Dataset Information

Minimally invasive surgery in advanced gastric cancer.

ABSTRACT: Since Dr. Kitano introduced laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer in 1994, there have been remarkable advances in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gastric cancer, including robotic surgery. With the efforts of many clinical researchers and consenting patients, medical knowledge and evidence for laparoscopic surgery in gastric cancer have accumulated. Although many gastric surgeons are comfortable with the clinical application of laparoscopic surgery for early gastric cancer, the adoption of MISs for advanced gastric cancer remains controversial. In this review article, we describe the current status and evidence of MIS from an evidence-based medicine viewpoint and explore the feasibility and effectiveness of MIS for advanced gastric cancer in the real world.

SUBMITTER: Lee S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9130905 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Minimally invasive surgery in advanced gastric cancer.

Lee Sangjun S Kim Hyung-Ho HH

Annals of gastroenterological surgery 20220225 3

Since Dr. Kitano introduced laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer in 1994, there have been remarkable advances in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gastric cancer, including robotic surgery. With the efforts of many clinical researchers and consenting patients, medical knowledge and evidence for laparoscopic surgery in gastric cancer have accumulated. Although many gastric surgeons are comfortable with the clinical application of laparoscopic surgery for early gastric cance ...[more]

PMID: 35634188

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo investigate the role of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer and determine surgical, clinical, and oncological outcomes.MethodsThis is a propensity score-matched case-control study, comparing three treatment arms: robotic gastrectomy (RG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), open gastrectomy (OG). Data collection started after sharing a specific study protocol. Data were recorded through a tailored and protected web-based system. Primary outcomes: harvested lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, complications rate. Among the secondary outcomes, there are: operative time, R0 resections, POD of mobilization, POD of starting liquid diet and soft solid diet. The analysis includes the evaluation of type and grade of postoperative complications. Detailed information of anastomotic leakages is also provided.ResultsThe present analysis was carried out of 1026 gastrectomies. To guarantee homogenous distribution of cases, patients in the RG, LG and OG groups were 1:1:2 matched using a propensity score analysis with a caliper = 0.2. The successful matching resulted in a total sample of 604 patients (RG = 151; LG = 151; OG = 302). The three groups showed no differences in all baseline patients characteristics, type of surgery (P = 0.42) and stage of the disease (P = 0.16). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the LG (95.93 ± 119.22) and RG (117.91 ± 68.11) groups compared to the OG (127.26 ± 79.50, P = 0.002). The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was similar between the RG (27.78 ± 11.45), LG (24.58 ± 13.56) and OG (25.82 ± 12.07) approach. A benefit in favor of the minimally invasive approaches was found in the length of hospital stay (P < 0.0001). A similar complications rate was found (P = 0.13). The leakage rate was not different (P = 0.78) between groups.ConclusionLaparoscopic and robotic surgery can be safely performed and proposed as possible alternative to open surgery. The main highlighted benefit is a faster postoperative functional recovery.

Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive surgery had been tailored to individual cases of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs) after comparing the clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection (ER), laparoscopic resection (LR), and hybrid methods.AimTo study the use of Goldilocks principle to determine the best form of minimally invasive surgery for gastric SETs.MethodsIn this retrospective study, 194 patients of gastric SETs with high probability of surgical intervention were included. All patients underwent tumor resection in the operating theater between January 2013 and December 2021. The patients were divided into two groups, ER or LR, according to the tumor characteristics and the initial intent of intervention. Few patients in the ER group required further backup laparoscopic surgery after an incomplete ER. The patients who had converted open surgery were excluded. A logistic regression model was used to assess the associations between patient characteristics and the likelihood of a treatment strategy. The area under the curve was used to assess the discriminative ability of tumor size and Youden's index to determine the optimal cut-off tumor size.ResultsOne-hundred ninety-four patients (100 in the ER group and 94 in the LR group) underwent tumor resection in the operating theater. In the ER group, 27 patients required backup laparoscopic surgery after an incomplete ER. The patients in the ER group had small tumor sizes and shorter procedure durations while the patients in the LR group had large tumor sizes, exophytic growth, malignancy, and tumors that were more often located in the middle or lower third of the stomach. Both groups had similar durations of hospital stays and a similar rate of major postoperative complications. The patients in the ER group who underwent backup surgery required longer procedures (56.4 min) and prolonged stays (2 d) compared to the patients in the LR group without the increased rate of major postoperative complications. The optimal cut-off point for the tumor size for laparoscopic surgery was 2.15 cm.ConclusionMultidisciplinary teamwork leads to the adoption of different strategies to yield efficient clinical outcomes according to the tumor characteristics.

Dataset Information

Minimally invasive surgery in advanced gastric cancer.

Publications

Minimally invasive surgery in advanced gastric cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets