腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术安全性和生存状况分析

目的 评估腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术的安全性和长期生存情况.方法 行远端胃癌根治术患者360例,其中160例行腹腔镜手术(腹腔镜组),200例行开腹手术(开腹组),比较两组患者手术安全性、术后并发症和生存率.结果 腹腔镜组手术出血量和术后住院时间分别为(42.5±15.3)ml和(9.5±2.6)天,均少于开腹组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).两组手术时间、淋巴结清扫数目和术后并发症比较,差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).两组患者随访时间6 ～ 60个月,平均32个月,腹腔镜组与开腹组1、3、5年总体生存率分别为95.3％、82.7％、60.3％和95.4％、79.2％、60.3％,两组比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术安全可行,有创伤小,恢复快,并发症少.腹腔镜组在术后生存率与开腹手术组相当.     

进展期胃癌腹腔镜根治切除的临床经验

目的 探讨腹腔镜胃癌D2淋巴结清扫术在治疗进展期胃癌中的临床价值.方法 回顾性分析2004年1月至2011年6月手术治疗的239例进展期胃癌,根据患者接受的手术方式不同分为腹腔镜组102例、开腹组137例.结果 腹腔镜组的切口长度、术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间、进食时间、术后住院天数分别为(5.0±1.1) cm、(70±44)ml、(57±14)h、(68±13)h、(7.1±1.4)d,开腹组分别为(17.4±2.1)cm、(107±59)ml、(75 ±12)h、(91±15)h、(9.9±1.8)d,两组比较差异均有统计学意义(t=-58.86、-5.50、-10.72、-12.58、-12.58,均P=0.00).腹腔镜组手术时间为(192±32) min,开腹组为(185±30)min,两组比较差异无统计学意义(t=1.63,P=0.11).腹腔镜组平均近、远端切缘、淋巴结清扫数目分别(5.0±1.0) cm、(4.7±0.8)cm、(27.6±7.2)枚,开腹组分别为(5.1±0.9) cm、(4.7±0.9) cm、(27.0±6.5)枚,两组比较差异均无统计学意义(t=-0.61、0.10、0.68,均P＞0.05).腹腔镜组术后第3、5、7天外周血白细胞计数分别为(11.1±1.3)×109/L、(9.5±1.4)×109/L、(7.0±1.5)×109/L,开腹组分别为(12.8±1.3)×109/L、(11.1±1.5)×109/L、(8.6±1.3)×109/L,两组比较差异均有统计学意义(t=-9.83、8.88、-9.40,均P=0.00).腹腔镜组并发症发生率为9.8％ (10/102)、开腹组为17.5％(24/137),两组比较差异无统计学意义(x2 =0.285,P=0.09).腹腔镜组平均治疗费用为(2.4±0.4)万元,开腹组为(2.3±0.3)万元,两组比较差异无统计学意义(t=1.87,P=0.06).腹腔镜组术后1、3、5年生存率分别为96.1％、74.1％、47.2％,开腹组分别为95.6％、70.0％、50.9％,两组比较差异均无统计学意义(x2=0、0.04、0.21,均P＞0.05);腹腔镜组1、3、5年无瘤生存率分别为88.2％、55.2％、36.1％,开腹组分别为84.7％、51.3％、27.5％,两组比较差异均无统计学意义(x2=0.62、0.06、0.37,均P＞0.05).结论 在经过选择的患者中,腹腔镜胃癌D2淋巴结清扫术治疗进展期胃癌是有效、安全、可行的,其近期疗效优于开腹手术,而中、远期疗效则与开腹手术相当.     

腹腔镜辅助胃癌D2根治术并发症的防治

目的 探讨腹腔镜辅助胃癌D2根治术并发症的防治及其临床价值.方法 同顾性分析我院2010年1月至2011年12月分别接受腹腔镜全胃切除胃癌D2根治术(腹腔镜组165例)及开腹全胃切除胃癌D2根治术(开腹组193例)共358例胃癌患者的临床资料.将手术情况、术后恢复情况和并发症进行比较. 结果 腹腔镜组中位手术时间为225( 195～340) min,开腹组为230(195～300) min,两组之间相比差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);腹腔镜组淋巴结清扫数目为(26±4)枚,开腹组为(27±4)枚,两组之间相比差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);腹腔镜组中位术中失血量为160(80～600) ml,显著低于开腹组的270(150～600)ml,两组相比差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01);腹腔镜组术后平均住院(11.4±2.6)d,显著低于开腹组的(13.7±2.4)d,两组相比差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).腹腔镜组的术后并发症共18例,开腹组共30例,两组之间相比差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).两组均无围手术期死亡病例.结论 腹腔镜辅助胃癌D2根治术是安全可行的,并能有效地防治手术的并发症,更能体现创伤小、并发症少、恢复快的特点.     

