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

Risk factors for pneumonia after radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to systematically gather relevant research to determine and quantify the risk factors and pooled prevalence for pneumonia after a radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

The reporting procedures of this meta-analysis conformed to the PRISMA 2020. Chinese Wan Fang data, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Periodical Full-text Database (VIP), Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to January 20, 2024, were systematically searched for cohort or case-control studies that reported particular risk factors for pneumonia after radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The pooled prevalence of pneumonia was estimated alongside risk factor analysis. The quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale after the chosen studies had been screened and the data retrieved. RevMan 5.4 and R 4.4.2 were the program used to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Our study included data from 20,840 individuals across 27 trials. The pooled prevalence of postoperative pneumonia was 11.0% (95% CI = 8.0% ~ 15.0%). Fifteen risk factors were statistically significant, according to pooled analyses. Several factors were identified to be strong risk factors, including smoking history (OR 2.71, 95% CI = 2.09 ~ 3.50, I2 = 26%), prolonged postoperative nasogastric tube retention (OR 2.25, 95% CI = 1.36-3.72, I2 = 63%), intraoperative bleeding ≥ 200 ml (OR 2.21, 95% CI = 1.15-4.24, I2 = 79%), diabetes mellitus (OR 4.58, 95% CI = 1.84-11.38, I2 = 96%), male gender (OR 3.56, 95% CI = 1.50-8.42, I2 = 0%), total gastrectomy (OR 2.59, 95% CI = 1.83-3.66, I2 = 0%), COPD (OR 4.72, 95% CI = 3.80-5.86, I2 = 0%), impaired respiratory function (OR 2.72, 95% CI = 1.58-4.69, I2 = 92%), D2 lymphadenectomy (OR 4.14, 95% CI = 2.29-7.49, I2 = 0%), perioperative blood transfusion (OR 4.21, 95% CI = 2.51-7.06, I2 = 90%), and hypertension (OR 2.21, 95% CI = 1.29-3.79, I2 = 0%). Moderate risk factors included excessive surgery duration (OR 1.51, 95% CI = 1.25-1.83, I2 = 90%), advanced age (OR 1.91, 95% CI = 1.42-2.58, I2 = 94%), nutritional status (OR 2.62, 95% CI = 1.55-4.44, I2 = 71%), and history of pulmonary disease (OR 1.61, 95% CI = 1.17-2.21, I2 = 79%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified 15 independent risk factors significantly associated with pneumonia after radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer, with a pooled prevalence of 11.0%. These findings emphasize the importance of targeted preventive strategies, including preoperative smoking cessation, nutritional interventions, blood glucose and blood pressure control, perioperative respiratory training, minimizing nasogastric tube retention time, and optimizing perioperative blood transfusion strategies. For high-risk patients, such as the elderly, those undergoing prolonged surgeries, experiencing excessive intraoperative blood loss, undergoing total gastrectomy, or receiving open surgery, close postoperative monitoring is essential. Early recognition of pneumonia signs and timely intervention can improve patient outcomes and reduce complications.

Robotic vs laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with Billroth I and II reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of gastric cancer, however, its comparative safety and efficacy against the laparoscopic approach (LDG), remains unclear, especially when accounting the reconstruction method as a confounder. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of RDG vs LDG In patIents with gastric cancer, undergoing Billroth I and II reconstruction. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We searched Pubmed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library, up to October 22nd, 2024. The primary outcomes analyzed were the blood loss, operative duration, and the number of harvested lymph nodes and the secondary outcomes included overall complications, time to oral intake, duration of hospitalization and time to first flatus. Random-effects models were used to calculate weighted mean differences (WMD) and Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. P values were also calculated. Sensitivity analysis was performed for outcomes with moderate to high heterogeneity. Five studies were included, involving 811 patients (RDG: n = 289, LDG: n = 522). RDG was associated with a significantly longer operative duration compared to LDG (WMD = 34.14 min, 95%CI 10.92 to 57.35, P = 0.004, I2 = 91%). RDG patients initiated oral intake earlier (WMD = -0.20 days, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.01, P = 0.03, I2 = 45%). RDG resulted in shorter hospital stays (WMD = -1.48 days, 95%CI -2.91 to -0.04, P = 0.04, I2 = 86%). RDG patients had a faster return to bowel function (time to first flatus) (WMD = -0.33 days, 95%CI -0.50 to -0.15, P = 0.00003, I2 = 57%). No statistically significant differences were observed regarding blood loss between RDG and LDG (WMD = -3.88 mL, 95%CI -21.63 to 13.87, P = 0.67, I2 = 78%). There was no statistically significant difference in complication rates (OR = 0.61, 95%CI 0.36 to 1.03, P = 0.06, I2 = 0%). No significant differences were observed regarding the number of lymph nodes harvested (WMD = -0.49, 95%CI -3.02 to 2.04, P = 0.70, I2 = 24%). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the findings of operative duration and time to first flatus. RDG with BI/ BII requires longer operative duration, but it associated with faster recovery compared to LDG. No differences were observed between RDG and LDG with regards to overall complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and blood loss, showing that RDG is as safe and oncological equivalent to LDG. Future studies particularly, multi-center randomized clinical trials, should have a longer follow up period and examine the type of reconstruction separately. PROSPERO registration: CRD42024605895.

