腹腔镜辅助与开腹胃癌D2根治术的对比研究

目的探讨腹腔镜辅助胃癌D2根治术的可行性及近期疗效。方法2010年3月～2012年12月,施行361例胃癌D2根治术,2组医生分别手术,腹腔镜组166例,开腹组195例。对2组术中及术后情况、淋巴结清扫数目、并发症及病死率等进行比较。结果腹腔镜组手术时间[（241±55）min]、淋巴结清扫数[（29．8±6．5）个]与开腹组[（237±53）min、（30．5±7．0）个]差异无显著性（t=0．702、-0．978,P=0．438、0．329）,而腹腔镜组术中出血少[（115±59）ml vs．（259±121）ml,t=-13．981,P=0．000],术中输血例数少（7例 vs．19例,=4．098,P=0．043）,术后排气时间早[（3．6±0．9）dV8．（5．1±1．5）d,t=-11．271,P=0．000],首次进流质时间早[（6．1±1．3）dVS．（8．1±1．4）d,t=-13．977,P=0．000],术后住院时间短[（11．9±2．5）d VS．（14．3±3．2）d,t=-7．838,P=0．000]。腹腔镜组并发症发生率低[12．7％（21／166）VS．24．6％（48／195）,X^2=8．303,P=0．004],其中肺部感染的发生率明显低于开腹组[3．0％（5／166）vs．8．7％（17／195）,X^2=5．101,P=0．024]。结论腹腔镜辅助胃癌D2根治术具有安全可行、术后恢复快和并发症少等优点,同时在淋巴结清扫及近期预后方面能达到与开腹手术相同的效果。     

腹腔镜与开腹远端胃癌根治术的对比研究

目的比较完全腹腔镜下与开腹根治性远端胃大部切除术的术后早期疗效.方法回顾性分析2005年2月～2007年5月开展的44例腹腔镜下根治性远端胃大部切除术病例资料(腹腔镜组,LG),以同期46例开腹根治性远端胃大部切除术病例资料作为对照(开腹组,OG);比较两组病人的一般资料、手术风险(ASA)、pTNM分期、手术相关指数、切除范围、术后恢复时间及短期并发症的发生.结果两组之间的人口统计学指标、ASA值、pTNM分期、手术时间、淋巴结清除数、切缘长度及并发症发生率无明显差异(P＞0.05).但是LG术中出血量明显少于OG[(272±90)ml比(352±102)ml,P＜0.001],LG术后恢复肛门排气时间、进流质时间及进半流质时间明显早于OG(P＜0.05、P＜0.05及P＜0.05),术后住院时间亦明显缩短(P＜0.05).结论腹腔镜下远端胃癌根治术是安全可行的,能够满足肿瘤根治的严格要求,并且在术中失血、术后早期恢复饮食,缩短住院天数方面较开腹手术更有优势.     

完全腹腔镜远端胃癌D2根治术

近年来,随着腹腔镜手术技术和器械的发展,完全腹腔镜远端胃癌根治术在国内逐渐开展,主要难点问题仍集中于消化道重建。完全腹腔镜远端胃癌根治术的消化道重建方式主要有B-Ⅰ式三角吻合,B-Ⅱ式吻合和Roux-en-Y吻合等。B-Ⅰ式三角吻合法操作简便,但较适合于早期胃癌患者;B-Ⅱ式操作简单,但易出现碱性反流性胃炎;Roux-en-Y吻合能有效避免反流,但术后停滞综合征发生率较高,且全腹腔镜下操作繁琐。笔者2013年9月在国内率先开展全腔镜下胃空肠Uncut Roux-en-Y吻合,该方式既保证了肠道的连续性,降低了停滞综合征的发生率,又有效阻断了胆胰液反流至胃肠吻合口,且全腔镜下实施简便、并发症少,安全有效,值得推荐。     

3D腹腔镜与2D腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌D2根治术的应用对比

目的比较3D腹腔镜与2D腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术中的临床应用,探讨3D腹腔镜手段的可行性和安全性。 方法选取2015年1月至2017年6月确诊为进展期胃癌并分别接受3D腹腔镜(3D组)和2D腹腔镜(2D组)D2辅助远端胃癌根治术的患者各34例,采用SPSS18.0统计软件进行统计学处理,术中及术后恢复指标及术后生活质量评分等计量资料以( ±s)表示,数据比较采用独立t检验;术后并发症及术后生存率等比较采用χ²检验或Fisher精确检验,以P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。 结果与2D组比较,术后3D组出血量明显较少,淋巴结清扫数目明显更多,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组肛门排气时间、进流食时间、近切缘及远切缘距离、术后住院时间、术后并发症发生率、术后6个月生活质量评分以及1年、2年生存率等比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。 结论相比2D腹腔镜手术,3D腹腔镜辅助下实施D2根治术可有效减少术中出血量,提高淋巴结清扫数目,方便医生操作使用,且不增加术后并发症或降低生存质量和生存率,值得在临床中推广使用。     

进展期远端胃癌腹腔镜与开腹根治术的对照研究

目的探讨腹腔镜远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期远端胃癌的可行性、安全性及近期疗效．方法回顾性分析2007年1月至2008年6月间135例接受外科手术的远端胃癌患者的临床资料．其中腹腔镜远端胃癌根治术66例．开腹远端胃癌根治术69例。结果腹腔镜组与开腹组患者年龄、性别和TNM分期的差异均无统计学意义（均P〉0．05）。腹腔镜组均在腹腔镜下成功完成根治性胃切除手术,无中转开腹和手术死亡。与开腹组比较,腹腔镜组患者手术时间更长[（266．1±55．1）min比（223．8±26．8）min];但术中出血量更少[（131．9±88．7）ml比（342．3±178．7）ml],术后肠道恢复功能更快[（3．18±1．22）d比（4．50±1．59）d],术后住院时间更短[（9．20±3．39）d比（11．35±4．61）d];差异均有统计学意义（均P〈0．01）。两组清扫淋巴结数目[（25．81±12．53）枚比（27．47±10．28）枚]和术后并发症发生率[6．1％（4／66）比15．94％（11／69）1的差异均无统计学意义（均P〉0．05）。术后随访1～19个月．两组均未见肿瘤复发或肿瘤相关死亡病例。结论腹腔镜远端胃癌根治术是治疗进展期远端胃癌安全、可行、微创、有效的方法。     

加速康复外科指导下的腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术

目的 探讨在加速康复外科(fast track surgery,FTS)理念指导下,联合围手术期应用肠内营养,腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术(laparoscopy assisted radical distal gastrectomy,LADG)的安全性及临床效果.方法 将61例远端胃癌患者随机分为3组:FTS+LADG组(19例)行LADG并应用FTS方案进行围手术期处理,LADG组(22例)行LADG,应用传统围手术期处理、FTS+开腹远端胃癌根治术(open distal gastrectomy,ODG)组(21例),即施行ODG并应用FTS方案进行围手术期处理.比较3组患者术后体质量、血清ALB、BUN、CRP、肠蠕动恢复时间、术后住院时间、住院费用、并发症发生等情况.结果 FTS +LADG组手术前后血清ALB水平高于FTS+ ODG组及LADG组,术后第4、7天FTS+ LADG组明显高于LADG组(P＜0.05、P＜0.01),术前至第4天血清ALB水平变化FTS+ LADG组、FTS+ODG组与LADG组间相比差异均具有统计学意义(均P＜0.01、均P＜0.05);在术后第4、7天FTS+ LADG组血清CRP水平与FTS+ODG组之间相比差异均具有统计学意义(均P＜0.05);FTS+ LADG组术后肠蠕动恢复时间明显快于LADG组、FTS+ ODG组(P＜0.05),FTS+ LADG组术后住院时间短于LADG组、FTS+ODG组,但差异无统计学意义(均P＞0.05),FTS+LADG组住院费用较LADG组明显低(P=0.003),但仍明显高于FTS+ ODG组(P＜0.01).3组均无吻合口漏等严重并发症,3组总的并发症发生率之间相比差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 FTS理念应用于腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术可以改善患者的营养状态、减轻应激反应、促进胃肠道功能恢复、加速患者康复、缩短住院时间.     

腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌D2根治术:基于解剖的艺术

腹腔镜胃癌根治性手术相比传统开腹手术，其优势在于放大视野、多角度、高亮度和高清晰度；其劣势在于丧失了手的触觉，弥补这一劣势最好的方法无疑是更加详尽和针对性的局部解剖学知识。二者对解剖学提出了新的要求，提供了新的思路，促进了以腔镜视野为基础的腔镜下解剖学的萌芽和发展，然而，由于胃周结构的复杂性和肿瘤学要求的严苛性，腹腔镜胃癌根治性手术尚未被绝大多数医师所掌握。     

腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治术的临床研究

目的 探讨腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治术的手术方法、可行性及临床效果.方法回顾性分析我院2004年6月-2007年6月行腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治术42例患者的临床资料.结果 本组42例均行腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治术,其中远端胃大部切除术20例,近端胃大部切除术15例,全胃切除术7例,无中转开腹,无手术死亡.平均手术时间:远端胃大部切除术(285±60)min,近端胃大部切除术(178±62)min,全胃切除术(323±86)min;术中平均出血量:远端胃大部切除术(140±52)ml,近端胃大部切除术(196±85)ml,全胃切除术(234±76)ml;淋巴结清扫12～40枚,平均(25±10)枚;术后患者平均胃肠道功能恢复时间75 h.术后随访1～36个月,平均9.7个月,2例十二指肠残端瘘行保守治疗痊愈.结论对早期及部分进展期胃癌行腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治术技术可行,同时具备创伤小、恢复快、出血少等优点.     

远端进展期胃癌腹腔镜辅助与开腹 D2根治术淋巴结清扫的临床对照研究

目的：比较腹腔镜辅助与开腹D2根治术在远端进展期胃癌淋巴结清扫中的效果。方法对2012年1月～2013年10月共44例远端进展期胃癌进行前瞻性研究,根据患者意愿分别行腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术（腹腔镜组）24例和开腹胃癌根治术（开腹组）20例,比较2组临床情况、各站淋巴结清扫数目及随访结果。结果腹腔镜组2例中转开腹被排除。与开腹组相比,腹腔镜组手术时间长[（312．4±42．8）min vs．（256．2±28．6）min,t＝4．942,P＝0．000];但术后排气早[（3．2±1．3）d vs．（4．6±1．1）d,t＝-3．750,P＝0．000],下床活动早[（3．0±1．2）d vs．（4．2±1．3）d,t＝-3．110,P＝0．004],术后住院时间短[（7．8±3．2）d vs．（14．4±5．6）d,t＝-4．750,P＝0．000]。术中出血量2组差异无显著性[（304．8±112．4）ml vs．（285．6±86．6）ml,t＝0．615,P＝0．247]。2组每例清扫淋巴结数目差异无显著性[（19．4±9．2）枚vs．（20．2±12．0）枚,t＝-0．241,P＝0．652],其中第一站淋巴结2组差异无显著性[（15．4±6．8）枚vs．（16．3±7．3）枚,t＝-0．414,P＝0．431],第二站淋巴结腹腔镜组少于开腹组[（4．8±3．4）枚vs．（7．4±2．8）枚,t＝-2．690,P＝0．008]。随访6～35个月,平均17个月。腹腔镜组3例死亡,3例复发转移带瘤生存;开腹组4例死亡,2例复发转移带瘤生存。结论在进展期胃癌D2根治术中,虽然腹腔镜组第二站淋巴结清扫数目不及开腹组,但从总体而言,腹腔镜辅助手术能够达到与开腹手术相当的淋巴结清扫效果,且具有微创优势。     

腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术

腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术（LADG）是微创外科的技术之一,是现代外科的重要发展方向之一。按照日本胃癌治疗指南．LADG的适应证应严格限定在早期胃癌中,进展期胃癌应属于探索性临床研究。LADG在早期胃癌病例中应用的短期优势已得到较普遍地认可,但全腹腔镜技术尚需进一步研究探索;而LADG在进展期胃癌中的应用仍然是目前学术争议的热点之一。虽然当前有研究显示,LADG加D2淋巴结清扫对于进展期胃癌其效果与开腹手术相当,但仍需等待中国、日本和韩国目前正在进行的大样本多中心随机对照试验的结果确认。     

Laparoscopy versus open distal gastrectomy by expert surgeons for early gastric cancer in Japanese patients: short-term clinical outcomes of a randomized clinical trial

Background

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) and open DG (ODG) have been investigated in previous clinical trials, but operative techniques and concomitant treatments have evolved, and up-to-date evidence produced by expert surgeons is required to provide an accurate image of the relative efficacies of the treatments. The purpose of this study was to compare laparoscopic versus ODG with respect to specific primary and secondary short-term outcomes.

Methods

From October 2005 to February 2008, a total of 64 patients with early gastric cancer were randomly assigned to the LADG or the ODG group. One patient was excluded due to concurrent illness unrelated to the intervention, so the data from 63 patients were analyzed. The primary short-term outcome was the 4-day postoperative use of analgesics. Secondary short-term outcomes were postoperative residual pain, complications, days hospitalized, blood data, days with fever, and days to first flatus.

Results

There was a significant difference in favor of LADG for postoperative use of analgesics (P = 0.022). Unexpectedly, there was no significant difference in degree of pain in the immediate postoperative period, putatively due to the optimal use of analgesics. Of the secondary outcomes, residual pain at postoperative day 7 (P = 0.003) and days to first flatus (P = 0.001) were significantly better with LADG. Postoperative complications, number of days hospitalized, and number of days with fever were also better with LADG, but the differences were not significant. Blood data representing inflammation (WBC and CRP) showed marked differences, especially on postoperative day 7 (P = 0.0016 and P = 0.0061, respectively).

Conclusions

LADG performed by expert surgeons results in less postoperative pain accompanied by decreased surgical invasiveness and is associated with fewer postoperative inconveniences. No preliminary suggestions of changes in long-term curability were observed. LADG for early gastric cancer is a feasible and safe procedure with short-term clinical results superior to those of ODG.     

腹腔镜与开腹D2远端胃切除术治疗胃癌的Meta分析

目的：评价腹腔镜辅助D2远端胃切除术治疗胃癌的价值。 方法：收集1995—2010年公开发表的实施D2淋巴清扫的腹腔镜辅助远端胃切除术和开腹远端胃切除术治疗胃癌的中文和英文文献,对两种术式的手术时间、出血量、清扫淋巴结数目、排气及进食时间、住院时间、并发症发生率、病死率和复发率共9个效应量进行Meta分析。 结果：筛选出符合纳入标准的8项研究（1 065例）。与开腹组比较,腹腔镜辅助组的出血量和并发症减少,胃肠功能恢复时间、进食时间和住院时间缩短,但手术时间延长（均P<0.05）。两组清扫淋巴结数目、病死率和复发率的差异无统计学意义（均P>0.05）。 结论：腹腔镜辅助远端胃D2根治术具有侵袭性小、并发症少、恢复快的优点,能够获得与开腹手术相当的根治效果和短期疗效。     

Laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy versus open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer

Background  Laparoscopic-assisted gastric surgery has become an option for the treatment of early gastric cancer. However, there are few reports of laparoscopic surgery in the management of advanced gastric cancer. In this study we describe our experience with laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Methods  Between November 2004 and June 2007, 47 patients with AGC underwent LADG at our hospital, and 45 of those patients were enrolled in this study. These patients were compared with 83 patients who had AGC and underwent conventional open distal gastrectomy (ODG) during the same period. Results  Operation time was significantly longer in the LADG group than in the ODG group. Estimated blood loss in the LADG group was significantly less than in the ODG group. Time to ambulation and first flatus and duration of analgesic medication were significantly shorter in the LADG group. The morbidity and mortality rate were also lower than in the ODG group, with no statistically significant difference. The distance of the proximal resection margin showed no significant difference compared with ODG (6.3 ± 0.9 versus 6.5 ± 0.9 cm; p = 0.228). The mean number of nodes resected with LADG was 35.6 ± 14.2, and that with ODG was 38.3 ± 11.4 (p = 0.269). The mean follow-up for the LADG group was 23.6 months (range 9–40 months). In the LADG group, recurrence was observed in six patients (13.3%). Three patients had recurrence and died after 10 (IIIB), 11 (IIIA), and 13 (IIIB) months. Conclusions  LADG with extended lymphadenectomy for AGC is a feasible and safe procedure and has several advantages. Moreover, this method can achieve a radical oncologic equivalent resection. Indications for LADG with extended lymphadenectomy could be expanded in the treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer.     

