Hoon Hur1, Hae Myung Jeon, Wook Kim. 1. Department of Surgery, Holy Family Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The application of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is a controversial. The purpose of this study was to assess the possibility of using LADG application to AGC. METHODS: Of 160 patients who underwent LADG with D2 lymphadenectomy between April 2004 and March 2007, 26 patients with stage pT2b were selected and compared to 25 patients of the same stage who underwent open distal gastrectomy (ODG) within same period. The comparison was based on the clinicopathologic characteristics, surgical outcome, and follow-up results. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between LADG and ODG groups in most operation results including complication rates (15.4% vs. 16.0%, P = 1.000) except for less average loss of blood (160.0 ml vs. 215.0 ml, P = 0.012) and longer average operating time (255.0 min vs. 190.0 min, P < 0.001) in LADG. Three-year overall survival rates (88.2% vs. 77.2%; P = 0.246) and disease-free survival rates (71.4% vs. 53.4%; P = 0.757) were not significantly different in LADG and ODG groups. CONCLUSIONS: The early results of current study suggest that LADG for AGC is technically safe and oncologically feasible. Therefore, LADG should be considered as a curative treatment for AGC not exposed to serosa. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BACKGROUND: The application of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is a controversial. The purpose of this study was to assess the possibility of using LADG application to AGC. METHODS: Of 160 patients who underwent LADG with D2 lymphadenectomy between April 2004 and March 2007, 26 patients with stage pT2b were selected and compared to 25 patients of the same stage who underwent open distal gastrectomy (ODG) within same period. The comparison was based on the clinicopathologic characteristics, surgical outcome, and follow-up results. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between LADG and ODG groups in most operation results including complication rates (15.4% vs. 16.0%, P = 1.000) except for less average loss of blood (160.0 ml vs. 215.0 ml, P = 0.012) and longer average operating time (255.0 min vs. 190.0 min, P < 0.001) in LADG. Three-year overall survival rates (88.2% vs. 77.2%; P = 0.246) and disease-free survival rates (71.4% vs. 53.4%; P = 0.757) were not significantly different in LADG and ODG groups. CONCLUSIONS: The early results of current study suggest that LADG for AGC is technically safe and oncologically feasible. Therefore, LADG should be considered as a curative treatment for AGC not exposed to serosa. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Yingjun Quan; Ao Huang; Min Ye; Ming Xu; Biao Zhuang; Peng Zhang; Bo Yu; Zhijun Min Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 7.370