Laparoscopic-assisted versus open distal gastrectomy with D2 lymph node resection for advanced gastric cancer: effect of learning curve on short-term outcomes. a meta-analysis

A comparison of postoperative outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy: a comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

The application of robot-assisted technology in gastric cancer surgery is gradually gaining attention from surgeons. In this meta-analysis, our main objective was to assess whether robot-assisted techniques are more advantageous than laparoscopic-assisted technology in total gastrectomy.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for clinical studies published before October 2023 comparing robotic-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for gastric cancer. Non-clinical studies, data unavailability, or fewer than 50 included cases were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias by determining the quality of the observational studies. Statistical meta-analysis and drawing were performed using the Software Review Manager version 5.3 and Stata version 16.0. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Nine studies that included 1,864 patients with gastric cancer were included, published between 2012 and 2023. The results of the analysis showed that RATG has advantages in the following aspects: intraoperative blood loss was 17.69 ml lower in the RATG group than in the LATG group (WMD: -17.69,95% CI:-20.90 ∼ -14.49; P < 0.05); In terms of the number of resected lymph nodes, the RATG group had 2.65 more than the LATG group (WMD: 2.65,95% CI:0.88 ∼ -4.42); P < 0.05); the time to start liquid and postoperative hospital stays were 0.62 and 0.90 days shorter in the RATG group than in the LATG group, respectively (WMD: -0.62,95%CI: -1.06 ∼ -0.19; P < 0.05), (WMD: -0.90,95%CI: -1.43 ∼ -0.37; P < 0.05)); the incidence of major complications and pancreas fistula in the RATG group was 0.59% and 0.17% lower than in the LATG group, respectively (OR: 0.59,95% CI: 0.38 ∼ 0.93; P < 0.05), (OR: 0.17,95% CI: 0.03 ∼ 0.94; P < 0.05). However, the analysis showed that the operative time in the RATG group was 30.96 min longer than in the LATG group (WMD: 30.96,95% CI: 21.24 ∼ 40.69; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this meta-analysis, we concluded that robotic-assisted technology may be a worthwhile technique to apply in the surgical treatment of total gastrectomy. However, this meta-analysis has the limitations that the included studies were all non-randomized controlled trials and published in Asian countries, and more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed for further validation in the future.

THE REGISTERED NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study protocol for this meta-analysis is registered on the PROSPERO website under registration number CRD42024500512.

Effect of Indocyanine Green-Guided Lymphadenectomy During Gastrectomy on Survival: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Indocyanine green-guided (ICG-guided) lymphadenectomy during gastrectomy for cancer has been proposed to enhance the accuracy of lymphadenectomy. The impact of ICG-guided lymphadenectomy on patient survival remains debated.

METHODS

The findings of the systematic review were reconstructed into an individual patient data (IDP) meta-analysis with restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD). Overall survival (OS) and disease-free (DFS) survival were primary outcomes. RMSTD, standardized mead difference (SMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures.

RESULTS

Three studies (6325 patients) were included; 42% of patients underwent ICG-guided lymphadenectomy. The patients' age ranged from 47 to 72 years and 58% were males. Proximal, distal, and total gastrectomy were completed in 6.8%, 80.4%, and 12.8% of patients, respectively. The surgical approach was laparoscopic (62.3%) and robotic (37.7%). ICG-guided lymphadenectomy was associated with a higher number of harvested lymph nodes compared to non-ICG-guided lymphadenectomy (SMD 0.50; 95% CI 0.45-0.55). At the 42-month follow-up, OS and DFS estimates for ICG-guided vs. non-ICG-guided lymphadenectomy were 0.5 months (95% CI -0.01, 1.1) and 1.3 months (95% CI 0.39, 2.15), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that ICG-guided lymphadenectomy offers equivalent long-term OS and DFS compared to non-ICG-guided lymphadenectomy.

Learning Curve of Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant and Aggregated Data

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant and aggregated data.

OBJECTIVES

To define the learning curves of endoscopic discectomies using unified statistical methodologies.

METHODS

Searches returned 913 records, with 118 full-text articles screened. Studies of endoscopic lumbar spine surgery reporting outcomes by case order were included. Mixed-effects nonlinear, logistic, and beta meta-regressions prdwere conducted to define the learning curves.

RESULTS

13 studies involving 864 patients among 15 surgeons were included in total. For transforaminal endoscopic discectomy, the estimated operating time for the first case was 95 min [CI: 87-104], and the estimated plateau was 66 minutes [CI: 51-81]. An estimated 21 cases [CI: 18-25] were required to overcome 80% of this deficit, but near-plateau performance was expected only after 59 cases [CI: 51-70]. The estimated risk of surgical complications on the first case was 25% [CI: 11%-46%], with an 80% reduction in relative risk requiring an estimated 41 cases. The expected postoperative VAS leg pain score after the first case was 2.7 [CI: 1.8-3.8], with an 80% improvement requiring an estimated 96 cases. Similar numbers were required to overcome the learning curves in interlaminar and biportal endoscopic discectomies.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 60 cases are required to achieve proficiency in endoscopic lumbar spine surgery, although the greatest part of the learning curve can be overcome with 20 cases. This should be considered when designing implementation programmes for surgeons and service providers that wish to incorporate endoscopic spinal surgery into their practice.

Adherence to Guidelines for Diagnosis, Staging, and Treatment for Gastric Cancer in Italy According to the View of Surgeons and Patients

Background: Despite the strong declining trends in incidence and mortality over the last decades, gastric cancer (GC) is still burdened with high mortality, even in high-income countries. To improve GC prognosis, several guidelines have been increasingly published with indications about the most appropriate GC management. The Italian Society of Digestive System Pathology (SIPAD) and Gastric Cancer Italian Research Group (GIRCG) designed a survey for both surgeons and patients with the purpose of evaluating the degree of application and adherence to guidelines in GC management in Italy. Materials and Methods: Between January and May 2022, a questionnaire has been administered to a sample of Italian surgeons and, in a simplified version, to members of the Patient Association "Vivere Senza Stomaco" (patients surgically treated for GC between 2008 and 2021) to investigate the diagnosis, staging, and treatment issues. Results: The survey has been completed by 125 surgeons and 125 patients. Abdominal CT with gastric hydro-distension before treatment was not widespread in both groups (47% and 42%, respectively). The rate of surgeons stating that they do not usually perform minimally invasive gastrectomy was 15%, but the rate of patients who underwent a minimally invasive approach was 22% (between 2011 and 2022). The percentage of surgeons declaring to perform extended lymphadenectomy (>D2) was 97%, although a limited lymph node dissection rate was observed in about 35% of patients. Conclusions: This survey shows several important discrepancies from surgical attitudes declared by surgeons and real data derived from the reports available to the patients, suggesting heterogeneous management in clinical practice and, thus, a not rigorous adherence to the guidelines.

Long-Term Impact of D2 Lymphadenectomy during Gastrectomy for Cancer: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis and Restricted Mean Survival Time Estimation

BACKGROUND

Debate exists concerning the impact of D2 vs. D1 lymphadenectomy on long-term oncological outcomes after gastrectomy for cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) analyzing the effect of D2 vs. D1 on survival were included. Overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed. Restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as effect size measures.

RESULTS

Five RCTs (1653 patients) were included. Overall, 805 (48.7%) underwent D2 lymphadenectomy. The RMSTD OS analysis shows that at 60-month follow-up, D2 patients lived 1.8 months (95% CI -4.2, 0.7; p = 0.14) longer on average compared to D1 patients. Similarly, 60-month CSS (1.2 months, 95% CI -3.9, 5.7; p = 0.72) and DFS (0.8 months, 95% CI -1.7, 3.4; p = 0.53) tended to be improved for D2 vs. D1 lymphadenectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to D1, D2 lymphadenectomy is associated with a clinical trend toward improved OS, CSS, and DFS at 60-month follow-up.

Examined lymph node count for gastric cancer patients after curative surgery

Lymph node (LN) metastasis is the most common form of metastasis in gastric cancer (GC). The status and stage of LN metastasis are important indicators that reflect the progress of GC. The number of LN metastases is still the most effective index to evaluate the prognosis of patients in all stages of LN metastasis. Examined LN (ELN) count refers to the number of LNs harvested from specimens by curative gastrectomy for pathological examination. This review summarizes the factors that influence ELN count, including individual and tumor factors, intraoperative dissection factors, postoperative sorting factors, and pathological examination factors. Different ELN counts will lead to prognosis-related stage migration. Fine LN sorting and regional LN sorting are the two most important LN sorting technologies. The most direct and effective way to harvest a large number of LNs is for surgeons to perform in vitro fine LN sorting.

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.

Outcomes of laparoscopic versus open total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The effectiveness of laparoscopic total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy (LTGD2) remains controversial. This meta-analysis compares surgical and survival outcomes of LTGD2 and open total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy (OTGD2) for gastric cancer.

Methods

Controlled studies comparing LTGD2 and OTGD2 published before November 2021 were retrieved via database searches. We compared intraoperative outcomes, pathological data, postoperative outcomes, 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS).

Results

17 studies were included, containing 4742 patients. Compared with OTGD2, the LTGD2 group had less blood loss (mean difference [MD] = − 122.48; 95% CI: − 187.60, − 57.37; P = 0.0002), fewer analgesic medication (MD = -2.48; 95% CI: − 2.69, − 2.27; P < 0.00001), earlier first flatus (MD = − 1.03; 95% CI: − 1.80, − 0.26; P = 0.009), earlier initial food intake (MD = − 0.89; 95% CI: − 1.09, − 0.68; P < 0.00001) and shorter hospital stay (MD = − 3.24; 95% CI: − 3.75, − 2.73; P < 0.00001). The LTGD2 group had lower postoperative total complication ratio (OR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.62, 0.92; P = 0.006), incision (OR = 0.50; 95% CI:0.31, 0.79; P = 0.003) and pulmonary (OR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.34, 0.96; P = 0.03) complication rates, but similar rates of other complications and mortality. Total number of dissected lymph nodes were similar, but the number of No. 10 dissected nodes was less with LTGD2 (MD = − 0.31; 95% CI: − 0.46, − 0.16; P < 0.0001). There was no difference in 5-year OS (P = 0.19) and DFS (P = 0.34) between LTGD2 and OTGD2 groups.

Conclusions

LTGD2 produces small trauma, fast postoperative recovery and small length of hospital stays than OTGD2, and had similar long-term clinical efficacy as OTGD2. However, these results still need further high-quality prospective randomized controlled trials confirmation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40001-022-00748-2.

Exploring the scope of 4sb and 12a lymph node dissection for cT2-4 lower third gastric cancer: Study protocol for a prospective cohort trial

Background

Currently, the extent of 4sb and 12a lymph node dissection is not clear and is based on the personal understanding of the surgeon. It may result in damage to the splenic artery and portal vein, leading to surgical complications. Therefore, this study aims to explore the scope of 4sb and 12a lymph node dissection in cT2-4 lower third gastric cancer.

Methods

This is an ongoing prospective cohort trial. The total sample size required for the trial (March 2022 to February 2025) is approximately 524 patients. The participants are divided into the experimental (4sb first branch and 12a anterior lymphadenectomy) or control groups (traditional 4sb and 12a lymphadenectomy). Electronic data capture systems will be used to collect demographic, laboratory test, auxiliary examination, operation, postoperative condition, postoperative pathology, and follow-up data. The primary outcome is the 12a lymph node metastatic rate. Secondary outcomes include the pathology (consisting of the 4sb lymph node metastatic rate, the number of 4sb lymph nodes dissected, the number of 12a lymph nodes dissected and tumor pathological staging), a safety evaluation index (consisting of complications and mortality ≤30 days after surgery), an efficacy evaluation (consisting of operation data and postoperative recovery status), and follow-up data (consisting of 3-year or 5-year disease-free survival and overall survival).

Discussion

By exploring the scope of 4sb and 12a lymph node dissection on the premise of ensuring radical cure of the tumor, the operation is simplified, the operation time is shortened, the damage of important blood vessels is reduced, the intraoperative and postoperative complications are reduced, and the patient recovers as soon as possible. Our study is a prospective exploration of the pathology, safety, efficacy, and prognosis of the new and traditional methods of 4sb and 12a lymph node dissection.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200057698 (registration date: March 15, 2022).

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been widely used for advanced gastric cancer (GC), and its resection extent is not limited to distal gastrectomy. However, the superiority of this minimally invasive approach remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the benefits and risks of LG on the short- and long-term outcomes compared with open gastrectomy (OG) for GC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LG and OG for treatment of GC. The primary outcomes were adverse events, recurrence, mortality, and the quality of life. The secondary outcomes included operation-relevant outcomes and postoperative recovery outcomes. We employed random-effects meta-analyses to pool results with Hartung-Knapp adjustment. The prediction interval (PI) was used to quantify the between-study heterogeneity. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the potential sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies involving 7643 patients were included. Most studies (22 out of 28) reported results from experienced surgeons. Compared to OG, LG was found to have the advantages of less blood loss, fewer postoperative complications, and faster recovery, but at the expense of lesser proximal resection margin length, longer operation time, and fewer retrieved lymph nodes. There were no significant differences for anastomosis-related complications, recurrence and survival and other outcomes between LG and OG. Significant between-study heterogeneity was observed. Body mass index (BMI) and age were two major sources of heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

For experienced surgeons, LG is an alternative approach to OG for patients with GC. Patients with lower BMI and older age may benefit most from LG. Future studies are needed to confirm our findings in low-volume hospitals and for less-experienced surgeons. Future trials focusing on patient-important outcomes are warranted for clinical decision-making.

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.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

An umbrella review was performed to summarize literature data and to investigate benefits and harm of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared to laparoscopic (LG) approach. To overcome the intrinsic limitations of laparoscopy, the robotic approach is claimed to facilitate lymph-node dissection and complex reconstruction after gastrectomy, to assure oncologic safety also in advanced gastric cancer. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases for all meta-analyses published up to December 2019. The search strategy was previously published in a protocol. We selected fourteen meta-analyses comparing outcomes between LG and RG with curative intent in patients with diagnosis of resectable gastric cancer. We highlight that RG has a longer operation time, inferior blood loss, reduction in hospital stay and a more rapid recovery of bowel function. In meta-analyses with statistical significance the number of nodes removed in RG is higher than LG and the distal margin of resection is higher. There is no difference in terms of total complication rate, mortality, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis, intestinal obstruction and in conversion rate to open technique. The safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy are not clearly supported by strong evidence, suggesting that the outcomes reported for each surgical technique need to be interpreted with caution, in particular for the meta-analyses in which the heterogeneity is large. Certainly, robotic gastrectomy is associated with shorter time to oral intake, lesser intraoperative bleeding and longer operation time with an acceptable level of evidence. On the other hand, the data regarding other outcomes are insufficient as well as non-significant, from an evidence point of view, to draw any robust conclusion.

Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, and robotic distal gastrectomy for early and locally advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of early and locally advanced gastric cancer remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive evaluation of major surgical approaches for operable distal gastric cancer.

METHODS

Systematic review and network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were performed to compare open distal gastrectomy, laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy, and robotic distal gastrectomy. Risk ratio, weighted mean difference, and 95% credible intervals were used as pooled effect size measures.

RESULTS

Seventeen randomized controlled trials (5,909 patients) were included. Overall, 2,776 (46.8%) underwent open distal gastrectomy, 2,964 (50.1%) laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy, and 141 (3.1%) robotic distal gastrectomy. Among these 3 groups, there were no significant differences in 30-day mortality, anastomotic leak, and overall complications. Compared to open distal gastrectomy, laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy was associated with significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss, early postoperative pain, time to first flatus, and hospital length of stay. Similarly, robotic distal gastrectomy was associated with significantly reduced blood loss and time to first flatus compared to open distal gastrectomy. No differences were found in the total number of harvested lymph nodes, tumor-free resection margins, 5-year overall, and disease-free survival. The subgroup analysis in locally advanced gastric cancer showed trends toward reduced blood loss, time to first flatus, and hospital length of stay with minimally invasive approaches but similar overall and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy and robotic distal gastrectomy performed by well-trained experienced surgeons, even in the setting of locally advanced gastric cancer, seem associated with improved short-term outcomes with similar overall and disease-free survival compared with open distal gastrectomy.

Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and high-quality nonrandomized comparative studies

BACKGROUND

Controversy persists about the effects of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) versus open distal gastrectomy (ODG) on short-term surgical outcomes and long-term survival within the field of advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

METHODS

Studies published from January 1994 to February 2020 that compare LDG and ODG for AGC were identified. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The selection of high-quality nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCTs) was based on a validated tool (Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies, MINORS). The short- and long-term outcomes of both procedures were compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 30 studies were included in this meta-analysis, which comprised of 8 RCTs and 22 NRCTs involving 16,029 patients (7864 LDGs, 8165 ODGs). The recurrence, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), 3-year overall survival (OS), and 5-year OS rates for LDG and ODG were comparable. LDG was associated with a lower postoperative complication rate (OR 0.79; P < 0.00001), lower estimated volume of blood loss (WMD -102.21 mL; P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD -1.96 days; P < 0.0001), shorter time to first flatus (WMD -0.54 day; P = 0.0007) and shorter time to first liquid diet (WMD -0.66 day; P = 0.001). The number of lymph nodes retrieved, mortality, intraoperative complications, intraoperative blood transfusion, and time to ambulation were similar. However, LDG was associated with a longer surgical time (WMD 33.57 min; P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

LDG with D2 lymphadenectomy is a safe and effective technique for patients with AGC when performed by experienced surgeons at high-volume specialized centers.

Effectiveness and safety of robotic versus traditional laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Gastrectomy is considered the gold standard treatment for gastric cancer patients. Currently, there are two minimally invasive surgical methods to choose from, robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Nevertheless, it is still unclear which is superior between the two. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of RG and LG for gastric cancer. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases until September 2018 in studies that compared RG and LG in gastric cancer patients. Operative and postoperative outcomes analyzed were assessed. The quality of the evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. Twenty-four English studies were analyzed. The meta-analysis revealed that the RG group had a significantly longer operation time, lower intraoperative blood loss, and higher perioperative costs compared to the LG group. However, there were no differences in complications, conversion rate, reoperation rate, mortality, number of lymph nodes harvested, days of first flatus, postoperative hospitalization time, and survival rate between the two groups. RG was shown to be associated with decreased intraoperative blood loss and increased perioperative cost and operation time compared to LG. Several higher-quality original studies and prospective clinical trials are required to confirm the advantages of RG.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: protocol for umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery has been adopted in some parts of the world as an innovative approach to the resection of gastric cancers. However, in the modern era of surgical oncology, to overcome intrinsic limitations of the traditional laparoscopy, the robotic approach is advocated as able to facilitate the lymph node dissection and complex reconstruction after gastrectomy, to assure oncologic safety also in advanced gastric cancer patients. Previous meta-analyses highlighted a lower complication rate as well as bleeding in the robotic approach group when compared with the laparoscopic one. This potential benefit must be balanced against an increased time of intervention. The aim of this umbrella review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature for surgeons and policymakers in order to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared with the laparoscopic approach for gastric cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases for all articles published up to May 2019 and reference list of relevant publications for systematic review and meta-analyses comparing the outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer. Studies will be selected by two independent reviewers based on prespecified eligibility criteria and the quality will be assessed according to AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) checklist. All information will be collected using piloted and standardised data-extraction forms in DistillerSR developed following the Joanna Briggs Institute's recommended extraction items.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This umbrella review will inform clinical and policy decisions regarding the benefits and harms of RG for treating gastric cancer. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and the popular press. Formal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019139906.

Lymph Node Yield Following Packet Submission After Isolation By Surgeon During Gastrectomy

Purpose

To compare the lymph node yields of lymph node packet submission (PS), packet submission after isolation by surgeons (PSI), and en bloc lymph node submission (EBS) after gastrectomy.

Methods

We conducted a prospective study including 118 gastric cancer patients who underwent gastrectomy between June 2016 and August 2016. We also retrospectively reviewed 607 patients who underwent gastrectomy from May 2015 to May 2016. Following gastrectomy, lymph node specimens were either submitted en bloc (EBS group), divided into packets with accompanying adipose tissue according to the lymph node stations (PS group), or isolated individually based on the surgeon’s visualization and palpation before submission to the Pathology Department (PSI group).

Results

The average lymph node yield was significantly higher in the PSI compared with the PS group in the prospective study (46.5±19.4 vs 31.8±11.1), and significantly higher in the PS compared with the EBS group in the retrospective study (31.5±12.6 vs 23.9±8.9) (both P<0.001). There was no significant difference in positive lymph node yields in either of these comparisons (prospective study, P=0.581; retrospective study, P=0.489). The survival curve indicated no significant difference between the PS and PSI groups (log rank P=0.957); however, these three groups share different lymph node ratio (LNR).

Conclusion

PSI could yield more lymph nodes than PS or EBS with a lower LNR at pathological examination. However, the difference in lymph nodes harvested had no impact on survival, which may need further investigation.

Efficacy of Celiac Branch Preservation in Billroth-Ⅰ Reconstruction After Laparoscopy-Assisted Distal Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

The goal of the present retrospective study was to elucidate the efficacy of conserving the celiac branch (CB), which can reduce the adverse reactions of Billroth-Ⅰ (B-Ⅰ) restoration after the laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG).

METHODS

Two hundred thirty-three patients with gastric cancer underwent B-Ⅰ reconstruction after LADG with dissection 2 lymphadenectomy from July 2005 to July 2012 and were monitored for 5 y. The patients were separated into 2 groups: celiac branch preserved (P-CB) group (n = 98) and celiac branch resected (R-CB) group (n = 135). In addition to patient information, tumor features, and surgical details, short-term and long-term variables such as bowel condition, surgical complications, and endoscopy findings were evaluated.

