Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for nonmetastatic T4a gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of reconstructed individual participant data from propensity score-matched studies.

BACKGROUND: ​The applicability of laparoscopy to nonmetastatic T4a patients with gastric cancer remains unclear due to the lack of high-quality evidence. The purpose of this study was to compare the survival rates of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) versus open gastrectomy (OG) for these patients through a meta-analysis of reconstructed individual participant data from propensity score-matched studies. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library and CNKI were examined for relevant studies without language restrictions through July 25, 2023. Individual participant data on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were extracted from the published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. One-stage and two-stage meta-analyses were performed. In addition, data regarding surgical outcomes and recurrence patterns were also collected, which were meta-analyzed using traditional aggregated data. RESULTS: Six studies comprising 1860 patients were included for analysis. In the one-stage meta-analyses, the results demonstrated that LG was associated with a significantly better DFS (Random-effects model: P = 0.027; Restricted mean survival time [RMST] up to 5 years: P = 0.033) and a comparable OS (Random-effects model: P = 0.135; RMST up to 5 years: P = 0.053) than OG for T4a gastric cancer patients. Two-stage meta-analyses resulted in similar results, with a 13% reduced hazard of cancer-related death (P = 0.04) and 10% reduced hazard of overall mortality (P = 0.11) in the LG group. For secondary outcomes, the pooled results showed an association of LG with less estimated blood loss, faster postoperative recovery and more retrieved lymph nodes. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery for patients with nonmetastatic T4a disease is associated with a potential survival benefit and improved surgical outcomes.

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.

Comparison of the effects of open and laparoscopic approach on body composition in gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A propensity score-matched study.

Aim: To compare the effects of open (OG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) on body composition and muscle strength. Methods: This study performed a propensity score matching analysis using cases from a large-scale, multicenter, phase III randomized controlled trial concerning oral nutritional supplements after gastrectomy and analyzed both the whole and matched cohorts. Measurements of body composition and hand grip strength (HGS) were performed at baseline (preoperatively) and at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months after gastrectomy. Results: Of 835 patients, 275 and 560 underwent OG and LG, respectively. Skeletal muscle mass (SMM) and HGS loss were significantly lesser in the LG group than in the OG group. The propensity score-matched analysis, including 120 pairs of patients, confirmed that the % SMM loss values at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 POM were -4.5%, -4.0%, -4.7%, -4.6%, and -5.8% in the OG group and -3.0%, -1.9%, -2.4%, -2.2%, and -2.7% in the LG group, respectively. The % SMM loss was significantly lesser in the LG group than in the OG group (repeated measures ANOVA p < 0.001). The HGS loss was non-significantly smaller in the LG group than in the OG group. Conclusion: Skeletal muscle mass loss was significantly lesser in the LG group than in the OG group in both cohorts, indicating that LG may be more effective than OG for maintaining muscle mass.

Accuracy of the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator for Predicting Postoperative Complications in Gastric Cancer Following Open Gastrectomy.

INTRODUCTION: The prediction of complications before gastric surgery is of utmost importance in shared decision making and proper counseling of the patient in order to minimize postoperative complications. Our aim was to evaluate the predictive validity of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) risk calculator in gastric cancer patients who underwent gastrectomy. METHODS: Preoperative assessment data of 432 patients were retrospectively reviewed and manually entered into the calculator. The accuracy of the calculator was evaluated using Pearson's chi-squared test, C-statistic, Brier score, and Hosmer-Lemeshow test. RESULTS: The lowest Brier scores were observed in urinary tract infection, renal failure, venous thromboembolism, pneumonia, and cardiac complications. Best results were obtained for predicting sepsis, discharge to rehabilitation facility, and death (low Brier scores, C-statistic >.7, and Hosmer-Lemeshow P > .05). CONCLUSION: The calculator had a strong performance in predicting sepsis, discharge to the rehabilitation facility, and death. However, it performed poor in predicting the most commonly observed events (any or serious complication and surgical site infection).

Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is widely accepted as a minimally invasive approach for the treatment of early gastric cancer. However, its role in locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of LG vs open gastrectomy (OG) after NAT for the treatment of LAGC. AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of LG vs OG after NAT for LAGC. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of 76 patients with LAGC who underwent NAT followed by LG (n = 38) or OG (n = 38) between 2021 and 2023. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), surgical complications, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: The two groups had comparable baseline characteristics, with a median follow-up period of 24 mo. The 3-year OS rates in the LG and OG groups were 68.4% and 60.5%, respectively (P = 0.42). The 3-year DFS rates in the LG and OG groups were 57.9% and 50.0%, respectively (P = 0.51). The LG group had significantly less blood loss (P < 0.001), a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001), and a lower incidence of surgical site infection (P = 0.04) than the OG group. There were no significant differences in other surgical complications between the groups, including anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, or wound dehiscence. The LG group had significantly better QOL scores than the OG group regarding physical functioning, role functioning, global health status, fatigue, pain, appetite loss, and body image at 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: LG after NAT is a viable and safe alternative to OG for the treatment of LAGC, with similar survival outcomes and superior short-term recovery and QOL. LG patients had less blood loss, shorter hospitalizations, and a lower incidence of surgical site infections than OG patients. Moreover, the LG group had better QOL scores in multiple domains 6 mo postoperatively. Therefore, LG should be considered a valid option for patients with LAGC who undergo NAT, particularly for those who prioritize postoperative recovery and QOL.

Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A case-control study using a propensity score matching method.

Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is increasingly becoming the recommended treatment for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) with promising results. According to previous reports, few studies have evaluated the benefits of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) after NACT. Methods: 135 patients from our center who underwent gastrectomy with NACT were available, including 41 patients of LG and 94 OG between July 2018 and July 2022. To reduce selection bias, we used the nearest neighbor method and set caliper = 0.2 for 3:1 matching between LG and OG groups for propensity score matching method (PSM). After PSM, the matched 41 patients with LG and 80 patients with OG formed the cohort, respectively. Univariate and multivariate Cox analyses were performed on all variables to determine independent risk factors associated with survival. Results: LG had a longer operating time compared to OG [260.00 min (220.00 min, 300.00 min) vs. 200.00 min (160.00 min, 260 min), P < 0.001]. The estimated blood loss, metastatic lymph nodes (LN), total LN examined, postoperative hospital stays, blood transfusion (P>0.05) and the incidence of postoperative complications did not show statistical differences from the OG group (P = 0.084). The type of surgery (LG vs. OG) did not show a significant risk propensity in the univariate and multivariate Cox analysis (HR = 0.69, P = 0.36, 95 % CI: 0.31-1.53). Through the Kaplan-Meier curves, a certain trend showed that the LG group had a better long-term survival outcomes than the OG group, although there was no statistical difference between two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: LG is a promising treatment option for LAGC patients receiving NACT and had an acceptable safety and efficacy compared to OG.

Open vs robotic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis on 1469 patients from the IMIGASTRIC prospective database.

BACKGROUND: Comparative data on D2-robotic gastrectomy (RG) vs D2-open gastrectomy (OG) are lacking in the Literature. Aim of this paper is to compare RG to OG with a focus on D2-lymphadenectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Data of patients undergoing D2-OG or RG for gastric cancer were retrieved from the international IMIGASTRIC prospective database and compared. RESULTS: A total of 1469 patients were selected for inclusion in the study. After 1:1 propensity score matching, a total of 580 patients were matched and included in the final analysis, 290 in each group, RG vs OG. RG had longer operation time (210 vs 330 min, p < 0.0001), reduced intraoperative blood loss (155 vs 119.7 ml, p < 0.0001), time to liquid diet (4.4 vs 3 days, p < 0.0001) and to peristalsis (2.4 vs 2 days, p < 0.0001), and length of postoperative stay (11 vs 8 days, p < 0.0001). Morbidity rate was higher in OG (24.1% vs 16.2%, p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: RG significantly expedites recovery and reduces the risk of complications compared to OG. However, long-term survival is similar.

Comparisons of perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: an updated pooled analysis of eighteen studies.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of laparoscopic surgery in advanced gastric cancer patients who received neoadjuvant therapy represent a controversial issue. We performed an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the perioperative and long-term survival outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) versus conventional open gastrectomy (OG) in this subset of patients. METHODS: Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were comprehensively searched up to May 2023. The short-term and long-term outcomes of LG versus OG in advanced gastric cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy were evaluated. Effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals were always assessed using random-effects model. The prospective protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022359126). RESULTS: Eighteen studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 16 cohort studies) involving 2096 patients were included. In total, 933 patients were treated with LG and 1163 patients were treated with OG. In perioperative outcomes, LG was associated with less estimated blood loss (MD = - 65.15; P < 0.0001), faster time to flatus (MD = - 0.56; P < 0.0001) and liquid intake (MD = - 0.42; P = 0.02), reduced hospital stay (MD = - 2.26; P < 0.0001), lower overall complication rate (OR = 0.70; P = 0.002) and lower minor complication rate (OR = 0.69; P = 0.006), while longer operative time (MD = 25.98; P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of proximal margin, distal margin, R1/R2 resection rate, retrieved lymph nodes, time to remove gastric tube and drainage tube, major complications and other specific complications. In survival outcomes, LG and OG were not significantly different in overall survival, disease-free survival and recurrence-free survival. CONCLUSION: LG can be a safe and feasible technique for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy. However, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are still needed to further validate the results of our study.

