Dataset Information

Laparoscopic versus open approach in gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Additional studies comparing laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) versus open gastrectomy (OG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) have been published, and it is necessary to update the systematic review of this subject.

Objective

We conducted the meta-analysis to find some proof for the use of LG in AGC and evaluate whether LG is an alternative treatment for AGC.

Method

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and high-quality retrospective studies (NRCT) compared LG and OG for AGC, which were published in English between January 2010 and May 2019, were search in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Knowledge by three authors independently and thoroughly. Some primary endpoints were compared between the two groups, including intraoperative time, intraoperative blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, first flatus, first oral intake, first out of bed, post-operative hospital stay, postoperative morbidity and mortality, rate of disease recurrence, and 5-year over survival (5-y OS). Besides, considering for this 10-year dramatical surgical material development between 2010 and 2019, we furtherly make the same analysis based on recent studies published between 2016 and 2019.

Result

Thirty-six studies were enrolled in this systematic review and meta-analysis, including 5714 cases in LAG and 6094 cases in OG. LG showed longer intraoperative time, less intraoperative blood loss, and quicker recovery after operations. The number of harvested lymph nodes, hospital mortality, and tumor recurrence were similar. Postoperative morbidity and 5-y OS favored LG. Furthermore, the systemic analysis of recent studies published between 2016 and 2019 revealed similar result.

Conclusion

A positive trend was indicated towards LG. LG can be performed as an alternative to OG for AGC.

SUBMITTER: Zhu Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7293787 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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:Many meta-analyses have confirmed the technical feasibility and favorable short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer patients, but the long-term survival outcome of LG remains controversial compared with open gastrectomy (OG). This study aimed to compare the 5-year overall survival (OS), recurrence, and gastric cancer-related death of LG with OG among gastric cancer patients. PubMed was searched to February 2014. The resectable gastric cancer patients who underwent curative LG or OG were eligible. The studies that compared 5-year OS, recurrence, or gastric cancer-related death in the LG and OG groups were included. A meta-analysis, meta-regression, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and stage-specific analysis were performed to estimate the survival outcome between the two groups and identify the potential confounders. Quality assessment was based on a tailored comparability scoring system. Twenty-three studies with 7336 patients were included. The score of comparability between two groups and the extent of lymphadenectomy were two independent confounders. Based on the well-balanced studies, the 5-year OS (OR?=?1.07, 95% CI 0.90-1.28, P?=?0.45), recurrence (OR?=?0.83, 95% CI 0.68-1.02, P?=?0.08), and gastric cancer-related death (OR?=?0.86, 95% CI 0.65-1.13, P?=?0.28) rates were comparable in LG and OG. Several subsets such as the publication year, study region, sample size, gastrectomy pattern, extent of lymphadenectomy, number of nodes harvested, and proportion of T1-2 or N0-1 did not influence the estimates, if they were well balanced. Particularly, the stage-specific estimates obtained comparable results between the two groups. Randomized controlled trials comparing LG with OG remain sparse to assess their long-term survival outcomes. The major contributions of this systematic review compared with other meta-analyses are a comprehensive collection of available long-term survival outcomes within a much larger number of observations and a more precise consideration of confounders. Current knowledge indicates that the long-term survival outcome of laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery is comparable to that of open surgery among early or advanced stage gastric cancer patients, and LG is acceptable with regard to oncologic safety.

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.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) with those of open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) who exclusively underwent distal gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).BackgroundData in published meta-analyses that included different gastrectomy types and mixed tumor stages prevented an accurate comparison between LDG and ODG. Recently, several RCTs that compared LDG with ODG included AGC patients specifically for distal gastrectomy, with D2 lymphadenectomy being reported and updated with the long-term outcomes.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify RCTs for comparing LDG with ODG for advanced distal gastric cancer. Short-term surgical outcomes and mortality, morbidity, and long-term survival were compared. The Cochrane tool and GRADE approach were used for evaluating the quality of evidence (Prospero registration ID: CRD42022301155).ResultsFive RCTs consisting of a total of 2,746 patients were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in terms of intraoperative complications, overall morbidity, severe postoperative complications, R0 resection, D2 lymphadenectomy, recurrence, 3-year disease-free survival, intraoperative blood transfusion, time to first liquid diet, time to first ambulation, distal margin, reoperation, mortality, or readmission between LDG and ODG. Operative times were significantly longer for LDG [weighted mean difference (WMD) 49.2 min, p < 0.05], whereas harvested lymph nodes, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, time to first flatus, and proximal margin were lower for LDG (WMD -1.3, p < 0.05; WMD -33.6 mL, p < 0.05; WMD -0.7 day, p < 0.05; WMD -0.2 day, p < 0.05; WMD -0.4 mm, p < 0.05). Intra-abdominal fluid collection and bleeding were found to be less after LDG. Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low.ConclusionsData from five RCTs suggest that LDG with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC has similar short-term surgical outcomes and long-term survival to ODG when performed by experienced surgeons in hospitals contending with high patient volumes. It can be concluded that RCTs should highlight the potential advantages of LDG for AGC.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, registration number CRD42022301155.

Project description:To conduct a meta-analysis comparing laparoscopic (LGD2) and open D2 gastrectomies (OGD2) for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC).Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing LGD2 with OGD2 for AGC treatment, published between 1 January 2000 and 12 January 2013, were identified in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Primary endpoints included operative outcomes (operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and conversion rate), postoperative outcomes (postoperative analgesic consumption, time to first ambulation, time to first flatus, time to first oral intake, postoperative hospital stay length, postoperative morbidity, incidence of reoperation, and postoperative mortality), and oncologic outcomes (the number of lymph nodes harvested, tumor recurrence and metastasis, disease-free rates, and overall survival rates). The Cochrane Collaboration tools and the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality and risk of bias of RCTs and non-RCTs in the study. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore the incidence rate of various postoperative morbidities as well as recurrence and metastasis patterns. A Begg's test was used to evaluate the publication bias.One RCT and 13 non-RCTs totaling 2596 patients were included in the meta-analysis. LGD2 in comparison to OGD2 showed lower intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -137.87 mL, 95%CI: -164.41--111.33; P < 0.01], lower analgesic consumption (WMD = -1.94, 95%CI: -2.50--1.38; P < 0.01), shorter times to first ambulation (WMD = -1.03 d, 95%CI: -1.90--0.16; P < 0.05), flatus (WMD = -0.98 d, 95%CI: -1.30--0.66; P < 0.01), and oral intake (WMD = -0.85 d, 95%CI: -1.67--0.03; P < 0.05), shorter hospitalization (WMD = -3.08 d, 95%CI: -4.38--1.78; P < 0.01), and lower postoperative morbidity (odds ratio = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.61-0.99; P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed between LGD2 and OGD2 for the following criteria: reoperation incidence, postoperative mortality, number of harvested lymph nodes, tumor recurrence/metastasis, or three- or five-year disease-free and overall survival rates. However, LGD2 had longer operative times (WMD = 57.06 min, 95%CI: 41.87-72.25; P < 0.01).Although a technically demanding and time-consuming procedure, LGD2 may be safe and effective, and offer some advantages over OGD2 for treatment of locally AGC.