腹腔镜与开腹胃癌根治术治疗早期胃癌的临床对照研究

目的 探讨腹腔镜胃癌根治术在早期胃癌治疗中的临床应用.方法 回顾性分析2004年10月至2009年12月间分别接受腹腔镜胃癌根治术（LAP组）及开腹胃癌根治术（OPEN组）的204例早期胃癌患者的临床资料.LAP组78例,OPEN组126例;比较两组患者手术方式、手术时间、术中失血量、术后肛门排气时间、术后住院天数、并发症、术后病理和随访结果.结果 手术时间LAP组为（202.9±45.6）min,显著低于OPEN组的（219.8±45.2）min（P＜0.05）;术中失血量LAP组为（144.5±146.5）ml,显著低于OPEN组的（245.0±146.4）ml（P＜0.05）.术后第1次肛门排气时间LAP组为（3.1±1.1）d,OPEN组为（4.5±1.6）d（P＜0.05）;术后第1次进食时间LAP组为（5.2±1.9）d,OPEN组为（7.0±3.6）d（P＜0.05）;术后住院天数LAP组为（10.8±1.2）d,OPEN组为（12.4±3.8）d（P＜0.05）.术后短期并发症发生率LAP组10.3%,OPEN组12.7%（P＞0.05）.手术上、下切缘距离肿瘤为LAP组为（4.0±1.9）cm和（3.6±1.7）cm,OPEN组则为（4.2±1.7）cm和（3.5±1.8）cm（p＞0.05）,差异无统计学意义.手术平均清扫淋巴结数LAP组为（13.1±6.5）枚,OPEN组则为（14.5±8.2）枚（P＞0.05）,差异也无统计学意义.术后LAP组中位随访22（2～64）个月,无肿瘤复发和远处转移;OPEN组中位随访24（3～65）个月,1例死于肿瘤腹膜转移.两组患者住院期间的总费用比较,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.结论 腹腔镜胃癌根治术是治疔早期胃癌安全、可行、微创、有效的手术方法.     

Surgical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a case-control study

Background

The aim of this study was to clarify the technical feasibility and oncological efficacy of laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for gastric cancer compared with open gastrectomy (OG).

Methods

Between April 2002 and March 2008, a series of 623 patients with gastric cancer underwent R0 gastrectomy (314 LAG patients and 309 OG patients). Age, gender, lymph node dissection, and pathological stage were matched by propensity scoring, and 212 patients (106 LAG and 106 OG) were selected for analysis after the exclusion of 40 patients who had proximal gastrectomy. Intraoperative factors, postoperative morbidity, long-term quality of life (QOL), and survival were evaluated. Moreover, these outcomes were also compared between the laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) and the open total gastrectomy (OTG).

Results

There was no significant difference in preoperative characteristics between the two patient groups. Regarding intraoperative characteristics, blood loss was significantly lower in the LAG group (143?ml) than in the OG group (288?ml), while operation time was significantly longer in the LAG group (273?min) than the OG group (231?min). The degree of lymph node dissection and number of retrieved lymph nodes did not differ between the two groups. There were no significant differences in postoperative courses or overall and disease-specific survival (89.8% vs. 83.6%, P?=?0.0886; 100% vs. 95.2%, P?=?0.1073) except time to first flatus and time to use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory derivatives between the two groups. Significantly fewer patients felt wound pain in the LAG group 1?year after surgery. Analyses between the LATG and OTG groups showed similar results.

Conclusions

LAG for gastric cancer may be both feasible and safe. However, it will be necessary to conduct a well-designed randomized controlled trial comparing short-term and long-term outcomes between LAG and OG in a larger number of patients.     

腹腔镜辅助与开腹D2胃癌根治术对进展期胃癌治疗效果的前瞻性研究

目的:探讨腹腔镜辅助D2胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的可行性、有效性及手术效果。方法:纳入2016年4月至2018年12月收治的T_2~4aN_0~3M₀期胃癌患者,215例行腹腔镜辅助D2胃癌根治术(观察组),337例行开腹D2胃切除术(对照组)。主要结局指标为短期手术结果、化疗情况,次要结局指标包括术后疼痛、焦虑。结果:两组患者检出淋巴结数量[(27.42±6.43)vs.(28.36±5.44),P>0.05]、术后并发症发生率(18.14%vs.19.29%,P>0.05)差异无统计学意义。观察组与对照组接受辅助化疗的患者比例为80.2%与76.6%,差异亦无统计学意义(P>0.05)。观察组辅助化疗时间的间隔[(35.62±14.36)d vs.(41.81±19.32)d,P<0.001]较短,术后早期恢复优于对照组。结论:在经验丰富的医院采取腹腔镜辅助D2胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌是可行的,术后患者可更早地开始辅助化疗,康复更快,并可尽快缓解术后疼痛,术后焦虑水平亦较低。     

