Dataset Information

Fluorescent Lymphography-Guided Lymphadenectomy During Robotic Radical Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Fluorescent imaging with indocyanine green can be used to visualize lymphatics. Peritumoral injection of indocyanine green may allow for visualization of every draining lymph node from a primary lesion on near-infrared imaging.

Objectives

To evaluate the role of fluorescent lymphography using near-infrared imaging as an intraoperative tool for achieving complete lymph node dissection and compare the number of lymph nodes retrieved with the use of near-infrared imaging and the number of lymph nodes retrieved without the use of near-infrared imaging.

Design, setting, and participants

This prospective single-arm study was conducted among 40 patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy between August 30, 2013, and July 21, 2014, at a single-center, tertiary referral teaching hospital. After propensity score matching, the results of these 40 patients were compared with the results of 40 historical control patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy without indocyanine green injection between January 1, 2012, and August 31, 2013. Statistical analysis was performed from January 1, 2015, to July 31, 2016.

Interventions

Robotic gastrectomy with systemic lymphadenectomy and retrieval of lymph nodes under near-infrared imaging after peritumoral injection of indocyanine green to the submucosal layer 1 day before surgery.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was the number of retrieved lymph nodes in each nodal station.

Results

Among the 40 patients in the study (19 women and 21 men; mean [SD] age, 52.2 [11.7] years), no complications related to indocyanine green injection or near-infrared imaging were observed. On completion of the lymphadenectomy, the absence of fluorescent lymph nodes in the dissected area was confirmed. A mean (SD) total of 23.9 (9.0) fluorescent lymph nodes were recorded among a mean (SD) total of 48.9 (14.6) overall lymph nodes retrieved. The mean number of overall lymph nodes retrieved was larger in the near-infrared group than in the historical controls (48.9 vs 35.2; P < .001), with a significantly greater number of lymph nodes retrieved at stations 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9. In the near-infrared group, 5 patients exhibited lymph node metastases, and all metastatic lymph nodes were fluorescent.

Conclusions and relevance

This study's findings suggest that fluorescent lymphography may be useful intraoperatively for identifying and retrieving all necessary lymph nodes for a complete and thorough lymphadenectomy.

SUBMITTER: Kwon IG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6439673 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe complete mesogastrium excision (CME) based on D2 radical gastrectomy is believed to significantly reduce the local-regional recurrence compared with D2 radical gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer, and it is widely used in China. This study aimed to explore whether D2 + CME is superior to D2 on surgical outcomes during gastrectomy from Chinese data.MethodsFeasible studies comparing the D2 + CME (D2 + CME group) and D2 (D2 group) published up to March 2020 are searched from electronic databases. The data showing surgical and complication outcomes are extracted to be pooled and analyzed.ResultsFourteen records including 1352 patients were included. The D2 + CME group had a shorter mean operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -16.72 min, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -26.56 to -6.87 min, P < 0.001), lower mean blood loss (WMD = -39.08 mL, 95% CI: -49.94 to -28.21 mL, P < 0.001), higher mean number of retrieved lymph nodes (WMD = 2.13, 95% CI: 0.58-3.67, P = 0.007), shorter time to first flatus (WMD = -0.31 d, 95% CI: -0.53 to - 0.10 d, P = 0.005), and postoperative hospital days (WMD = -1.09, 95% CI: -1.92 to -0.25, P = 0.010) than the D2 group. Subgroup analysis suggested that the advantages from the D2 + CME group were obvious in traditional open radical gastrectomy, proximal gastrectomy, and distal gastrectomy compared with D2 group. The evaluations of post-operative complications showed that the patients who underwent D2 + CME had a lower incidence of post-operative complications than the patients who underwent D2 surgery alone (relative risk [RR] = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.45-0.87, P = 0.003). The D2 radical gastrectomy plus CME improved 3-year overall survival (OS) (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.02-1.32, P = 0.020) and lowered the local recurrence rate (RR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.28-0.94, P = 0.030). The patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery or total gastrectomy had more significant advantages compared between D2 + CME and D2 groups in 3-year OS.ConclusionThe data from China show that D2 radical gastrectomy plus CME are reliable procedures and safety compared to D2 radical gastrectomy with faster recovery, lower risk, and better prognosis.