Survival Benefits of Laparoscopic Gastrectomy in Elderly Patients With Gastric Cancer: Focusing on Preoperative Nutritional and Inflammatory Status.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) may have greater clinical benefits as a less invasive surgery for elderly patients with gastric cancer (GC). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the survival benefit of LG in elderly patients with GC, especially focusing on preoperative comorbidities, and nutritional and inflammatory status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data collected from 115 patients aged ≥75 years with primary GC who underwent curative gastrectomy, comprising 58 patients who underwent open gastrectomy (OG) and 57 patients who underwent LG, were retrospectively reviewed (total cohort), and 72 propensity-matched patients (matched cohort) were selected for survival analysis. The aim of the study was to determine short- and long-term outcomes, and the clinical markers to identify a population who may benefit from LG in elderly patients. RESULTS: The complication and mortality rates as a short-term outcome in the total cohort and overall survival (OS) as a long-term outcome in the matched cohort did not differ significantly between the groups. In the total cohort, advanced tumor stage and ≥3 comorbidities were independent factors for poor prognosis in terms of OS [hazard ratio (HR)=3.73, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.78-7.78, p<0.001 and HR=2.50, 95% CI=1.35-4.61, p<0.01, respectively]. The surgical approach was not an independent risk factor for postoperative complications (grade ≥III) and OS. In subgroup analysis of the total cohort, patients with a neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥3 in the LG group demonstrated a trend toward greater OS (HR=0.26, 95% CI=0.10-0.64, interaction p<0.05). CONCLUSION: LG might offer greater survival benefits than OG in frail patients such as those with high NLR.

Postoperative analgesic effect of dexmedetomidine combined with TPVB applied to open gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study is aimed to investigate the analgesic effect of combined dexmedetomidine and thoracic paravertebral nerve block (TPVB) on gastric cancer (GC) patients undergoing open gastrectomy. METHODS: From May 2019 to Nov 2020, a total of 80 GC patients preparing for open gastrectomy were enrolled in our hospital and were divided into the ropivacaine (RO) group and the ropivacaine + dexmedetomidine (RD) group ad libitum. All of the patients underwent TPVB. The characteristics, usage of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), adverse events, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, inflammatory cytokines, and T cell subgroups between the two groups were compared. RESULTS: Patients in the RD group showed the decreased occurrence rate of postoperative adverse events and VAS scores and improved anti-inflammation and immune function. These findings implied that the application of dexmedetomidine in combination with RO in TPVB has a good postoperative analgesic effect, as well as anti-inflammatory and immune-enhancing effects. CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine as an adjunct analgesic may be potentially applied in clinical practice for GC patients undergoing open gastrectomy.

