Dataset Information

Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer in morbidly obese patients in South Korea.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Laparoscopic gastrectomy in obese patients has been investigated in several studies, but its feasibility has rarely been examined in morbidly obese patients, such as in those with a body mass index (BMI) of ?30 kg/m(2). The present study aimed to evaluate the technical feasibility and safety of laparoscopic gastrectomy in morbidly obese patients with gastric cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A total of 1,512 gastric cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) were divided into three groups: normal (BMI<25 kg/m(2), n=996), obese (BMI 25~30 kg/m(2), n=471), and morbidly obese (BMI?30 kg/m(2), n=45). Short-term surgical outcomes, including the course of hospitalization and postoperative complications, were compared between the three groups. RESULTS:The morbidly obese group had a significantly longer operating time (240 minutes vs. 204 minutes, P=0.010) than the normal group, but no significant differences were found between the groups with respect to intraoperative blood loss or other complications. In the morbidly obese group, the postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were 13.3% and 0%, respectively, and the mean length of hospital stay was 8.2 days, which were not significantly different from those in the normal group. Subgroup analysis showed that postoperative complication rates were not high in morbidly obese patients, independent of the type of anastomosis technique used and level of lymph node dissection. CONCLUSIONS:LDG is technically feasible and safe in morbidly obese patients with a BMI of ?30 kg/m(2) and early gastric carcinoma. Except for a longer operating time, LDG might represent a reasonable treatment option in these patients.

SUBMITTER: Jung JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4199886 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer in morbidly obese patients in South Korea.

Jung Ji Hoon JH Ryu Seong Yeop SY Jung Mi Ran MR Park Young Kyu YK Jeong Oh O

Journal of gastric cancer 20140930 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>Laparoscopic gastrectomy in obese patients has been investigated in several studies, but its feasibility has rarely been examined in morbidly obese patients, such as in those with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥30 kg/m(2). The present study aimed to evaluate the technical feasibility and safety of laparoscopic gastrectomy in morbidly obese patients with gastric cancer.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A total of 1,512 gastric cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy ...[more]

PMID: 25328764

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceLaparoscopic distal gastrectomy is gaining popularity over open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer because of better early postoperative outcomes. However, to our knowledge, no studies have proved whether laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is oncologically equivalent to open distal gastrectomy.ObjectiveTo examine whether the long-term survival among patients with stage I gastric cancer undergoing laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is noninferior to that among patients undergoing open distal gastrectomy.DesignThe Korean Laparoendoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery Study (KLASS) group, which includes 15 surgeons from 13 institutes, conducted a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, noninferiority, prospective randomized clinical trial (KLASS-01) of patients with histologically proven, preoperative clinical stage I gastric adenocarcinoma from January 5, 2006, to August 23, 2010. Survival and recurrence status of the patients was determined in December 2016.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned (1:1) to laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (n = 705) or open distal gastrectomy (n = 711). Of these patients, 85 received a surgical approach opposite the one to which they were randomized (63 randomized to the open surgery group and 22 to the laparoscopic group).Main outcomes and measuresDifference in 5-year overall survival between the laparoscopic and open distal gastrectomy groups. The noninferiority margin was prespecified as -5% (corresponding hazard ratio of 1.54), with an assumed survival of 90% after 5 years in the open surgery group.ResultsAmong the 1416 patients (mean [SD] age, 57.3 [11.1] years; 940 [66.4%] male) included in the study, the 5-year overall survival rates were 94.2% in the laparoscopic group and 93.3% in the open surgery group (log-rank P = .64). Intention-to-treat analysis confirmed the noninferiority of the laparoscopic approach compared with the open approach (difference, 0.9 percentage points; 1-sided 97.5% CI, -1.6 to infinity). The 5-year cancer-specific survival rates were similar between the 2 groups (97.1% in the laparoscopic group and 97.2% in the open surgery group, log-rank P = .91; difference, -0.03 percentage points; 1-sided 97.5% CI, -1.8 to infinity). Per-protocol analysis results were consistent with the intention-to-treat results for overall and cancer-specific survival rates.Conclusions and relevanceThe KLASS-01 trial revealed similar overall and cancer-specific survival rates between patients receiving laparoscopic and open distal gastrectomy. Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is an oncologically safe alternative to open surgery for stage I gastric cancer.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00452751.

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer in morbidly obese patients in South Korea.

Publications

Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer in morbidly obese patients in South Korea.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets