Yingjun Quan1, Ao Huang2, Min Ye1, Ming Xu1, Biao Zhuang1, Peng Zhang1, Bo Yu1, Zhijun Min1. 1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Shanghai, 201399, China. 2. Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China. surgeonhuang@yeah.net.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been used as an alternative to open gastrectomy (OG) to treat early gastric cancer. However, the use of LG for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) has been in debate. METHODS: Literature retrieval was performed by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library up to July 2014. Potential studies comparing the surgical effects between LG with OG were evaluated and data were extracted accordingly. Meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan. The pooled risk ratio and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 26 studies were included in this meta-analysis. LG had some advantages over OG, including shorter hospitalization (WMD, -3.63, 95 % CI, -4.66 to -2.60; P < 0.01), less blood loss (WMD, -161.37, 95 % CI, -192.55 to -130.18; P < 0.01), faster bowel recovery (WMD, -0.78, 95 % CI, -1.05 to -0.50; P < 0.01), and earlier ambulation (WMD, -0.95, 95 % CI, -1.47 to -0.44; P < 0.01). In terms of surgical and oncological safety, LG could achieve similar lymph nodes (WMD, -0.49, 95 % CI, -1.78 to 0.81; P = 0.46), a lower complication rate [odds ratio (OR), 0.71, 95 % CI, 0.59 to 0.87; P < 0.01], and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) comparable to OG. CONCLUSIONS: For AGCs, LG appeared comparable with OG in short- and long-term results. Although more time was needed to perform LG, it had some advantages over OG in achieving faster postoperative recovery. Ongoing trials and future studies could help to clarify this controversial issue.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been used as an alternative to open gastrectomy (OG) to treat early gastric cancer. However, the use of LG for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) has been in debate. METHODS: Literature retrieval was performed by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library up to July 2014. Potential studies comparing the surgical effects between LG with OG were evaluated and data were extracted accordingly. Meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan. The pooled risk ratio and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 26 studies were included in this meta-analysis. LG had some advantages over OG, including shorter hospitalization (WMD, -3.63, 95 % CI, -4.66 to -2.60; P < 0.01), less blood loss (WMD, -161.37, 95 % CI, -192.55 to -130.18; P < 0.01), faster bowel recovery (WMD, -0.78, 95 % CI, -1.05 to -0.50; P < 0.01), and earlier ambulation (WMD, -0.95, 95 % CI, -1.47 to -0.44; P < 0.01). In terms of surgical and oncological safety, LG could achieve similar lymph nodes (WMD, -0.49, 95 % CI, -1.78 to 0.81; P = 0.46), a lower complication rate [odds ratio (OR), 0.71, 95 % CI, 0.59 to 0.87; P < 0.01], and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) comparable to OG. CONCLUSIONS: For AGCs, LG appeared comparable with OG in short- and long-term results. Although more time was needed to perform LG, it had some advantages over OG in achieving faster postoperative recovery. Ongoing trials and future studies could help to clarify this controversial issue.
Entities:
Keywords:
Advanced gastric cancer; Laparoscopic gastrectomy; Meta-analysis; Open gastrectomy
Authors: Christopher R Wottawa; Jeremiah R Cohen; Richard E Fan; James W Bisley; Martin O Culjat; Warren S Grundfest; Erik P Dutson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Joseph Song; Eric Kim; Jonathan Mobley; Goutham Vemana; Youssef Tanagho; Joel Vetter; Sam Bhayani; Paul Russo; Oscar Fugita; Stephen Shei-Dei Yang; Masatsugu Iwamura; Robert S Figenshau Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Cristiano G S Huscher; Andrea Mingoli; Giovanna Sgarzini; Gioia Brachini; Barbara Binda; Massimiliano Di Paola; Cecilia Ponzano Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Stefano Caruso; Alberto Patriti; Franco Roviello; Lorenzo De Franco; Franco Franceschini; Andrea Coratti; Graziano Ceccarelli Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Paolo Parise; Lorenzo Cinelli; Carlo Ferrari; Andrea Cossu; Francesco Puccetti; Leonardo Garutti; Ugo Elmore; Riccardo Rosati Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Michał Pędziwiatr; Piotr Małczak; Magdalena Pisarska; Piotr Major; Michał Wysocki; Tomasz Stefura; Andrzej Budzyński Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 3.445