Short-and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer has rapidly developed and become more popular in recent decades. Additional high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies comparing LG versus open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer (GC) have been published in recent years. An updated systematic review is warranted. The aim of our meta-analysis was to comprehensively evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of LG versus OG for GC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials databases were comprehensively searched to identify RCTs comparing LG versus OG for GC published between January 1994 and December 7, 2021. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane Collaboration and the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUORUM) guidelines. All RCTs comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of LG with those of OG were included. A random effects model was adopted with significant heterogeneity (I2 > 50%), while a fixed effects model was employed in all other cases (I2 ≤ 50%). RESULTS: A total of 26 RCTs with 8301 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that the intraoperative complication rate was comparable between the LG group and the OG group (OR=1.14, 95% CI [0.76, 1.70], I2=0%, p=0.53). The LG group had fewer postoperative complications than the OG group (OR=0.65, 95% CI [0.57, 0.74], I2=26%, p<0.00001). However, the severe postoperative complication rate and perioperative mortality were comparable between the two groups (OR=0.83, 95% CI [0.67, 1.04], I2=10%, p=0.10; OR=1.11, 95% CI [0.59, 2.09], I2=0%, p=0.74, respectively). The number of lymph nodes retrieved by the LG group was less than that of the OG group (MD=-1.51, 95% CI [-2.29, -0.74], I2=0%, p<0.0001). The proximal resection margin distance in the LG group was shorter than that in the OG group (MD=-0.34, 95% CI [-0.57, -0.12], I2=23%, p=0.003), but the distal resection margin distance in the two groups was comparable (MD=-0.21, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.04], I2=0%, p=0.10). The time to first ambulation was shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=-0.14, 95% CI [-.26, -0.01], I2=40%, p=0.03). The time to first flatus was also shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=-0.15, 95% CI [-0.23, -0.07], I2=4%, p=0.0001). However, the first time on a liquid diet was comparable between the two groups (MD=-0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.04], I2=88%, p=0.09). Furthermore, the postoperative length of stay was shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=-1.26, 95% CI [-1.99, -0.53], I2=90%, p=0.0007). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was comparable between the two groups (HR=0.97, 95% CI [0.80, 1.17], I2=0%, p=0.73), and the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was also similar between the LG group and OG group (HR=1.08, 95% CI [0.77, 1.52], I2=0%, p=0.64). CONCLUSION: LG is a technically safe and feasible alternative to OG with the advantages of a fewer postoperative complication rate, faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, and greater cosmetic benefit for patients with GC. Meanwhile, LG has comparable long-term outcomes to OG for GC.

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

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic gastrectomy for early gastric cancer is widely accepted and routinely performed. However, it is still debated whether the laparoscopic approach is a valid alternative to open gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The aim of this study is to compare short-and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic (LG) and open (OG) total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy in patients with AGC. METHODS: A retrospective comparative study was conducted on patients who underwent LG and OG for ACG between January 2015 and December 2021. Primary endpoints were the following: recurrence rate, 3-year disease-free survival, 3-year and 5-year overall survival. Univariate and multivariate analysis was conducted to compare variables influencing outcomes and survival. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients included: fifty-three OG and thirty-nine LG. No difference in morbidity and mortality. LG was associated with lower recurrence rates (OG 22.6% versus LG 12.8%, p = 0.048). No differences in 3-year and 5-year overall survival; 3-year disease-free survival was improved in the LG group on the univariate analysis but not after the multivariate one. LG was associated with longer operative time, lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. Lymph node yield was higher in LG. CONCLUSION: LG for AGC seems to provide satisfactory clinical and oncological outcomes in medium volume centers, improved postoperative results and possibly lower recurrence rates.

3D laparoscopic-assisted vs open gastrectomy for carcinoma in the remnant stomach: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic technique has gradually been applied to the treatment of carcinoma in the remnant stomach (CRS), but its clinical efficacy remains controversial. AIM: To compare the short-term and long-term results of 3D laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (3DLAG) with open gastrectomy (OG) for CRS. METHODS: The clinical data of patients diagnosed with CRS and admitted to the First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital from January 2016 to January 2021 were retrospectively collected. A total of 84 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled. All their clinical data were collected and a database was established. All patients were treated with 3DLAG or OG by experienced surgeons and were divided into two groups based on the different surgical methods mentioned above. By using outpatient and telephone follow-up, we were able to determine postoperative survival and tumor status. The postoperative short-term efficacy and 1-year and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Among 84 patients with CRS, 48 were treated with OG and 36 with 3DLAG. All patients successfully completed surgery. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index, ASA score, initial disease state (benign or malignant), primary surgical anastomosis method, interval time of carcinogenesis, and tumorigenesis site. Patients in the 3DLAG group experienced less intraoperative blood loss (188.33 ± 191.35 mL vs 305.83 ± 303.66 mL; P = 0.045) and smaller incision (10.86 ± 3.18 cm vs 20.06 ± 5.17 cm; P < 0.001) than those in the OG group. 3DLAGC was a more minimally invasive method. 3DLAGC retrieved significantly more lymph nodes than OG (14.0 ± 7.17 vs 10.73 ± 6.82; P = 0.036), whereas the number of positive lymph nodes did not differ between the two groups (1.56 ± 2.84 vs 2.35 ± 5.28; P = 0.413). The complication rate (8.3% vs 20.8%; P = 0.207) and intensive care unit admission rate (5.6% vs 14.5%; P = 0.372) were equivalent between the two groups. In terms of postoperative recovery, the 3DLAGC group had a lower visual analog score, shorter indwelling time of gastric and drainage tubes, shorter time of early off-bed motivation, shorter time of postoperative initial flatus and initial soft diet intake, shorter postoperative hospital stay and total hospital stay, and there were significant differences, showing better short-term efficacy. The 1-year and 3-year OS rates of OG group were 83.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 72.4%-95.6%] and 73.3% (95%CI: 60.0%-89.5%) respectively. The 1-year and 3-year OS rates of the 3DLAG group were 87.3% (95%CI: 76.4%-99.8%) and 75.6% (95%CI: 59.0%-97.0%), respectively. However, the 1-year and 3-year OS rates were similar between the two groups, which suggested that long-term survival results were comparable between the two groups (P = 0.68). CONCLUSION: Compared with OG, 3DLAG for CRS achieved better short-term efficacy and equivalent oncological results without increasing clinical complications. 3DLAG for CRS can be promoted safely and effectively in selected patients.

Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Gastric Cancer in Western Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes.

Background. The advantages of a laparoscopic approach for the treatment of gastric cancer have already been demonstrated in Eastern Countries. This review and meta-analysis aims to merge all the western studies comparing laparoscopic (LG) versus open gastrectomies (OG) to provide pooled results and higher levels of evidence. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE(PubMed), Embase, WebOfScience and Scopus for studies comparing laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy in western centers from 1980 to 2021. Results. After screening 355 articles, 34 articles with a total of 24,098 patients undergoing LG (5445) or OG (18,653) in western centers were included. Compared to open gastrectomy, laparoscopic gastrectomy has a significantly longer operation time (WMD = 47.46 min; 95% CI = 31.83−63.09; p < 0.001), lower blood loss (WMD = −129.32 mL; 95% CI = −188.11 to −70.53; p < 0.0001), lower analgesic requirement (WMD = −1.824 days; 95% CI = −2.314 to −1.334; p < 0.0001), faster time to first oral intake (WMD = −1.501 days; 95% CI = −2.571 to −0.431; p = 0.0060), shorter hospital stay (WMD = −2.335; 95% CI = −3.061 to −1.609; p < 0.0001), lower mortality (logOR = −0.261; 95% the −0.446 to −0.076; p = 0.0056) and a better 3-year overall survival (logHR 0.245; 95% CI = 0.016−0.474; p = 0.0360). A slight significant difference in favor of laparoscopic gastrectomy was noted for the incidence of postoperative complications (logOR = −0.202; 95% CI = −0.403 to −0.000 the = 0.0499). No statistical difference was noted based on the number of harvested lymph nodes, the rate of major postoperative complication and 5-year overall survival. Conclusions. In Western centers, laparoscopic gastrectomy has better short-term and equivalent long-term outcomes compared with the open approach, but more high-quality studies on long-term outcomes are required.

Comparing surgical and oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic gastrectomy and open gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer with serosal invasion: A retrospective study with propensity score matching.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has gradually increased for treating advanced gastric cancer (AGC). However, there is a lack of evidence on oncologic safety for AGC, especially with serosal invasion. This study evaluates the surgical and oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer with serosal invasion. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 256 patients who underwent OG and 147 patients who underwent LG for gastric cancer with serosal invasion between August 2005 and December 2017. Finally, 124 patients in the LG group and 124 in the OG group were enrolled according to one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. We evaluated surgical and oncological outcomes, including overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS: There were no statistical differences in hospital stay and major complications between the two groups. The retrieved lymph nodes of the LG group were similar to those of OG (40 ± 16.23 vs. 38 ± 14.42, p = 0.306), and it showed a similar operation time compared with the other (164 ± 43.86 vs. 156 ± 37.66, p = 0.063). There was no statistical difference in OS (p = 0.761) and RFS (p = 0.121) for survival analysis between the two groups. CONCLUSION: LG for gastric cancer with serosal invasion is feasible and could be considered as a standard treatment.

Comparison of postoperative pancreatic fistula between open and laparoscopic surgery in patients with gastric cancer: A meta-analysis.