进展期胃癌腹腔镜辅助D2根治术的临床疗效分析

目的:对比分析腹腔镜辅助与开腹D2根治术在进展期胃癌中的治疗效果。方法:对2012年1月—2013年10月共55例进展期胃癌进行前瞻性研究,采用数字表法,随机分为腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术(腹腔镜组)29例(其中2例中转开腹者被剔除)和开腹胃癌根治术(开腹组)26例,比较两组临床情况、淋巴结清扫数目及术后1年生存率。结果:腹腔镜组手术时间明显长于开腹组[(346±45)min vs.(286±32)min,P=0.038];腹腔镜组在术后肛门排气时间、下床活动时间以及术后住院天数方面均优于开腹组(均P0.05);术中出血量、首次进流食时间两组比较差异无统计学意义(均P0.05)。腹腔镜组平均每例清扫淋巴结数目与开腹组相比,差异无统计学意义[(20.6±8.4)枚vs.(21.2±11.0)枚,P=0.825]。随访时间6~35个月,腹腔镜组术后1年生存率(88.0%)与开腹组(84.0%)相比,两组比较差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.62,P=0.315)。结论:进展期胃癌腹腔镜辅助D2根治术能够达到与开腹手术相当的淋巴结清扫效果,在临床疗效方面具有微创优势。     

腹腔镜辅助与开腹远端胃癌根治术的临床对比研究

目的:探讨腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术的可行性.方法:对39例行腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌粮治术(腹腔镜组)及40例开腹远端胃癌根治术(开腹组)患者的术后情况进行对比分析.结果:腹腔镜组与开腹组平均手术时间分别为(204.6±38.4)min和(166.1±36.8)min(P<0.05);但腹腔镜组术中出血量、术后恢复情况、术后外周血T淋巴细胞及NK细胞活性显著优于开腹组(P<0.05).腹腔镜组肿瘤根治程度、术后生存率、肿瘤复发情况与开腹组相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论:腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术是安全可行的,其微创优势明显,能够达到与开腹手术相当的根治效果.     

腹腔镜与开腹直肠癌根治术临床疗效的对比研究

目的 比较腹腔镜与开腹直肠癌根治术的远期和近期临床疗效.方法 2004年6月至2009年8月由同一手术组完成腹腔镜直肠癌根治术312例及开腹直肠癌根治术226例,分析比较两组患者的远期生存率、手术情况、术后恢复情况及术后并发症.采用Life table分析法对资料进行生存分析,Gehan法对生存曲线进行显著性检验.结果 两组患者在年龄、性别、肿瘤分期和肿瘤病理分型等方面无明显差异.术后3、5年生存率腹腔镜组分别是84.5％和66.7％;开腹组分别是83.3％和64.8％,两组患者术后生存率经Life table生存分析无明显差异.腹腔镜组和开腹组的出血量分别为61 ±13ml和174±84 ml(t =23.24,P＜0.05)、术后排气时间分别为2.7±1.3d和3.6±1.8 d(t =6.61,P＜0.05)、术后住院日分别为9.1±2.4d和12.0±3.4 d(t =11.8,P＜0.05).腹腔镜组与开腹组淋巴结清扫数分别为11.0±2.7枚和12.0±3.6枚(t=1.72,P＞0.05),直肠标本长度分别为16.0±3.4cm和16.0±4.3 cm(t =0,P＞0.05),直肠肿瘤远端切缘分别为3.2±1.3cm和3.2±1.7 cm(t =0,P＞0.05),开腹组术后切口感染28例,腹腔镜组8例(P＜0.05),两组患者术后其他并发症发生率无统计学差异.结论 腹腔镜直肠癌根治术远期疗效与开腹手术相似,且具有创伤小、术后恢复快、并发症少等优势.     

