BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) has recently been applied for early gastric cancer (EGC) in the upper stomach as a minimally invasive and function-preserving surgery. This study aimed to clarify the feasibility and nutritional benefits of LPG over laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG). METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 77 patients with clinical stage I gastric cancer in the upper stomach. Of these patients, 25 underwent LPG, while 52 underwent LTG. Surgical outcomes and postoperative nutritional status such as changes in body weight and blood chemistries were compared between LPG and LTG. RESULTS: Intraoperative blood loss and C-reactive protein levels at 3 and 7 days after surgery were significantly lower in LPG than in LTG (p = 0.018, 0.036, and 0.042, respectively). No significant differences were observed in postoperative early or late complication rates between LPG and LTG. The incidence of Los Angeles Grade B or more severe reflux esophagitis after LPG was 9.1 %, which was similar to that after LTG (9.3 %). Postoperative changes in body weight at 6 months and 1 and 2 years after surgery were consistently less in LPG than in LTG (p = 0.001, 0.022, and 0.001, respectively). Moreover, postoperative levels of hemoglobin and serum albumin and total lymphocyte count were also higher in LPG than in LTG. CONCLUSION: LPG may be a better choice for EGC in the upper stomach than LTG because it has distinct advantages in terms of surgical invasiveness and postoperative nutritional status.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) has recently been applied for early gastric cancer (EGC) in the upper stomach as a minimally invasive and function-preserving surgery. This study aimed to clarify the feasibility and nutritional benefits of LPG over laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG). METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 77 patients with clinical stage I gastric cancer in the upper stomach. Of these patients, 25 underwent LPG, while 52 underwent LTG. Surgical outcomes and postoperative nutritional status such as changes in body weight and blood chemistries were compared between LPG and LTG. RESULTS:Intraoperative blood loss and C-reactive protein levels at 3 and 7 days after surgery were significantly lower in LPG than in LTG (p = 0.018, 0.036, and 0.042, respectively). No significant differences were observed in postoperative early or late complication rates between LPG and LTG. The incidence of Los Angeles Grade B or more severe reflux esophagitis after LPG was 9.1 %, which was similar to that after LTG (9.3 %). Postoperative changes in body weight at 6 months and 1 and 2 years after surgery were consistently less in LPG than in LTG (p = 0.001, 0.022, and 0.001, respectively). Moreover, postoperative levels of hemoglobin and serum albumin and total lymphocyte count were also higher in LPG than in LTG. CONCLUSION:LPG may be a better choice for EGC in the upper stomach than LTG because it has distinct advantages in terms of surgical invasiveness and postoperative nutritional status.