12893-019-0576-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Safety and Feasibility of Single-Port Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Single-port laparoscopic surgery maximizes the advantages of laparoscopic surgery by reducing damage of the abdominal wall. However, no comparative studies have addressed its application to gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). We therefore aimed to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of single-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (SLG) for the treatment of AGC by comparing it with conventional multi-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (MLG).

METHODS

We searched the prospective gastric cancer database of our institute for patients with AGC who underwent SLG or MLG between October 2007 and December 2013. Cases of R2 resection with distant metastasis or concurrent surgery for comorbid malignant lesions were excluded. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to reduce bias from confounding patient-related variables, and the short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

We identified 216 patients who underwent SLG (n = 100) or MLG (n = 116). After propensity score matching, we selected 73 pairs of patients who underwent SLG (distal gastrectomy, 49; total gastrectomy, 24) or MLG (distal gastrectomy, 45; total gastrectomy, 28). While the mean operative times were comparable between the groups, the SLG group had less blood loss, a lower postoperative morbidity, and shorter postoperative hospital stays. The 5-year survival rates were 74.2% in the SLG group and 60.2% in the MLG group (P = 0.081 by log-rank test).

CONCLUSIONS

SLG is shown to be safe and feasible for the treatment of AGC, with better short-term results and acceptable oncologic outcomes and may be applicable for AGC treatment.

Comparison of totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) has been extensively employed for the removal of gastric tumors, although it has several limitations. Totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) is a new technique that has rapidly been gaining popularity, and may help overcome the limitations of LATG; however, its safety and therapeutic effect remain controversial. In the present study, we aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of TLTG, and compare the short-term outcomes of TLTG and LATG.

METHODS

We searched for studies comparing TLTG and LATG published up to April 2018 from databases such as PubMed and Embase. The study results, including time of surgery, blood loss, anastomosis time, retrieved lymphatic nodes, proximal and distal resection edges, incision length, time to first fluid and soft diet, hospitalization duration, time to first flatus, and postsurgical and anastomotic complications, were compared between the procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies were included. TLTG led to reduced intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.01), greater number of retrieved lymphatic nodes (P < 0.01), decreased hospitalization duration (P < 0.01), reduced incision length (P = 0.05), and shorter time to first fluid diet (P < 0.05), as compared to LATG. The surgery and anastomosis times, time to first soft diet, resection edge, time to first flatus, overall postsurgical complications, and anastomosis-related complications were similar between TLTG and LATG (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

TLTG is a safe procedure that yields better cosmesis lower invasiveness, and faster recovery as compared to LATG.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for high-risk patients with gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is still remains unclear whether high-risk patients with gastric cancer can benefit from the application of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the surgical and long-term outcomes after LG and open gastrectomy (OG) for high-risk patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in various databases from January 1994 to June 2018. Patients who had≥1 of the following conditions were defined as high-risk patients: (1) age≥70 years; (2) BMI≥30 kg/m²; (3) ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) grade≥3; or (4) clinical T4 stage (cT4). The results were analyzed according to predefined criteria.

RESULTS

In the present meta-analysis, the outcomes of 12 non-randomized controlled studies enrolling 1651 patients (873 in the LG group and 778 in the OG group) were pooled. The estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the LG group than those in the OG group (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between two groups in operative time (P = 0.17) and number of harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.21). In the LG group, the time to flatus (P < 0.01), time to food intake (P < 0.01), and postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.01) were significantly shorter than those in the OG group. A lower overall postoperative complication rate was observed in the LG group (P < 0.01). The incidence of surgical (P < 0.01) and non-surgical (P < 0.01) complication was significantly lower in the LG group than that in the OG group. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between LG and OG groups (P = 0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

LG can be a safe and feasible procedure for high-risk patients with gastric cancer.

Long-term Survival Outcomes of Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer: Five-year Results of a Phase II Prospective Clinical Trial

Purpose

Despite an increased acceptance of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in early gastric cancer (EGC), there is insufficient evidence for its oncological safety in advanced gastric cancer (AGC). This is a prospective phase II clinical trial to evaluate the feasibility of LG with D2 lymph node dissection (LND) in AGC.