Oncological long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for cT3-4 gastric cancer at surgical staging: a propensity-score matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

The oncological efficacy of laparoscopic surgery for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) has been evaluated by several randomized trials. However, the inclusion of earlier-stage disease was a limitation in previous studies.

METHODS

Patients with cT3-4 gastric cancer, determined by surgical staging to minimize migration of earlier stages, treated at a tertiary cancer center from 2009 to 2018 were included. Based on the surgical approach, the patients were divided into two groups: the laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and the open gastrectomy (OG) and matched for age, sex, macroscopic appearance (type 4 or non-type 4), body mass index, estimated tumor size, clinical stage T3'T4, clinical N stage, pathologic T stage (T3 or T4), and type of surgery (total or distal gastrectomy).

RESULTS

588 patients (221 LG, 367 OG) were included in the analysis. After 1:1 propensity-score matching, 386 patients (193 LG, 193 OG) were assigned for analysis. In the LG group, operation time was longer with lower blood loss. The incidence of postoperative complications (≥ grade III) did not differ significantly between the groups (OG: 8.3%, vs. LG: 9.3%). Overall survival (OS) was longer in the LG group (5-year OS: 79.3 vs. 73% HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44-0.99, P = 0.0497). Relapse-free survival (RFS) did not show a statistical difference (5-year RFS: 69.5 vs. 68.7 HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.62-1.26, P = 0.487). Subgroup analysis for OS also demonstrated equivalent outcomes.

CONCLUSION

LG demonstrates comparable safety and efficacy to OG for advanced gastric cancer at surgical staging, with similar rates of severe complications and long-term oncological outcomes. Further research is needed to validate these findings, particularly for total gastrectomy and for patients from Western populations.

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for patients with advanced gastric cancer in North China: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) has become a common procedure for treating advanced gastric cancer (AGC) in China. However, there is uncertainty regarding its oncological outcomes compared to open distal gastrectomy (ODG). This study aims to compare the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates among patients who underwent surgery for AGC in northern China.

METHODS

A multicenter, non-inferiority, open-label, parallel, randomized clinical trial was conducted to evaluate patients with AGC who were eligible for distal gastrectomy at five tertiary hospitals in North China. In this trial, patients were randomly assigned preoperatively to receive either LDG or ODG in a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary endpoint was postoperative morbidity and mortality within 30 days and the secondary endpoint was the 3-year DFS rate. This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02464215).

RESULTS

A total of 446 patients were randomly allocated to LDG (n = 223) or ODG group (n = 223) between March 2014 and August 2017. After screening, a total of 214 patients underwent the open surgical approach, while 216 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery. The 3-year DFS rate was 85.9% for the LDG group and 84.72% for the ODG group, with no significant statistical difference (Hazard ratio 1.12; 95% CI 0.68-1.84, P = 0.65). Body mass index (BMI) < 25 kg/m2, advanced pathologic T4, and pathologic N2-3 category were confirmed as independent risk factors for DFS in the Cox regression.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to ODG, LDG with D2 lymphadenectomy yielded similar outcomes in terms of 3-year DFS rates among patients diagnosed with AGC.

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.

Minimally Invasive Conversion Surgery for Unresectable Gastric Cancer with Splenic Metastasis and Splenic Vein Tumor Thrombus: A Case Report

While the importance of conversion surgery has increased with the development of systemic chemotherapy for gastric cancer (GC), reports of conversion surgery for patients with GC with distant metastasis and tumor thrombus are extremely scarce, and a definitive surgical strategy has yet to be established. Herein, we report a 67-year-old man with left abdominal pain referred to our hospital following a diagnosis of unresectable GC. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography (CT) revealed advanced GC with splenic metastasis. A splenic vein tumor thrombus (SVTT) and a continuous thrombus to the main trunk of the portal vein were detected. The patient was treated with anticoagulation therapy and systemic chemotherapy comprising S-1 and oxaliplatin. One year following chemotherapy initiation, a CT scan revealed progressive disease (PD); therefore, the chemotherapy regimen was switched to ramucirumab with paclitaxel. After 10 courses of chemotherapy resulting in primary tumor and SVTT shrinkage, the patient underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) and distal pancreaticosplenectomy (DPS). He was discharged without complications and remained alive 6 months postoperatively without recurrence. In summary, the wait-and-see approach was effective in a patient with GC with splenic metastasis and SVTT, ultimately leading to an R0 resection performed via LTG and DPS.

Short-Term Outcomes Analysis Comparing Open, Laparoscopic, Laparoscopic-Assisted, and Robotic Distal Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Trials Network Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is debated. The aim of this study was to execute a comprehensive assessment of principal surgical treatments for resectable distal gastric cancer.

METHODS

Systematic review and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) network meta-analysis. Open (Op-DG), laparoscopic-assisted (LapAs-DG), totally laparoscopic (Lap-DG), and robotic distal gastrectomy (Rob-DG) were compared. Pooled effect-size measures were the risk ratio (RR), the weighted mean difference (WMD), and the 95% credible intervals (CrIs).

RESULTS

Ten RCTs (3823 patients) were included. Overall, 1012 (26.5%) underwent Lap-DG, 902 (23.6%) LapAs-DG, 1768 (46.2%) Op-DG, and 141 (3.7%) Rob-DG. Anastomotic leak, severe complications (Clavien-Dindo > 3), and in-hospital mortality were comparable. No differences were observed for reoperation rate, pulmonary complications, postoperative bleeding requiring transfusion, surgical-site infection, cardiovascular complications, number of harvested lymph nodes, and tumor-free resection margins. Compared to Op-DG, Lap-DG and LapAs-DG showed a significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss with a trend toward shorter time to first flatus and reduced length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

LapAs-DG, Lap-DG, and Rob-DG performed in referral centers by dedicated surgeons have comparable short-term outcomes to Op-DG for locally AGC.

Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer in elderly patients: a propensity-score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Scarce research has reported the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in elderly patients. This retrospective study aimed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer in elderly patients.

METHODS

A total of 303 elderly patients who underwent distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer from June 2017 to June 2021 were enrolled. Variables used to calculate propensity score matching included sex, age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists, history of diabetes, and history of hypertension. The statistical significance of continuous variables was tested using an independent sample t test. chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were used for categorical variables. Kaplan-Meier curve and log-rank test were used for the evaluation of 3-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival.

RESULTS

After performing 1:1 propensity score matching, 248 patients were included for analysis (laparoscopic = 124, open = 124). Compared with the open group, the laparoscopic group showed significant advantages in estimated blood loss (P < 0.001), pain scale on the first postoperative day (P = 0.002), time to first flatus (P = 0.004), time to first liquid diet (P = 0.005), hospital stays (P < 0.001), and total complications (P = 0.011), but devoted much more operation time (P < 0.001). No statistical difference was observed between the two groups in 3-year recurrence-free survival (P = 0.315) or overall survival (P = 0.159).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis demonstrated that laparoscopic surgery had the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, fewer postoperative complications, and faster postoperative recovery in distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric, indicating that laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is safe and effective for treating elderly patients with distal gastric cancer.

Comparison of safety and effectiveness between robotic and laparoscopic major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic platform has been increasingly applied in major hepatectomy. However, the role or advantage of robotic approach comparing with laparoscopic approach in major hepatectomy remains controversial. This meta-analysis compares perioperative outcomes of robotic major hepatectomy (RMH) to laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatic neoplasms.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify comparative studies compared RMH versus LMH for hepatic neoplasms. The search timeframe was set before May 2023. Main outcomes were mortality, overall morbidities, serious complications, and conversion to open surgery. Secondary outcomes were operative time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion, postoperative length of hospital stay, R0 resection, reoperation, and readmission. Studies were evaluated for quality by Cochrane risk of bias tool or Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD). This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023410951).

RESULTS

Twelve retrospective cohort studies concerning total 1657 patients (796 RMH, 861 LMH) were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in mortality (OR=1.23, 95% CI=0.50-2.98, P =0.65), overall postoperative complications (OR=0.83, 95% CI=0.65-1.06, P =0.14), operative time (MD=6.47, 95% CI=-14.72 to 27.65, P =0.55), blood transfusion (OR=0.77, 95% CI=0.55-1.08, P =0.13), R0 resection (OR=1.45, 95% CI=0.91-2.31, P =0.12), reoperation (OR=0.76, 95% CI=0.31-1.88, P =0.56), and readmission (OR=0.63, 95% CI=0.28-1.44, P =0.27) between RMH and LMH. Incidence of serious complications (OR=0.60, 95% CI=0.40-0.90, P =0.01), conversion to open surgery (OR=0.41, 95% CI=0.27-0.63, P <0.0001), blood loss (MD=-91.42, 95% CI=-142.18 to -40.66, P =0.0004), and postoperative hospital stay (MD=-0.64, 95% CI=-0.78 to -0.49, P <0.00001) were reduced for RMH versus LMH.

CONCLUSIONS

RMH is associated with comparable short-term surgical outcomes and oncologic adequacy compared to LMH when performed by experienced surgeons at large centres. RMH may result in reduced major morbidities, conversion rate, blood loss, and hospital stay, but these results were volatile. Further randomized studies should address the potential advantages of RMH over LMH.