BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for gastric cancer is a minimally invasive technique. We performed a meta-analysis of five randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate and compare the benefits of LADG with those of open distal gastrectomy (ODG). METHODS: The present meta-analysis was based on the comparison of LADG with ODG for gastric cancer. The following factors were examined: operative time, estimated blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, time to resumption of oral intake, duration of hospital stay, frequency of analgesic administration, complications, tumor recurrence, and mortality. RESULTS: We selected five RCTs to compare LADG with ODG for gastric cancer. A total of 326 patients with gastric cancer were included in this meta-analysis of whom 164 underwent LADG and 162 underwent ODG. There was a significant difference in the volume of intraoperative blood loss, period of hospital stay, frequency of analgesic administration, and rate of complications between LADG and ODG. There was no difference in the resumption of oral intake, rate of tumor recurrence, and mortality. The operative time was significantly longer and the number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly smaller in LADG than in ODG. CONCLUSION: LADG is significantly superior to ODG regarding the volume of blood loss, duration of hospital stay, level of pain, and risk of complications. There was no difference in the resumption of oral intake, rate of tumor recurrence, and mortality. However, LADG was significantly inferior to ODG regarding operative time and also had a smaller number of harvested lymph nodes.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for gastric cancer is a minimally invasive technique. We performed a meta-analysis of five randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate and compare the benefits of LADG with those of open distal gastrectomy (ODG). METHODS: The present meta-analysis was based on the comparison of LADG with ODG for gastric cancer. The following factors were examined: operative time, estimated blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, time to resumption of oral intake, duration of hospital stay, frequency of analgesic administration, complications, tumor recurrence, and mortality. RESULTS: We selected five RCTs to compare LADG with ODG for gastric cancer. A total of 326 patients with gastric cancer were included in this meta-analysis of whom 164 underwent LADG and 162 underwent ODG. There was a significant difference in the volume of intraoperative blood loss, period of hospital stay, frequency of analgesic administration, and rate of complications between LADG and ODG. There was no difference in the resumption of oral intake, rate of tumor recurrence, and mortality. The operative time was significantly longer and the number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly smaller in LADG than in ODG. CONCLUSION:LADG is significantly superior to ODG regarding the volume of blood loss, duration of hospital stay, level of pain, and risk of complications. There was no difference in the resumption of oral intake, rate of tumor recurrence, and mortality. However, LADG was significantly inferior to ODG regarding operative time and also had a smaller number of harvested lymph nodes.
Authors: Juan C Rodríguez-Sanjuán; Marcos Gómez-Ruiz; Soledad Trugeda-Carrera; Carlos Manuel-Palazuelos; Antonio López-Useros; Manuel Gómez-Fleitas Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-02-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Abdelmonim E A Salih; Gary A Bass; Yvonne D'Cruz; Robert P Brennan; Sebastian Smolarek; Mayilone Arumugasamy; Thomas N Walsh Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 4.584