开腹与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术的临床对比研究

目的:对比开腹与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术的手术效果、围手术期恢复情况及预后,探讨腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术的可行性及安全性。方法:选取2011年1月至2012年12月行远端胃癌根治术(远端胃切除+D2淋巴结清扫)的216例患者其分为两组,观察组行腹腔镜手术(n=104),対照组行开腹手术(n=112)。対比研究两组间的肿瘤生物学行为、手术时间、术中出血、术中淋巴结切除数量、术后胃肠道功能恢复时间、术后下床活动时间、术后并发症、住院时间、3年无瘤生存率。结果:两组在肿瘤生物学行为方面差异无统计学意义。观察组手术时间明显长于对照组(P0.05),术中出血量、淋巴结清扫数量、术后排气时间、术后下床活动时间及住院时间均优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);术后并发症按Clavien-Dindo法分级并进行対比两组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05);3年无瘤生存率两组差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:腹腔镜辅助下远端胃癌根治术是安全、可行的,与传统手术相比,在术中出血量、淋巴结清扫数量、术后恢复方面具有明显优势。     

Laparoscopic versus open D2 gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a retrospective cohort study

Background

The oncologic safety and feasibility of laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer are still uncertain. The aim of this study is to compare our results for laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy with those for open D2 gastrectomy.

Methods

Between 1998 and 2008, a total of 336 patients with clinical T2, T3, or T4 tumors underwent laparoscopic (n = 186) or open (n = 150) gastrectomy involving D2 lymph node dissection with curative intent. To produce this study population, 123 patients in the open group who matched those of the laparoscopic group with regard to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, tumor location, and clinical tumor stage were retrospectively selected. The short- and long-term outcomes of these patients were examined.

Results

Laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy was associated with significantly less operative blood loss and shorter hospital stay, but longer operative time, compared with open D2 gastrectomy. The mortality and morbidity rates of the laparoscopic group were comparable to those of the open group (1.1 % vs. 0, P = 0.519, and 24.2 % vs. 28.5 %, P = 0.402). The 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates were 65.8 and 68.1 % in the laparoscopic group and 62.0 and 63.7 % in the open group (P = 0.737 and P = 0.968). There were no differences in the patterns of recurrence between the two groups.

Conclusions

This study suggests that laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy provides reasonable oncologic outcomes with acceptable morbidity and low mortality rates. Although operation time is currently long, this approach is associated with several advantages of laparoscopic surgery, including quick recovery of bowel function and short hospital stay. Laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy may offer a favorable alternative to open D2 gastrectomy for patients with advanced gastric cancer.     

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for early distal gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

Background: We performed a meta‐analysis in an attempt to answer whether short‐term outcomes and lymph nodes harvested after laparoscopy‐assisted gastrectomy (LAG) are comparable to those reported after conventional open gastrectomy (COG). Methods: Prospective randomized clinical trials were eligible if they included patients with distal gastric cancer treated by LAG versus COG. End points were operating time, intra‐operative blood loss, size of wound, overall post‐operative complications, time to first flatus, time to start oral intake, hospital stay and lymph nodes harvested. Results: Six trials including 668 patients were included. For four of the 13 end points, the summary point estimates favoured LAG over COG; there was a significant reduction in intra‐operative blood loss (weighted mean difference (WMD) ?115.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) ?159.16 to ?72.04, P < 0.00001), size of wound (WMD ?5.27, 95% CI ?8.94 to ?1.60, P= 0.005), overall post‐operative complications (odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.85, P= 0.008) and hospital stay (WMD ?2.65, 95% CI ?4.97 to ?0.32, P= 0.03) for LAG. However, the combined results of the individual trials show significant longer operating time (WMD 112.98, 95% CI 60.32 to 165.64, P < 0.0001) and significant reduction in lymph nodes harvested (WMD ?4.79, 95% CI ?6.79 to ?2.79, P < 0.00001) in the LAG group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in time to first flatus, time to start oral intake, wound infection, intra‐abdominal fluid collection and abscess, anastomotic stenosis and leakage and pulmonary complications. Conclusion: The results of this meta‐analysis suggest that LAG for early distal cancer is a feasible and safe alternative to COG, with better short‐term outcomes.