Materials and Methods

The primary endpoint was set as 3-year disease-free survival (DFS). The eligibility criteria were as follows: 20-80 years of age, cT2N0-cT4aN3, American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 3 or less, and no other malignancy. Patients were enrolled in this single-arm study between November 2008 and May 2012. Exclusion criteria included cT4b or M1, or having final pathologic results as EGC. All patients underwent D2 lymphadenectomy. Three-year DFS rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

A total of 157 patients were enrolled. The overall local complication rate was 10.2%. Conversion to open surgery occurred in 11 patients (7.0%). The mean follow-up period was 55.0±20.4 months (1–81 months). The cumulative 3-year DFS rates were 76.3% for all stages, and 100%, 89.3%, 100%, 88.0%, 71.4%, and 35.3% for stage IB, IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC, respectively. Recurrence was observed in 37 patients (23.6%), including hematogenous (n=6), peritoneal (n=13), locoregional (n=1), distant node (n=8), and mixed recurrence (n=9).

Conclusions

In addition to being technically feasible for treatment of AGC in terms of morbidity, LG with D2 LND for locally advanced gastric cancer showed acceptable 3-year DFS outcomes.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01441336

Remifentanil regulates proliferation and apoptosis of gastric cancer cells by regulating miR-206/GOLPH3

BACKGROUND

Remifentanil is a commonly used anesthetic in clinical practice. In recent years, its new efficacy has been continuously discovered, especially its anti-cancer function. However, the role and mechanism of remifentanil in gastric cancer (GC) are still not clear.

AIM

To investigate the effect of remifentanil on the expression of miR-206, GOLPH3, cell proliferation, and apoptosis in human GC cell lines AGS and MKN-45.

METHODS

The expression of miR-206 and GOLPH3 and the viability and apoptosis of AGS and MKN-45 cells after treatment with 40 nmol/L remifentanil were detected by qRT-PCR, Western blot, MTT assay, and flow cytometry, respectively. Cell viability and apoptosis of AGS and MKN-45 cells with overexpression of miR-206 or knockdown of GOLPH3 were detected by MTT assay and flow cytometry, respectively. The targeting relationship between miR-206 and GOLPH3 was verified by Targetscan online prediction, dual-luciferase assay, and Western blot. After transfection with miR-206 inhibitor or pcDNA-GOLPH3, AGS and MKN-45 cells were treated with 40 nmol/L remifentanil and then detected for cell viability and apoptosis.

RESULTS

After treatment with remifentanil, the expression of miR-206 and apoptosis rate were increased while the expression of GOLPH3 and cell viability were decreased in AGS and MKN-45 cells. Cell viability was decreased and apoptotic rate was increased in AGS and MKN-45 cells after overexpression of miR-206 or knockdown of GOLPH3. The results of Targetscan online prediction, dual-luciferase assay, and Western blot indicted that miR-206 could regulate the expression of GOLPH3 protein. Down-regulation of miR-206 or overexpression of GOLPH3 could reverse the inhibition of proliferation and apoptosis of AGS and MKN-45 cells by remifentanil.

CONCLUSION

Remifentanil could inhibit the proliferation and induce apoptosis of AGS and MKN-45 cells by regulating the expression of miR-206 and GOLPH3.

Oncologic Outcomes after Laparoscopic and Open Distal Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer: Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the oncologic and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) and open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

Materials and Methods

From July 2006 to November 2016, 384 patients underwent distal gastrectomy for AGC. Data on short- and long-term outcomes were prospectively collected and reviewed. Propensity score matching was applied at a ratio of 1:1 to compare the LDG and ODG groups.

Results

The operative times were longer for the LDG group than for the ODG group. However, the time to resumption of diet and the length of hospital stay were shorter in the LDG group than in the ODG group (4.7 vs. 5.6 days, P=0.049 and 9.6 vs. 11.5 days, P=0.035, respectively). The extent of lymph node dissection in the LDG group was more limited than in the ODG group (P=0.002), although there was no difference in the number of retrieved lymph nodes between the 2 groups. The 3-year overall survival rates were 98% and 86.9% (P=0.018), and the 3-year recurrence-free survival rates were 86.3% and 75.3% (P=0.259), respectively, in the LDG and ODG groups.

Conclusions

LDG is safe and feasible for AGC, with earlier recovery after surgery and long-term oncologic outcomes comparable to those of ODG.

Long-term oncological outcomes in laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A meta-analysis of high-quality nonrandomized studies

BACKGROUND

Multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and several meta-analyses have confirmed that laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is a safe and feasible procedure for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) in terms of short-term outcomes. However, the long-term oncological outcomes of LG for AGC are still needed for further evaluation. This study aimed to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of LG with open gastrectomy (OG) for patients with AGC.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in various databases from January 1997 to August 2018. Studies comparing the long-term oncological outcomes between LG with OG were evaluated and data were extracted accordingly. We performed the meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies with 4494 patients (2273 in LG group and 2221 in OG group) were included. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05, P = 0.28), disease-free survival (DFS) rate (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06, P = 0.27), and recurrence rate (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.04, P = 0.13) were comparable in LG and OG. Subgroup analysis showed the publication year, study region, sample size, extent of resection, extent of lymphadenectomy, retrieved lymph nodes, proportion of stage III, and patients with serosa-positive (pT4a) did not influence the estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with AGC, LG is a feasible surgical procedure alternative to OG in terms of long-term oncological outcomes.

Short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted versus open D2 distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer in North China: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic surgery has been recommended as an optional therapy for patients with early gastric cancer, whether patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) could benefit from laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with D2 lymphadenectomy remains elusive due to a lack of comprehensive clinical data. To evaluate the efficacy of LADG, we conducted a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial to compare laparoscopy-assisted versus open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for AGC in North China.

METHODS

In this RCT, after patients were enrolled according to the eligibility criteria, they were preoperatively assigned to LADG or ODG arm randomly with a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary endpoint was the morbidity and mortality within 30 postoperative days to evaluate the surgical safety of LADG. The secondary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrial.gov as NCT02464215.

RESULTS

Between March 2014 and August 2017, a total of 446 patients with cT2-4aN0-3M0 (AJCC 7th staging system) were enrolled. Of these, 222 patients underwent LADG and 220 patients underwent ODG were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The compliance rate of D2 lymph node dissection was identical between the LADG and ODG arms (99.5%, P = 1.000). No significant difference was observed regarding the overall postoperative complication rate in two groups (LADG 13.1%, ODG 17.7%, P = 0.174). No operation-related death occurred in both arms.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial confirmed that LADG performed by credentialed surgeons was safe and feasible for patients with AGC compared with conventional ODG.

Relationship between Clavien-Dindo classification and long-term survival outcomes after curative resection for gastric cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of postoperative complications (POCs) on the long-term survival outcomes after curative resection for gastric cancer has seldom been reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the severity of POCs and long-term survival outcomes after curative resection for gastric cancer.

METHODS

The study analyzed 3091 patients who underwent curative resection for gastric cancer in a single center between June 2009 and June 2015. Patients were divided into two groups based on the occurrence or absence of postoperative complications which were recorded using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Long-term survival outcomes were compared between groups after propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 3091 patients were included in the entire cohort. After PSM, no significant difference in baseline data was observed between the complications (C) group (n = 375) and no complications (NC) group (n = 375). With a median follow-up of 51 months, POCs were associated with decreased 5-year overall survival (OS) (51.7% vs. 67.5%, P < 0.001), disease-free survival (DFS) (49.9% vs. 65.6%, P < 0.001), and disease-specific survival (DSS) (53.9% vs. 68.8%, P < 0.001). Increasing Clavien-Dindo grades from II to IV was significantly associated with a corresponding decrease in OS (60, 48.3, 34%, P = 0.010), DFS (58.3, 46.3, 32.1%, P < 0.001) and DSS (62.9, 50.3, 34%, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed POCs was an independent prognostic factor for decreased OS, DFS, and DSS (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

POCs had a negative impact on long-term survival outcomes after curative resection for gastric cancer. The negative effects were also increased with higher Clavien-Dindo grades.

Comparison of postoperative lymphocytes and interleukins between laparoscopy-assisted and open radical gastrectomy for early gastric cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to study the effects of laparoscopic-assisted radical gastrectomy (LAG) and open radical gastrectomy (OG) on immune function and inflammatory factors in patients with early gastric cancer.

METHODS

Seventy-five patients with pT1N0M0 gastric cancer in Ren Ji Hospital from August 2017 to January 2018 were studied. Lymphocytes subsets and interleukins were compared preoperatively and on the third postoperative day (POD3) and seventh postoperative day (POD7).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in age, sex, body mass index, duration of the operation, estimated blood loss, total gastrectomy rate, postoperative first fluid diet, and the levels of preoperative lymphocytes subsets and interleukins between the two groups. The number of CD4+ T cells and the CD4+/CD8+ ratio in the LAG group were significantly higher than those in the OG group on POD3. However, the number of CD8+ T cells, and interleukin-6 and interleukin-8 levels in the LAG group were significantly lower than those in the OG group on POD3.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy can effectively reduce the levels of inflammatory factors and has less effect on the immune system than OG.

Laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: where are we now and where are we going?