Project description:Background and Objectives: Gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard surgical treatment with curative intent for patients with gastric cancer (GC). Over the last three decades, surgeons have been increasingly adopting laparoscopic surgery for GC, due to its better short-term outcomes. In particular, laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been routinely used for early gastric cancer (EGC) treatment. However, LG suffers from technical limitations and drawbacks, such as a two-dimensional surgical field of view, limited movement of laparoscopic tools, unavoidable physiological tremors and discomfort for operating surgeon. Therefore, robotic surgery has been developed to address such limitations. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines in order to investigate the benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared to the LG. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Re-views, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL) and Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index) databases were used to search all related literature. Results: The 7 included meta-analyses covered an approximately 20 years-study period (2000-2020). Almost all studies included in the meta-analyses were retrospective ones and originated from Asian countries (China and Korea, in particular). Examined overall population ranged from 3176 to 17,712 patients. If compared to LG, RG showed both operative advantages (operative time, estimated blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes) and perioperative ones (time to first flatus, time to restart oral intake, length of hospitalization, overall complications, Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ III complications, pancreatic complications), in the absence of clear differences of oncological outcomes. However, costs of robotic approach appear significant. Conclusions: It is impossible to make strong recommendations, due to the statistical weakness of the included studies. Further randomized, possibly multicenter trials are strongly recommended, if we want to have our results confirmed.

Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic gastrectomy and robotic gastrectomy are the most widely adopted treatment of choice for gastric cancer. To systematically assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis on short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy.MethodsIn order to find relevant studies on the efficacy and safety of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in the treatment of gastric cancer, numerous medical databases including PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, and China Journal Full-text Database (CNKI) were consulted, and Chinese and English studies on the efficacy and safety of RG and LG in the treatment of gastric cancer published from 2012 to 2022 were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.ResultsThe meta-analysis inlcuded 48 literatures, with 20,151 gastric cancer patients, including 6,175 in the RG group and 13,976 in the LG group, respectively. Results of our meta-analysis showed that RG group had prololonged operative time (WMD = 35.72, 95% CI = 28.59-42.86, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 258.69 min ± 32.98; LG: mean ± SD = 221.85 min ± 31.18), reduced blood loss (WMD = -21.93, 95% CI = -28.94 to -14.91, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 105.22 ml ± 62.79; LG: mean ± SD = 127.34 ml ± 79.62), higher number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.99-3.63, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 35.88 ± 4.14; LG: mean ± SD = 32.73 ± 4.67), time to first postoperative food intake shortened (WMD = -0.20, 95% CI = -0.29 to -0.10, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 4.5 d ± 1.94; LG: mean ± SD = 4.7 d ± 1.54), and lower length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD = -0.54, 95% CI = -0.83 to -0.24, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 8.91 d ± 6.13; LG: mean ± SD = 9.61 d ± 7.74) in comparison to the LG group. While the other variables, for example, time to first postoperative flatus, postoperative complications, proximal and distal mar gin, R 0 resection rate, mortality rate, conversion rate, and 3-year overall survival rate were all found to be statistically similar at P > 0.05.ConclusionsIn the treatment of gastric cancer, robotic gastrectomy is a safe and effective procedure that has both short- and long-term effects. To properly evaluate the advantages of robotic surgery in gastric cancer, more randomised controlled studies with rigorous research methodologies are needed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:To date, robotic surgery has been widely used worldwide. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) in gastric cancer patients to determine whether RG can replace laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). METHODS:The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was applied to perform the study. Pubmed, Cochrane Library, WanFang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP databases were comprehensively searched for studies published before May 2020 that compared RG with LG. Next, two independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The quality of the literature was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and the data analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Random effects or fixed effects models were applied according to heterogeneity. RESULTS:A total of 19 studies including 7275 patients were included in the meta-analyses, of which 4598 patients were in the LG group and 2677 in the RG group. Compared with LG, RG was associated with longer operative time (WMD = -32.96, 95% CI -42.08 ~ -23.84, P < 0.001), less blood loss (WMD = 28.66, 95% CI 18.59 ~ 38.73, P < 0.001), and shorter time to first flatus (WMD = 0.16 95% CI 0.06 ~ 0.27, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference between RG and LG in terms of the hospital stay (WMD = 0.23, 95% CI -0.53 ~ 0.98, P = 0.560), overall postoperative complication (OR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 ~ 1.25, P = 0.430), mortality (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 ~ 1.90, P = 0.450), the number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = -0.96, 95% CI -2.12 ~ 0.20, P = 0.100), proximal resection margin (WMD = -0.10, 95% CI -0.29 ~ 0.09, P = 0.300), and distal resection margin (WMD = 0.15, 95% CI -0.21 ~ 0.52, P = 0.410). No significant differences were found between the two treatments in overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 ~ 1.18, P = 0.640), recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 ~ 1.21, P = 0.530), and recurrence rate (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 ~ 1.21, P = 0.500). CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study suggested that RG is as acceptable as LG in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. RG can be performed as effectively and safely as LG. Moreover, more randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques with rigorous study designs are still essential to evaluate the value of the robotic surgery for gastric cancer.