腹腔镜辅助与开腹胃癌根治术的中期疗效比较

目的探讨腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术与开腹胃癌根治术的中期疗效。方法比较2005年6月~2011年1月我科同组人员行腹腔镜辅助与开腹胃癌D2根治术,其中腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术46例(腹腔镜组),开腹胃癌根治术54例(开腹组),比较2组胃癌根治术后肿瘤局部复发、远处转移、生存率等中期疗效。结果腹腔镜组与开腹组局部复发率分别为10.9%(5/46)、7.4%(4/54),无统计学差异(χ2=0.364,P=0.546);远处转移率分别为6.5%(3/46)、5.6%(3/54),差异无显著性意义(χ2=0.000,P=1.000)。2组生存率无显著性差异(χ2=1.386,P=0.239)。结论腹腔镜组辅助与开腹胃癌根治术在生存率、术后局部复发和远处转移等中期疗效方面无显著性差异。     

3D腹腔镜手术治疗进展期胃癌围术期疗效分析

目的:探讨3D腹腔镜胃癌D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌的围术期疗效。方法:回顾性分析我科2016年1月至2018年12月,181例进展期胃癌行胃癌D2根治术的临床资料,其中3D腹腔镜手术87例(3D组),开腹手术94例(开腹组)。比较两组围术期指标。结果:3D组无中转开腹。所有病例均为R0切除。围术期无死亡病例。两组手术时间、术后住院时间、术后并发症发生率差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。3D组术中出血量(155.06±144.95) mL少于开腹组(214.47±220.58) mL,两组差异有统计学意义(P=0.035)。3D组术后首次排气时间早于开腹组,两组差异有统计学意义(P=0.004)。术后进流质和半流质的开始时间,3D组亦早于开腹组,两者差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。3D组淋巴结清扫数与开腹组相比,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:3D腹腔镜胃癌D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌是一种安全可行、创伤小、恢复快的手术方式。     

腹腔镜与开腹根治术治疗进展期胃癌的效果比较

比较腹腔镜和开腹两种根治手术方式对进展期胃癌的疗效。选择2010年1月—2013年12月在我院接受胃癌根治术治疗的进展期胃癌患者90例。按手术方式分为开腹组和腹腔镜组,每组各45例。比较两组围手术期临床指标、生存率、生活质量和并发症。腹腔镜组术中出血量、术后肛门排气时间、术后进食流质饮食时间、术后卧床时间、术后平均住院时间少于开腹组(P0.05);两组淋巴结清扫数量、手术时间相近(P0.05)。两组术后1、3年总生存率和无瘤生存率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。腹腔镜组患者术后呼吸困难、失眠、疲劳、疼痛等方面得分低于开腹组,社会功能得分高于开腹组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05);两组患者食欲丧失、腹泻、经济困难、便秘、恶心呕吐、躯体功能、角色功能、认知功能、情绪功能和总体健康状况等得分相近(P0.05)。腹腔镜组术后并发症总发生率为17.78%,开腹组为28.89%,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。与开腹手术相比,腹腔镜胃癌根治术近期生存率、无瘤生存率和淋巴结清扫数量相当,但可以改善进展期胃癌患者的围手术期临床指标,提高生活质量,减少术后并发症。     

腹腔镜和开腹直肠癌根治术的安全性及远期疗效比较

目的 探讨腹腔镜和开腹直肠癌根治术的安全性及远期疗效的差异.方法 回顾性分析2000年1月至2008年12月福建医科大学附属协和医院收治的602例行直肠癌根治术患者的临床资料.根据手术方式将患者分为腹腔镜组(324例)和开腹组(278例).比较两组患者淋巴结清扫数目、切除肿瘤标本的近端和远端切缘长度、局部复发率、远处转移率、生存率、无瘤生存率等.计数资料采用独立样本t检验,生存率采用寿命表法计算,采用Wilcoxon( Gehan)检验进行比较,复发率和转移率的比较采用x2检验或Fisher确切概率法.结果 腹腔镜组和开腹组平均淋巴结清扫数目分别为(21±8)枚和(21±9)枚,两组比较,差异无统计学意义(t=1.120,P＞0.05)；腹腔镜组和开腹组近端切缘长度分别为(15.1±1.3)cm和(15.0 ±0.8)cm,两组比较,差异无统计学意义(t=1.452,P＞0.05)；远端切缘长度分别为(4.0±1.6)cm和(3.3±1.4)cm,两组比较,差异有统计学意义(t=5.587,P＜0.05).局部总体复发率为5.6％( 34/602),无切口或戳孔种植.腹腔镜组与开腹组局部复发率分别为6.2％( 20/324)和5.0％ (14/278),两组比较,差异无统计学意义(x2=0.363,P＞0.05).总体远处转移率为11.5％ (69/602),腹腔镜组和开腹组远处转移率分别为11.1％ (36/324)和11.9％(33/278),两组比较,差异无统计学意义(x2 =0.085,P＞0.05).腹腔镜组和开腹组3年生存率分别为87.8％和84.9％,5年生存率分别为83.0％和79.3％,两组比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).两组3年无瘤生存率分别为79.4％和79.7％,5年无瘤生存率分别为69.2％和73.1％,两组比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).本组随访率为81.2％(489/602),49例患者死亡,其中腹腔镜组20例,开腹组29例.结论 腹腔镜直肠癌根治术不仅在肿瘤学安全性上是可靠的,而且可以达到和传统开腹手术同样的远期疗效.     

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。     

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。     

Comparison of long-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted and open distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer

Backgroud  Application of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for early gastric cancer (EGC) is still controversial because of scant evidence of long-term safety and feasibility. We evaluated the long-term outcome of LADG compared with conventional open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for EGC. Methods  Between March 1999 and July 2006, 106 patients underwent LADG and 105 patients underwent ODG for EGC. Clinicopathologic characteristics, postoperative outcomes, hospital course, postoperative morbidity, postoperative mortality, and long-term outcomes, including cancer recurrence and survival, were retrospectively compared between the two groups. Survival of all patients was confirmed with 55-month median follow-up. Results  Postoperative recovery was significantly faster in the LADG group; passing flatus occurred earlier, starting a liquid diet began sooner, and postoperative hospital stay was shorter (p < 0.05). Mean operation time was significantly longer in the LADG group. Postoperative complications in the LADG group occurred less frequently compared with in the ODG group (4.7% versus 13.3%, p = 0.046). Tumor recurrence occurred in two cases (0.9%) and death related to recurrence occurred in only one patient (0.5%). Overall 5-year survival rate (5-YSR) of all patients was 95.5%, while disease-specific 5-YSR was 98.8%. There was no significant difference in survival rates between the two groups; overall 5-YSR of the ODG and LADG groups was 94.9% and 95.9%, respectively. Conclusions  Our data suggest that LADG for EGC is feasible and safe. We expect the results of the present study to be confirmed by prospective randomized analysis. Dr. Lee and Dr. Yom contributed equally to the research and writing of the paper.     

腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治性远端胃大部切除术安全性与有效性的系统评价

目的 评价腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治性远端胃大部分切除术的安全性与有效性.方法 检索Pubmed、Medline、EMBASE和中国生物医学数据库（CBM）2001年1月至2010年2月间发表的D2根治性远端胃大部分切除术治疗胃癌的对照试验研究,用Revman 5.0统计软件进行分析.结果 共纳入7个对照试验,其中1项研究为随机对照试验,6项为非随机对照研究.腹腔镜辅助远端胃大部分切除组（LADG）与开腹远端胃大部切除术（ODG组）相比,术中出血量少[加权均数差（WMD）=-132.04,95% CI：-207.32～-56.77],术后第1次排气时间早（WMD=-0.82,95% CI：-1.20～-0.45）,术后并发症发生率低[相对危险度（OR）=0.45,95%CI：0.26～0.78],术后住院时间短（WMD=-3.63,95%CI：-4.19～-3.07）,清扫的淋巴结数目多（WMD=1.93,95%CI：0.36～3.50） 但术后复发率、转移率和近期（3年内）生存率差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.结论 腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治性远端胃大部分切除术的短期效果优于开腹手术.     

腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治性远端胃大部切除术安全性与有效性的系统评价

目的 评价腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治性远端胃大部分切除术的安全性与有效性.方法 检索Pubmed、Medline、EMBASE和中国生物医学数据库(CBM)2001年1月至2010年2月间发表的D2根治性远端胃大部分切除术治疗胃癌的对照试验研究,用Revman 5.0统计软件进行分析.结果 共纳入7个对照试验,其中1项研究为随机对照试验,6项为非随机对照研究.腹腔镜辅助远端胃大部分切除组(LADG)与开腹远端胃大部切除术(ODG组)相比,术中出血量少[加权均数差(WMD)=-132.04,95% CI:-207.32～-56.77],术后第1次排气时间早(WMD=-0.82,95% CI:-1.20～-0.45),术后并发症发生率低[相对危险度(OR)=0.45,95%CI:0.26～0.78],术后住院时间短(WMD=-3.63,95%CI:-4.19～-3.07),清扫的淋巴结数目多(WMD=1.93,95%CI:0.36～3.50);但术后复发率、转移率和近期(3年内)生存率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治性远端胃大部分切除术的短期效果优于开腹手术.     

