Furong Zeng1, Lang Chen1, Mengting Liao1, Bin Chen2, Jing Long1, Wei Wu3, Guangtong Deng4. 1. Xiangya hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China. 2. Taoyuan People's Hospital, Taoyuan, Changde, China. 3. Xiangya hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China. wwtw1972@126.com. 4. Xiangya hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China. dengguangtong@outlook.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compared with open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer has achieved rapid development and popularities in the past decades. However, lack of comprehensive analysis in long-term oncological outcomes such as recurrence and mortality hinder its full support as a valid procedure. Therefore, there are still debates on whether one of these options is superior. AIM: To evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients METHODS: Two authors independently extracted study data. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for binary outcomes, mean difference (MD) or the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes, and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. Review Manager 5.3 and STATA software were used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 5204 participants were included in this meta-analysis. There were no differences in the primary outcomes including the number of lymph nodes harvested during operation, severe complications, short-term and long-term recurrence, and mortality. As for secondary outcomes, compared with the OG group, longer operative time was required for patients in the LG group (MD = 58.80 min, 95% CI = [45.80, 71.81], P < 0.001), but there were less intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 54.93 ml, 95% CI = [- 81.60, - 28.26], P < 0.001), less analgesic administration (frequency: MD = - 1.73, 95% CI = [- 2.21, - 1.24], P < 0.001; duration: MD = - 1.26 days, 95% CI = [- 1.40, - 1.12], P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (MD = - 1.37 days, 95% CI = [- 2.05, - 0.70], P < 0.001), shorter time to first flatus (MD = - 0.58 days, 95% CI = [- 0.79, - 0.37], P < 0.001), ambulation (MD = - 0.50 days, 95% CI = [- 0.90, - 0.09], P = 0.02) and oral intake (MD = - 0.64 days, 95% CI = [- 1.24, - 0.03], P < 0.04), and less total complications (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = [0.71, 0.93], P = 0.003) in the OG group. There was no difference in blood transfusions (number, quantity) between these two groups. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and the adjustment of Duval's trim and fill methods for publication bias did not change the conclusions. CONCLUSION: LG was comparable to OG in the primary outcomes and had some advantages in secondary outcomes for gastric cancer patients. LG is superior to OG for gastric cancer patients.
BACKGROUND: Compared with open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer has achieved rapid development and popularities in the past decades. However, lack of comprehensive analysis in long-term oncological outcomes such as recurrence and mortality hinder its full support as a valid procedure. Therefore, there are still debates on whether one of these options is superior. AIM: To evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancerpatients METHODS: Two authors independently extracted study data. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for binary outcomes, mean difference (MD) or the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes, and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. Review Manager 5.3 and STATA software were used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 5204 participants were included in this meta-analysis. There were no differences in the primary outcomes including the number of lymph nodes harvested during operation, severe complications, short-term and long-term recurrence, and mortality. As for secondary outcomes, compared with the OG group, longer operative time was required for patients in the LG group (MD = 58.80 min, 95% CI = [45.80, 71.81], P < 0.001), but there were less intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 54.93 ml, 95% CI = [- 81.60, - 28.26], P < 0.001), less analgesic administration (frequency: MD = - 1.73, 95% CI = [- 2.21, - 1.24], P < 0.001; duration: MD = - 1.26 days, 95% CI = [- 1.40, - 1.12], P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (MD = - 1.37 days, 95% CI = [- 2.05, - 0.70], P < 0.001), shorter time to first flatus (MD = - 0.58 days, 95% CI = [- 0.79, - 0.37], P < 0.001), ambulation (MD = - 0.50 days, 95% CI = [- 0.90, - 0.09], P = 0.02) and oral intake (MD = - 0.64 days, 95% CI = [- 1.24, - 0.03], P < 0.04), and less total complications (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = [0.71, 0.93], P = 0.003) in the OG group. There was no difference in blood transfusions (number, quantity) between these two groups. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and the adjustment of Duval's trim and fill methods for publication bias did not change the conclusions. CONCLUSION: LG was comparable to OG in the primary outcomes and had some advantages in secondary outcomes for gastric cancerpatients. LG is superior to OG for gastric cancerpatients.
Authors: Tatyana V Khorobrykh; Nuriddin M Abdulkhakimov; Vadim G Agadzhanov; Davit L Aghayan; Airazat M Kazaryan Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2022-06-25 Impact factor: 3.253
Authors: Marcus Fernando Kodama Pertille Ramos; Marina Alessandra Pereira; André Roncon Dias; Ulysses Ribeiro; Bruno Zilberstein; Sergio Carlos Nahas Journal: Updates Surg Date: 2021-06-04
Authors: Tom Mala; Dag Førland; Caroline Skagemo; Tom Glomsaker; Hans Olaf Johannessen; Egil Johnson Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2022-04-09 Impact factor: 2.102