INTRODUCTION

Minimally-invasive surgery is gaining increasing popularity for the management of gastric cancer (GC). Areas covered: The authors hereby comprehensively and systematically reviewed the randomized and/or prospective evidence on laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for GC. For early GC located in the distal stomach, various randomized trials have demonstrated the superiority/non-inferiority of LG especially in reducing surgical trauma and enhancing postoperative recovery without compromising surgical safety and oncologic efficacy. For advanced GC, while multicenter large-scale randomized evidence has demonstrated the safety and feasibility of LG by experienced hands, the long-term survival which is to be clarified by several ongoing trials are crucial to determine whether a more widespread application is acceptable. Randomized evidence regarding the application of laparoscopic total or proximal gastrectomy, which is technically challenging, is scarce. Various attempts in modification of the traditional laparoscopic approach to further reduce the trauma have been evaluated, such as single-incision and totally LG. LG is becoming increasingly individualized and precise. Expert commentary: The current randomized and/or prospective evidence supports the non-inferiority of laparoscopic surgery especially for the management of early GC located in the distal stomach, while the definitive efficacy of the laparoscopic approach for more surgically challenging situations remains largely explorative and investigative.

Laparoscopic or open distal gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer: study protocol for a randomised phase II trial

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines recommend open gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection and adjuvant chemotherapy as the standard treatment for advanced gastric cancer. However, the prognosis is not satisfactory. Perioperative chemotherapy has been proposed to improve survival. Although still in debate, the efficacy of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) in patients with advanced gastric cancer has been demonstrated in a few trials. Therefore, LDG after neoadjuvant chemotherapy can be a candidate for future standard treatment on advanced distal gastric cancer. We propose a randomised phase II trial to compare LDG and open distal gastrectomy (ODG) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

To test the efficacy and safety, a randomised, open-label, single-centre, phase II trial was designed to evaluate the non-inferiority of LDG compared with ODG after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with 3-year recurrence-free survival as the primary endpoint. The chosen critical value of a non-inferiority margin was an increase of <8%. The study started in 2015 and enrolled 96 patients according to a prior sample size calculation. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol approach will be used for efficacy analysis, and as-treated analysis will be applied for safety analysis. The survival curves will be constructed as time-to-event plots using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model. All statistical analyses will be conducted in standard statistical software with a significance level of 0.05.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Peking University Cancer Hospital Ethics Committee. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02404753; Pre-results.

Gastric cancer: French intergroup clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO)

INTRODUCTION

This document is a summary of the French Intergroup guidelines regarding the management of gastric cancer published in October 2016, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org), updated in October 2017.

METHODS

This collaborative work was realized under the auspices of several French medical societies involved in management of gastric cancer. Recommendations are graded in three categories (A-C), according to the amount of evidence found in the literature until July 2017.

RESULTS

There are several known risk factors for gastric cancer, including Helicobacter pylori and genetic predispositions, both requiring a specific screening for patients and their relatives. The diagnosis and staging evaluation are essentially based on gastroscopy plus biopsies and computed tomography scan. The endoscopic ultrasonography can be used for superficial tumors in case of discussion for endoscopic resection (T1N0). For local disease (N+ and/or T > T1), the strategic therapy is based on surgery associated with perioperative chemotherapy. In the absence of preoperative treatment (for any raison), the postoperative chemoradiotherapy (or chemotherapy) should be discussed for patients with stage II or III tumor. For metastatic disease, the treatment is based on "palliative" chemotherapy consisting in a doublet or triplet regimens depending of age, performance status and HER2 tumor status. For patients with limited metastatic disease, surgical resection could be discussed in multidisciplinary meeting in case of stable disease after chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines in gastric cancer are done to help decision for daily clinical practice. These recommendations are permanently being reviewed. Each individual case must be discussed within a multidisciplinary team.

National Trend in Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Analysis of the National Register in Chile

INTRODUCTION

The laparoscopic approach for the treatment of gastric cancer has many advantages. However, outside Asia there are few large case series.

AIM

To evaluate postoperative morbidity, long-term survival, changes in indication, and the results of laparoscopic gastrectomy.

METHODS

We included all patients treated with a laparoscopic gastrectomy from 2005 to 2014. We compared results across 2 time periods: 2005-2011 and 2012-2014. Median follow-up was 39 months.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eleven patients underwent a laparoscopic gastrectomy (median age 64 years, 55% male patients). In 135 (64%) patients, a total gastrectomy was performed. Postoperative morbidity occurred in 29%. A significant increase in the indication of laparoscopic surgery for stages II-III (32 vs. 45%; p = 0.04) and higher lymph node count (27 vs. 33; p = 0.002) were observed between the 2 periods. The 5-year overall survival was 72%. According to the stage, the 5-year overall survival was 85, 63, and 54% for stage I, II, and III respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There was an acceptable rate of postoperative complications and the long-term survival was in accordance with the disease stage. There was a higher indication of laparoscopic surgery in stages II-III disease, and higher lymph node count in the latter period of this study.