RESULTS

In short-term efficacy, the time of first flatus and liquid ingestion were slightly shorter in the P-CB group than in the R-CB group (3.84 ± 0.74 versus 4.38 ± 0.71, P = 0.0001; 5.04 ± 1.07 versus 5.67 ± 1.10, P = 0.0001). For long-term efficacy, the incidences of chronic diarrhea, gastroparesis, residual food, bile reflux, and reflux esophagitis were less in the P-CB group compare with the R-CB group (6.1% versus 22.2%, P = 0.001; 5.1% versus 17.8%, P = 0.004; 4.1% versus 17.8%, P = 0.004; 8.2% versus 17.8%, P = 0.036; 8.2% versus 17.8%, P = 0.036). Other parameters such as postoperative ileus and gallstones had a better efficacy trend in the P-CB group but did not suggestively vary among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The CB has an imperative part in the gastrointestinal motility, and celiac preservation mainly exerts long-term efficacy in patients who underwent B-I surgery with LADG.

Laparoscopic D2 Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Mid-Term Results and Current Evidence

INTRODUCTION

Although the first laparoscopic gastrectomy was performed in 1991, there was a long delay until it was incorporated into the regular practice of western surgeons. In Brazil, there are only few case series reported and data on its safety and efficacy along with mid- and long-term results are desired.

OBJECTIVE

Present the mid-term results of laparoscopic gastrectomy with curative intent in the treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma and review the current evidence on the therapy of this neoplasia with the laparoscopic access.

METHODS

Patients who underwent D2 laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 59.2 years and the mean body mass index was 24.2 kg/m2. Subtotal gastrectomy was performed in 73.9%. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 36.7, increased lymph node count and shorter operative time were observed in the last 34 cases. Median hospital stay was 8 days. Postoperative complications occurred in 22 (31.9%) cases. Surgical mortality was 4.3%.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic gastrectomy can be performed safely with excellent short- and mid-term results. As experience increases, surgical duration is reduced and lymph node count rises.

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.

The effect of perigastric lipolymphatic tissue grouping by surgeon on the number of pathologic sampled lymph nodes after radical gastrectomy

To analyze the impact of perigastric lipolymphatic tissue grouping by the surgeon on the number of pathologic sampled lymph nodes and to explore the appropriate lymph node delivery process.The authors collected the medical records of gastric cancer patients who were hospitalized in Wuhan Union Hospital during the period January 2016 to January 2018. The authors selected 126 patients and divided them into experimental group and control group, 63 cases in each group. Samples of standard complete gastrectomy or distal gastrectomy +D2 lymph node dissection was performed. In experimental group, the fresh en bloc specimen was treated by the surgeon before the formalin fixation. The perigastric lipolymphatic tissue was divided into the lymph node grouping according to JSGC guideline III. Then the stomach and each group of lipolymphatic tissue were fixed and then transferred to the pathologic department, then the lymph nodes were harvested by the pathological technician. In control group, the whole en bloc specimen was fixed with formalin and then lymph nodes were detected by palpation and thin slice inspection, and then harvested by the pathological technician. The lymph node acquisition was compared in 2 groups.The total number of lymph nodes in experimental group is 2611, the number of negative lymph nodes is 2273; the total number of lymph nodes in control group is 1643, the number of negative lymph nodes is 1351; the comparison difference in 2 groups was statistical sense (P < .01); patients with lymph node which reach 25 pieces/person of experimental group could reach a ratio of 90.1%, and that is 47.6% in the control group, the comparison difference in 2 groups was statistical sense (P < .01), the number of positive lymph nodes did not increase significantly compared with the control group, and there was no statistical significance in the 2 groups.Dissecting the perigastric lipolymphatic tissue into lymph node groups by the surgeon might improve the total number of lymph node harvested by the pathological technician, and increase the rate of cases with >25 lymph nodes. Our results also implicated that, when the routing harvested lymph nodes were more than 20, the increasing number by perigastric lipolymphatic tissue grouping might result from more negative lymph nodes detected and might not result in stage migrating.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Initial experiences with robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer have demonstrated favorable short-term outcomes, suggesting that RG is an effective alternative to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). However, data on long-term survival and recurrence after RG for gastric cancer have yet to be reported. The objective of this study was to assess long-term outcomes after RG compared with LG.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 313 and 524 patients who underwent RG or LG, respectively, for gastric cancer between July 2005 and December 2009. We compared long-term outcomes using the entire and a propensity-score matched cohort.

RESULTS

The entire cohort analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in 5-year overall survival(OS) or relapse-free survival(RFS) (p = 0.4112 and p = 0.8733, respectively): 93.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 89.9-95.6] and 90.7% (95% CI, 86.9-93.5) after RG and 91.6% (95% CI 88.9-93.7) and 90.5% (95% CI 87.6-92.7) after LG, respectively; hazard ratios for death and recurrence in the robotic group were 0.828 (95% CI, 0.528-1.299; p = 0.4119) and 0.968 (95% CI, 0.649-1.445; p = 0.8741), respectively. The propensity-matched cohort analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences for 5-year OS or RFS (p = 0.5207 and p = 0.2293, respectively): 93.2% and 90.7% after RG and 94.2% and 92.6% after LG, respectively; hazard ratios for death and recurrence in the robotic group were 1.194 (95% CI, 0.695-2.062; p = 0.5214) and 1.343 (95% CI, 0.830-2.192; p = 0.2321), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The potential technical superiority of robotic system over laparoscopy did not improve oncological outcomes after gastrectomy. Long-term oncological outcomes were not different between RG and LG. Nevertheless, robotic applications in minimally invasive gastric cancer surgery may be an oncologically safe alternative.

