Laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: comparative-effectiveness research and future trends

Training in Laparoscopic Gastric Cancer Surgery in the Western World: Current Educational Practices, Challenges, and Potential Opportunities at a Large University Centre

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explore and understand how surgeons distribute tasks during a laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in an academic teaching environment.

DESIGN

An anonymous, cross-sectional, census survey was used to poll trainees' and staff members' opinions pertaining to laparoscopic gastrectomy.

SETTING

Academic and community tertiary teaching hospitals, affiliated with the University of Toronto.

PARTICIPANTS

All surgeons, within the Department of General Surgery at the University of Toronto, who practice laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer, were invited to participate. All general surgery residents, postgraduate year 1-5, minimally invasive surgery and surgical oncology fellows at the University of Toronto were invited to participate. Overall response rate was 74.35% (n = 87/117).

RESULTS

The results suggested that trainees do not routinely perform the major operative steps. Trainees agreed with faculty in this regard; however, there was a statistically significant difference in opinions, related to the degree of the perceived active operating of the trainees. There was also a difference in opinion, between trainees and faculty, regarding the common reasons for takeover.

CONCLUSIONS

The present survey highlights that current level of active exposure of surgical trainees to laparoscopic gastric surgery might be insufficient. A lack of role clarity may further hinder an optimal educational experience during these cases. Adopting a stepwise approach, with task deconstruction, could optimize training. Additional training modalities may be required to ensure technical proficiency is acquired before independent practice.

Efficacy evaluation of subtotal and total gastrectomies in robotic surgery for gastric cancer compared with that in open and laparoscopic resections: a meta-analysis

PURPOSES

Robotic gastrectomy (RG), as an innovation of minimally invasive surgical method, is developing rapidly for gastric cancer. But there is still no consensus on its comparative merit in either subtotal or total gastrectomy compared with laparoscopic and open resections.

METHODS

Literature searches of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were performed. We combined the data of four studies for RG versus open gastrectomy (OG), and 11 studies for robotic RG versus laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Moreover, subgroup analyses of subtotal and total gastrectomies were performed in both RG vs. OG and RG vs. LG.

RESULTS

Totally 12 studies involving 8493 patients met the criteria. RG, similar with LG, significantly reduced the intraoperative blood loss than OG. But the duration of surgery is longer in RG than in both OG and LG. The number of lymph nodes retrieved in RG was close to that in OG and LG (WMD = -0.78 and 95% CI, -2.15-0.59; WMD = 0.63 and 95% CI, -2.24-3.51). And RG did not increase morbidity and mortality in comparison with OG and LG (OR = 0.92 and 95% CI, 0.69-1.23; OR = 0.72 and 95% CI, 0.25-2.06) and (OR = 1.06 and 95% CI, 0.84-1.34; OR = 1.55 and 95% CI, 0.49-4.94). Moreover, subgroup analysis of subtotal and total gastrectomies in both RG vs. OG and RG vs. LG revealed that the scope of surgical dissection was not a positive factor to influence the comparative results of RG vs. OG or LG in surgery time, blood loss, hospital stay, lymph node harvest, morbidity, and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis highlights that robotic gastrectomy may be a technically feasible alternative for gastric cancer because of its affirmative role in both subtotal and total gastrectomies compared with laparoscopic and open resections.

Safety of transorally-inserted anvil for esophagojejunostomy in laparoscopic total gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

To assess the safety of transorally-inserted anvil (TOA) for use during esophagojejunostomy (EJ) reconstruction during laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG).

METHODS

Between March 2009 and December 2011, 39 consecutive open total gastrectomies (OTGs) and 36 LTGs using TOA for gastric cancer were comparatively evaluated. We investigated postoperative complications, using the Clavien-Dindo classification. To evaluate the effect of a learning period in using TOA for LTG, we also investigated shifts in the patterns of complications and changes in total operation time over the course of the study.

RESULTS

The patient characteristics at baseline were not different between both groups, except for the extent of lymphadenectomy (P < 0.001) and depth of tumor invasion (P = 0.003). Multivariate analysis revealed that TOA usage elevated the occurrence of infectious complications significantly (OR = 3.32, P = 0.042), but was not associated with EJ-related complications. TOA usage did not need a learning period for the length of time required to complete the operation, or the likelihood of developing an EJ-related or infectious complication.

CONCLUSIONS

TOA use for EJ during LTG is relatively simple and easy enough not to require a learning period for surgeons. This procedure did not elevated the occurrence of EJ-related complications compared to circular stapling in open surgery, but it does require special prevention efforts to avoid infectious complications.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open total gastrectomy: a matched-cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to compare short-term laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) with open total gastrectomy (OTG) outcomes in gastric cancer.