腹腔镜辅助胃远端癌淋巴结清扫术近期疗效

目的探讨腹腔镜辅助胃远端癌D2淋巴结清扫术的可行性及近期疗效。方法2007年1月至2008年12月,对241例胃远端癌患者施行D2淋巴结清扫术。其中腹腔镜辅助远端胃大部切除术（LADG组）93例,常规开腹远端胃大部切除术（ODG组）148例。比较两组患者的淋巴结清扫数及术中、术后恢复情况、并发症发生率和住院死亡率。结果LADG组和ODG组患者淋巴结清扫数分别为（27．5±9．1）枚和（27．3±8．5）枚,两组差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。按肿瘤浸润深度进行分层分析,T1、T2、T3期患者两组平均清扫淋巴结数差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。LADG组手术时间显著长于ODG组,但术中出血量、输血例数、术后首次下床时间、肛门排气时间、进流质时间、住院时间和手术并发症发生率均显著少于ODG组,两者差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论腹腔镜辅助胃远端癌D2淋巴结清扫术在淋巴结清扫方面能达到与开腹手术相同的效果,且具有安全、术后恢复快和并发症少等优点。     

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.     

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: result of a randomized controlled trial (COACT 0301)

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) compared to open distal gastrectomy (ODG) in the treatment of early gastric cancer with respect to survival, surgical outcomes, complications, and quality of life (QOL).

Methods

One hundred sixty-four patients with cT1N0M0 and cT1N1M0 distal gastric cancer were randomly assigned to either the LADG group or the ODG group. The primary end point was the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate. Complications were classified using the accordion severity classification of postoperative complications scheme. QOL was measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-STO22 preoperatively and postoperatively during regular follow-up visits. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00546468).

Results

The median (range) follow-up period was 74.3 (24.8–90.8) months. The LADG and ODG groups showed similar survival [5-year DFS rate: 98.8 % vs. 97.6 %, respectively (P = 0.514), 5-year overall survival (OS) rate: 97.6 vs. 96.3 %, respectively (P = 0.721)] or overall complication rate (29.3 vs. 42.7 %, respectively; P = 0.073). Mild complications were significantly less frequent in the LADG group than in the ODG group (23.2 vs. 41.5 %; P = 0.012). The rates of moderate, severe, and long-term complications (i.e., 31 days to 5 years after surgery) did not differ significantly between groups. No clinically meaningful differences were detected between the two groups in long-term QOL.

Conclusion

LADG showed similar DFS and OS compared to ODG in treating early gastric cancer. Marginal benefits in mild complications were observed with LADG. LADG did not show advantages over ODG regarding other complications and long-term QOL.     

Comparison of the long-term results of patients who underwent laparoscopy versus open distal gastrectomy

Background

Survival data of patients who underwent laparoscopy assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) compared with those of patients who underwent open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for gastric cancer are rarely presented. We compared long-term outcomes of LADG with those of ODG in patients with EGC who met the current indication for LADG.

Methods

A total of 2410 patients with early gastric cancer who underwent curative-intent gastric cancer surgery in three Korean tertiary hospitals between January 2003 and June 2009 were included in this multicenter, retrospective, propensity-score-matched cohort study. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to evaluate the association between operation methods and survival.

Results

In the matched cohort, there were no significant differences in overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) for the LADG group 0.990; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.675–1.453] or recurrence-free survival (HR 0.989; 95 % CI 0.480–2.038). The patterns of recurrence were not different between the two groups. The most common pattern of recurrence was liver metastasis followed by metastasis to distant lymph nodes. The rate of complications in the LADG group was higher than that of the ODG group (6.7 vs. 4.6 %, P = 0.045). Grade III or worse complications that required surgical intervention or were life-threatening showed a marginal difference between the two groups (1.7 vs. 2.2 %, P = 0.052). There were no postoperative mortalities in either group.

Conclusion

Laparoscopy assisted distal gastrectomy for patients with early gastric cancer is feasible in terms of the long-term results including survival and recurrence.

     

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.