Long-term oncological outcomes in robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been a new technical alternative for gastric cancer. However, the long-term oncological outcomes of RG still should be further evaluated. In this meta-analysis, the long-term oncological outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) are compared.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches from various databases are compared in February 2017 to identify that the oncological outcomes of RG and LG are evaluated in gastric cancer patients. The pooled oncological outcomes of the overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and the recurrence rate were performed by adopting the meta-analysis to calculate the hazard ratio (HR) or the odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Five studies that concern retrospective design and prospective data collection and involve 1614 patients were included. All the five studies evaluated OS. Two studies evaluated DFS, while four studies reported the recurrence rate or recurrence cases in RG and LG groups with the long-term follow-up. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in OS and DFS between RG and LG, without significant between-study heterogeneity. Besides, the recurrence rate between RG and LG had no significant difference without heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

RG could provide comparable long-term oncological outcomes as well as LG for the treatment of gastric cancer. OS, DFS, and the recurrence rate by the long-time follow-up of RG were comparable with LG. Generally speaking, more randomized clinical trials and a larger patient cohort with longer follow-up are still essential to further demonstrate the value of the robotic surgery for gastric cancer.

Long- and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy in patients with clinically and pathological locally advanced gastric cancer: a propensity-score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic (laparoscopy-assisted) gastrectomy (LG) has several short-term benefits as compared with open distal gastrectomy (OG) in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Survival rates did not differ significantly between LG and OG in retrospective studies of AGC, although some studies included unmatched groups of patients or patients with AGC who had a preoperative diagnosis of early gastric cancer. The aim of present study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with AGC who underwent LG with those of patients with AGC who underwent OG using a propensity-score matching analysis.

METHODS

The study group comprised patients with a preoperative and pathologically confirmed diagnosis of AGC who underwent LG or OG with lymphadenectomy between January 2001 and December 2012 in our hospital. To minimize bias between the LG and OG groups, propensity scores were calculated using a logistic regression model and the following variables: sex, age, body-mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class, type of gastrectomy, and clinical and pathological tumor stage. After propensity-score matching, 104 patients (52 who underwent LG and 52 who underwent OG) were studied.

RESULTS

LG was associated with significantly earlier initiation of food intake (p <0.01) and a significantly shorter period of postoperative hospitalization (p <0.01). The incidence of all-grade overall, surgical, and medical complications did not differ significantly between the LG group and OG group (p = 0.24, p = 0.12, and p >0.99). Overall and relapse-free survival also did not differ between the LG group and OG group (p = 0.96, p = 0.91). In each tumor stage, overall and relapse-free survival did not differ significantly between the LG group and OG group.

CONCLUSION

LG can be a feasible treatment that is beneficial in terms of earlier recovery after operation and can be expected to result in similar survival as OG in patients with AGC.

Gastric cancer treatment: similarity and difference between China and Korea

Chinese populations have many demographic similarities to Korean populations. However, the long-term survival rates of gastric cancer patients in China are still not satisfactory when compared with Korea, especially for the advanced cases. In this article, we discuss about the similarity and difference of gastric cancer treatment in terms of screening, surgical approach, stomach resection, digestive tract reconstruction, lymphadenectomy, harvested lymph nodes, operative morbidity and mortality, postoperative chemotherapy as well as follow-up between China and Korea. Given that a variety of factors ranging from tumor characteristics to different treatment strategies are seen between the two countries, the reasons accounting for the differences in survival should be focused and the corresponding strategy should be considered and finally promote to improve the prognosis of gastric cancer.

Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: the American experience

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgical techniques are increasingly being implemented in oncologic care. This study assesses the impact of minimally invasive surgery on oncologic and perioperative outcomes in the management of gastric cancer in the USA.

METHODS

From the American College of Surgeons and American Cancer Society National Cancer Data Base, we identified 6427 patients who underwent gastrectomy for cancer from 2010 to 2012. Treatment groups were categorized with an intention-to-treat paradigm as robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to estimate the impact of the surgical approach on oncologic and perioperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Of patients undergoing definitive surgical intervention, 3.5 % (n = 223) underwent robotic gastrectomy, 23.1 % (n = 1487) underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy, and 73.4 % (n = 4717) underwent open surgery. Minimally invasive gastrectomy was more frequently performed on white (P = 0.018), privately insured patients (P = 0.049) treated at academic centers (P < 0.0001) in the eastern USA (P < 0.0001). After demographics, comorbidities, and tumor-related factors had been controlled for, patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy had the postoperative length of stay decreased by 1.08 days (P < 0.0001) and greater odds of having at least 15 lymph nodes resected (odds ratio 1.16, P = 0.023). Use of robotic surgery did not have a statistically significant effect on the postoperative length of stay relative to open surgery (P = 0.222) but the patients so treated had greater odds of having at least 15 lymph nodes resected (odds ratio 1.51, P = 0.005). There were no differences in R0 resection rates or perioperative mortality on the basis of the surgical approach alone.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that use of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer in the USA is impacting the adequacy of oncologic resection but is not yet having a clinically significant impact on perioperative outcomes relative to a conventional open approach.

Technical pro & cons of the laparoscopic lymphadenectomy

Laparoscopy has been introduced in treatment of gastric cancer to reduce surgical trauma and to improve post-operative functional recovery. Most of international guidelines allow the use of this minimally invasive approach in general surgical practice only in clinical stage I. One of the most important concerns in fact is the feasibility of D2 lymphadenectomy through laparoscopy. Reduced numbers of harvested lymph nodes have been reported, particularly in stations with a more difficult access. Nevertheless subsequent papers reported adequate numbers of total number of nodes retrieved, even with D2 dissection and even in complex stations but results from randomized controlled trials still lack. Laparoscopic approach has been proven safe and effective also in extremely complex maneuvers as spleen-preserving retropancreatic lymphadenectomy. The minimally invasive approach in D2 lymphadenectomy seems to be associated to comparable incidence of specific complications as compared to open surgery. The use of laparoscopy has extended the operating time but has reduced the blood loss. Because of high complexity of this kind surgery, laparoscopic gastric surgery for cancer should be done only in referral centers.

Three-dimensional CT for preoperative detection of the left gastric artery and left gastric vein in laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated 3-D CT imaging for preoperative classification of the left gastric artery and vein in patients with early gastric cancer and estimated its clinical benefit.

METHODS

Between April 2009 and March 2014, 279 patients underwent preoperative 3-D CT using a 64-row multi-detector CT scanner, followed by laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy. The 3-D CT images of the arterial and portal phases were reconstructed and fused. The operative outcomes were compared between patients who had not undergone 3-D CT (2007-2008) and who had undergone 3-D CT (2009-2011).

RESULTS

According to Adachi's classification, the numbers of type I, II, III, IV, V, and VI arterial patterns were 253, 15, 1, 3, 3, and 1, respectively. Three cases could not be classified. According to the Douglass classification, the left gastric vein flowed into the portal vein, splenic vein, junction of the portal vein and splenic vein, and left branch of the portal vein in 119, 111, 36, and 5 patients, respectively. The left gastric vein could not be visualized in six patients, and two patients could not be classified. In addition, the relation was absent for an Adachi type I vein and one of the "other" types of veins. The total operative time was significantly shorter with 3-D CT than without it (P = 0.01), and the degree of lymph-node dissection was significantly higher (P = 0.01). Inflammatory parameters and operative morbidity tended to decrease with 3-D CT.

CONCLUSION

Three-dimensional CT is a useful modality to visualize the vessel anatomy around the stomach, and it improves clinical effectiveness and reduces the invasiveness of surgery.

Surgical Proficiency Gain and Survival After Esophagectomy for Cancer

PURPOSE

We aimed to identify the presence and length of esophagectomy proficiency gain curves in terms of short- and long-term mortality for esophageal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between 1987 and 2010 with follow-up until 2014 were identified from a well-established, population-based, nationwide Swedish cohort study. Proficiency gain curves were created by using risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis for 30-day, 90-day, 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year all-cause and disease-specific mortality measures. Similarly, the proficiency gain curves for lymph node harvest, resection margin status, and reoperation incidence were assessed as performance-contributing factors to the observed changes in long-term survival.

RESULTS

Esophagectomies in 1,821 patients with esophageal cancer were conducted by 139 surgeons. The change-point in proficiency gain curve for all-cause 30-day mortality was early, at 15 cases, when mortality decreased from 7.9% to 3.1% (P < .001). Later change-points, which ranged from 35 to 59 cases, were observed for 1-, 3- and 5-year mortality rates, for which all-cause mortality decreased from 34.9% to 27.7% (P = .011), from 47.4% to 41.5% (P = .049), and from 31.4% to 19.1% (P = .009), respectively. Similar change-points were observed in disease-specific mortality at 1 and 3 years. There was a continuous increase in lymph node harvest, which did not plateau. Also, change-points were observed for resection margin with tumor involvement at 17 cases, with a reduction from 20.9% to 15.2% (P = .004), and for reoperation rate at 55 cases, with a reduction from 12.6% to 5.0% (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The gain of proficiency in esophagectomy for cancer is associated with measurable changes in short- and long-term mortality results. These findings indicate a need for structured national training and mentorship programs for esophageal cancer surgery.

National proficiency-gain curves for minimally invasive gastrointestinal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Minimal access surgery for gastrointestinal cancer has short-term benefits but is associated with a proficiency-gain curve. The aim of this study was to define national proficiency-gain curves for minimal access colorectal and oesophagogastric surgery, and to determine the impact on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

All adult patients undergoing minimal access oesophageal, colonic and rectal surgery between 2002 and 2012 were identified from the Hospital Episode Statistics database. Proficiency-gain curves were created using risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis. Change points were identified, and bootstrapping was performed with 1000 iterations to identify a confidence level. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality; secondary outcomes were 90-day mortality, reintervention, conversion and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Some 1696, 15 008 and 16 701 minimal access oesophageal, rectal and colonic cancer resections were performed during the study period. The change point in the proficiency-gain curve for 30-day mortality for oesophageal, rectal and colonic surgery was 19 (confidence level 98·4 per cent), 20 (99·2 per cent) and three (99·5 per cent) procedures; the mortality rate fell from 4·0 to 2·0 per cent (relative risk reduction (RRR) 0·50, P = 0·033), from 2·1 to 1·2 per cent (RRR 0·43, P < 0·001) and from 2·4 to 1·8 per cent (RRR 0·25, P = 0·058) respectively. The change point in the proficiency-gain curve for reintervention in oesophageal, rectal and colonic resection was 19 (98·1 per cent), 32 (99·5 per cent) and 26 (99·2 per cent) procedures respectively. There were also significant proficiency-gain curves for 90-day mortality, conversion and length of stay.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of minimal access gastrointestinal cancer surgery has been associated with a proficiency-gain curve for mortality and major morbidity at a national level. Unnecessary patient harm should be avoided by appropriate training and monitoring of new surgical techniques.