METHODS

Seventy patients who underwent total gastrectomy via LTG or OTG were included. All cases were matched for stage, age, and sex by means of statistically generated selection of all gastrectomies performed during the same period.

RESULTS

Although the operation time was not longer for LTG, the time required for esophagojejunostomy was significantly longer in LTG than in OTG (43 vs 14 min, P < .05). The incidence of anastomotic complications was higher in the LTG group as well.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative complications such as anastomotic leakage and stenosis were observed more frequently in LTG. To improve the safety of esophagojejunostomy in LTG, technical innovations should be pursued.

Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for resectable gastric cancer: an update meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

We carry out a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) versus open gastrectomy for resectable gastric cancer.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Science Citation Index (SCI), Chinese biomedicine literature database to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from their inception to April 2012. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.0 software. It was in line with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement. The quality of evidence was assessed by GRADEpro 3.6.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs totaling 784 patients were analyzed. Compared with open gastrectomy group, no significant differences were found in postoperative mortality (OR = 1.49; 95 % CI 0.29-7.79), anastomotic leakage (OR = 1.02; 95 % CI 0.24-4.27) , overall mean number of harvested lymph nodes [weighed mean difference (MD) = -3.17; 95 % CI -6.39 to 0.05]; the overall postoperative complication morbidity (OR = 0.54; 95 % CI 0.36-0.82), estimated blood loss (MD = -107.23; 95 % CI -148.56 to -65.89,) frequency of analgesic administration (MD = -1.69; 95 % CI -2.18 to -1.21, P < 0.00001), incidence of pulmonary complications (OR = 0.43, 95 % CI 0.20-0.93, P = 0.03) were significantly less in LAG group; LAG had shorter time to start first flatus (MD = -0.23; 95 % CI -0.41 to -0.05) and decreased hospital stay (MD = -1.72; 95 % CI -3.40 to 0.04), but, LAG still had longer operation time (MD = 76.70; 95 % CI 51.54-101.87).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of this meta-analysis we conclude that although LAG was still a time-consuming and technically dependent procedure, it has the advantage of better short-term outcome. Long term survival data from other studies are urgently needed to estimate the survival benefit of this technique.

Quality of life after laparoscopy-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy: an evaluation using a questionnaire mailed to the patients

PURPOSE

This study investigated the postoperative quality of life (QOL) after laparoscopy-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (LAPPG) in comparison to laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG).

METHODS

Twenty-one patients with early-stage gastric cancer underwent minimally invasive LADG (n = 12) or LAPPG (n = 9). Demographic and cancer-related data were obtained retrospectively from medical records. QOL was assessed using a 13-item questionnaire and the Japanese edition of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale, which were mailed to patients twice postoperatively. Body weight and hemoglobin levels were measured at the same time.

RESULTS

Early upper abdominal pain was rated as significantly worse with LAPPG than with LADG at the first checkup (1.4 vs. 1.0, P = 0.02) but not at the second checkup (1.3 vs. 1.0, P = 0.07). There was a trend toward less body weight loss in the LAPPG patients in comparison to the LADG patients. The serum hemoglobin levels of LAPPG patients at the second checkup showed significantly higher than LADG patients (13.3 vs. 11.6 g/dL, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

LAPPG and LADG produce similar QOL in patients. Trends toward less body weight loss and improved anemia in LAPPG patients may therefore become more pronounced in future studies that have adequate number of the patients and longer follow-up periods.

Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: the future standard of care

Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer was first reported by Kitano et al. in 1991. Laparoscopic wedge resection (LWR) and intragastric mucosal resection (IGMR) were quickly adapted for gastric cancer limited to the mucosal layer and having no risk of lymph node metastasis. Following improvements in endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), the use of LWR and IGMR for these indications decreased, and patients with gastric cancer, including those with a risk of lymph node metastases, were more likely to be managed with laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) with lymph node dissection. Many retrospective comparative trials and randomized-controlled trials (RCT) have confirmed that LG is safe and feasible, and that short-term outcomes are better than those of open gastrectomy (OG) in patients with early gastric cancer (EGC). However, these trials did not include a satisfactory number of patients to establish clinical evidence. Thus, additional multicenter randomized-controlled trials are needed to delineate significantly quantifiable differences between LG and OG. As laparoscopic experience has accumulated, the indications for LG have been broadened to include older and overweight patients and those with advanced gastric cancer. Moreover, advanced techniques, such as laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy, laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy, laparoscopy-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG), and extended lymph node dissection (D2) have been widely performed.In the near future, sentinel node navigation and robotic surgery will become additional options in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) involving LG. Such developments will improve the quality of life of patients following gastric cancer surgery.