Background: Open gastrectomy"OG" compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy"LG" in patients with gastric cancer"GC" has been widely discussed over the past years. However, the lack of comparative analysis in postoperative pancreatic fistula "POPF" hinders its severity as surgical procedures developed rapidly. Therefore, there are still moot on whether one of these surgical options is superior in POPF. Objective: To compare the incidence of POPF in patients undergoing OG and LG for gastric cancer "GC". Methods: Articles from January 2011 to August 2021 that compared LG and OG for GC were reviewed. Cohort studies were included in our study. The quality of enrolled studies was evaluated. Outcomes regarding POPF complication and relative operation results were analyzed. Statistical analysis portrayed the Weighted mean difference"WMD"and the odds ratio"OR"with a 95% confidence interval "CI". The curative effect was analyzed using RevMan 5.4.1 software. Results: Totally 7 articles met the inclusion criteria, including 3194 patients with treatment of gastrectomy surgeries for gastric cancer "GC". There was no significant difference observed in POPF incidence (OR, 95% CI = 1.04 [0.74,1.46], P = 0.81) between OG group and LG group in patients undergoing GC gastrectomy. Conclusion: We stringently explored the current incidence of POPF after GC gastrectomy, comparing its incidence during LG and OG, there was no significant difference between OG and LG in the incidence of POPF, and surgeons should give more concern for improvement in surgical techniques. Further research is still needed to explore the risk of causes and surgical techniques should be considered cautiously in a clinical procedure.

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.

A matched cohort study of the failure pattern after laparoscopic and open gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: does the operative approach matter?

BACKGROUND: Due to lacking evidence for confirming the efficacy of performing laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC). Therefore, this study aimed to compare the static and dynamic failure patterns after laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and open gastrectomy (OG) in LAGC. METHODS: A total of 1792 LAGC patients who underwent radical resection between January 2010 and January 2017 were divided into the LG group (n = 1557) and the OG group (n = 235). Propensity score matching was performed to balance the two groups. Dynamic hazard rates of failure were calculated using the hazard function. Early and late failure were defined as failure occurring before and after 2 years since surgery, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 1175 patients with LAGC were included after matching (LG group, n = 940; OG, n = 235). The failure rate of the whole cohort was 43.2% (508/1175), accounting for 41.4% (389/940) and 50.6% (119/235) in the LG and OG groups, respectively. Although the two groups showed no significant differences in failure rate for any failure type, landmark analysis showed a lower early distant recurrence rate in the stage IIa-IIIb subgroup of the LG group (OG versus LG: 30.3% versus 21.1%, P = 0.004). The dynamic hazard rate peaked at 9.4 months (peak rate = 0.0186) before gradually declining. In stage IIa-IIIb patients, the hazard rate of the OG group remained significantly higher than that of the LG group within the first 2 years in terms of distant recurrence (peak rate: OG versus LG, 0.0091 versus 0.0055). CONCLUSION: Given the differences in early failure between LG and OG, more intensive surveillance for distant recurrence within the first 2 years should be considered for patients with stage IIa-IIIb after OG.

A meta-analysis of robotic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy in gastric cancer treatment.

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) shows potential as an alternative to open gastrectomy (OG), the gold standard in the surgical management of gastric cancer (GC). This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the short-term efficacy and safety of RG versus OG for GC.A systematic literature search was conducted on RG with OG for GC in randomized and semi-randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Published materials and conference papers in English and trace references included in the literature were manually searched. The retrieval period was set to end in February 2021. The quality of the included studies was evaluated, and meta-analysis was conducted using the software STATA 15.1. Eleven studies with 6693 patients were included. Major blood loss (weighted mean differences (WMD) = -114.63, 95 % CI, -182.37-46.88, P = 0.001), hospital stay (WMD = -2.21, 95 % CI, -4.32-0.09, P = 0.041), and postoperative complications (odds ratio (OR) = OR = 0.57, 95 % CI, 0.35-0.93, P = 0.025) were fewer in the RS group, and R0 resection (odds ratio (OR) = 6.26, 95 % CI, 2.733-14.35, P = 0.000) occurred more frequently in the RG group than in the OG group. But positive lymph nodes (WMD = -2.09, 95 % CI,-3.73-0.45, P = 0.012) occurred less frequently in the RG group than in the OG group, and operative time was longer in the RG group than in the OG group (WMD = 83.21, 95 % CI, 19.88-146.55, P = 0.010). RG not only provides a technique for the treatment of GC but is also safe and feasible. This finding needs to be verified by multicenter, large-sample randomized controlled trials in the future.