Short-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy Performed by a Single Surgeon Experienced in Open Gastrectomy: Review of Initial Experience

Purpose

Laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) is more complicated than laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, especially during a surgeon's initial experience with the technique. In this study, we evaluated the short-term outcomes of and learning curve for LTG during the initial cases of a single surgeon compared with those of open total gastrectomy (OTG).

Materials and Methods

Between 2009 and 2013, 134 OTG and 74 LTG procedures were performed by a single surgeon who was experienced with OTG but new to performing LTG. Clinical characteristics, operative parameters, and short-term postoperative outcomes were compared between groups.

Results

Advanced gastric cancer and D2 lymph node dissection were more common in the OTG than LTG group. Although the operation time was significantly longer for LTG than for OTG (175.7±43.1 minutes vs. 217.5±63.4 minutes), LTG seems to be slightly superior or similar to OTG in terms of postoperative recovery measures. The operation time moving average of 15 cases in the LTG group decreased gradually, and the curve flattened at 54 cases. The postoperative complication rate was similar for the two groups (11.9% vs. 13.5%). No anastomotic or stump leaks occurred.

Conclusions

Although LTG is technically difficult and operation time is longer for surgeons experienced in open surgery, it can be performed safely, even during a surgeon's early experience with the technique. Considering the benefits of minimally invasive surgery, LTG is recommended for early gastric cancer.

Short-term and long-term effects of laparoscopic-assisted radical surgery in patients with advanced gastric cancer

AIM: To investigate the short-term and long-term efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS: Two hundred and twelve patients who underwent routine D2 radical surgery at Pinggu Hospital from June 2007 to June 2009 were selected, including 110 receiving conventional open surgery (laparotomy group) and 102 receiving laparoscopic assisted surgery (laparoscopic group). Postoperative recovery was compared between the two groups. The complication rate, 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), risk factors and postoperative complications were analyzed.

RESULTS: The blood loss was significantly less in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.05). The times to liquid food ingestion and anal exhaust and hospital stay were significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.05). The number of lymph nodes harvested and operative time showed no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The rate of postoperative complications was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (17.65%) than in the laparotomy group (30.91%) (P < 0.05). Operative time, preoperative comorbidities, and laparoscopic assisted surgery were identified as independent risk factors for the occurrence of postoperative complications. Preoperative comorbidities and operative time were independent risk factors for laparoscopic assisted surgery. The 5-year OS, DFS, LRFS, and DMFS showed no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic assisted surgery in management of advanced gastric cancer has similar therapeutic effects to open surgery, but is minimally invasive. Preoperative comorbidities and operative time are independent risk factors for the development of postoperative complications in laparoscopic treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

Three-step hand-assisted laparoscopic d2 radical gastrectomy for chinese obese patients: a highly efficient and feasible surgical approach

Three-step hand-assisted laparoscopic D2 radical gastrectomy (HALG) is a modified surgical procedure that has achieved satisfactory results for obese patients in our surgical center. To fully elucidate the advantages of this procedure, in this study, comprehensive and in-depth comparative analyses were performed to assess clinical data from obese gastric cancer patients who underwent HALG, laparoscopic-assisted D2 radical gastrectomy (LAG), and open D2 radical gastrectomy (OG) in our surgical center during a specific time period. For the 3 groups, incision length was 1.25 cm longer for the HALG group than for the LAG group but was significantly shorter for the HALG group than for the OG group (P =0.00). The rate of conversion to laparotomy , the pneumoperitoneum time and the number of recovered lymph nodes were significantly better for the HALG group than for the LAG group (P <0.05). The pain score at day 2 after surgery, intestinal function recovery time, and duration of postoperative hospital stay were not significantly different for the HALG and LAG groups ( P >0.05) but were significantly better for the HALG group than for the OG group (P <0.05). There were significantly fewer postoperative complications for the HALG group than for the LAG and OG groups (P =0.049). According to the results, the “three-step HALG method” incorporates both the thoroughness of the radical OG approach and the minimal invasiveness of the LAG approach for obese patients. Thus, the HALG approach is a relatively safe and extremely feasible surgical procedure for the treatment of these patients.

Personalized Surgery for Gastric Adenocarcinoma: A Meta-analysis of D1 versus D2 Lymphadenectomy

BACKGROUND

The recent publication of 5-year survival data for the Italian Gastric Cancer Study Group (IGCSG) D1 versus D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer trial adds important data for analysis of whether a D2 lymphadenectomy improves survival.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 1985 to February 1, 2014. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan version 5 software. Long-term outcomes were analyzed. Subgroup analyses of T and N stage were performed.

RESULTS

Outcomes of four randomized, controlled trials involving 1,599 patients (823 D1: 776 D2) enrolled from 1982 to 2005 were included for qualitative analysis and quantitative meta-analysis. Despite the addition of long-term survival data from the IGCSG, 5-year overall and nodal status survival was similar between D1 and D2 trials. However, subgroup analysis revealed a survival benefit for T3 patients (odds ratio 1.64, 95 % confidence interval 1.01-2.67) and a trend for survival benefit for advanced nodal stage (odds ratio 1.36, 95 % confidence interval 0.98-1.87) with D2 compared with D1 lymphadenectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

As recent studies have demonstrated comparable short-term surgical outcomes for both D1 and D2 lymphadenectomies, consideration should be made for more extensive lymph node dissection among patients with advanced stage.