Dataset Information

Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Gastric Cancer in Western Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The advantages of a laparoscopic approach for the treatment of gastric cancer have already been demonstrated in Eastern Countries. This review and meta-analysis aims to merge all the western studies comparing laparoscopic (LG) versus open gastrectomies (OG) to provide pooled results and higher levels of evidence.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE(PubMed), Embase, WebOfScience and Scopus for studies comparing laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy in western centers from 1980 to 2021.

Results

After screening 355 articles, 34 articles with a total of 24,098 patients undergoing LG (5445) or OG (18,653) in western centers were included. Compared to open gastrectomy, laparoscopic gastrectomy has a significantly longer operation time (WMD = 47.46 min; 95% CI = 31.83-63.09; p < 0.001), lower blood loss (WMD = -129.32 mL; 95% CI = -188.11 to -70.53; p < 0.0001), lower analgesic requirement (WMD = -1.824 days; 95% CI = -2.314 to -1.334; p < 0.0001), faster time to first oral intake (WMD = -1.501 days; 95% CI = -2.571 to -0.431; p = 0.0060), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -2.335; 95% CI = -3.061 to -1.609; p < 0.0001), lower mortality (logOR = -0.261; 95% the -0.446 to -0.076; p = 0.0056) and a better 3-year overall survival (logHR 0.245; 95% CI = 0.016-0.474; p = 0.0360). A slight significant difference in favor of laparoscopic gastrectomy was noted for the incidence of postoperative complications (logOR = -0.202; 95% CI = -0.403 to -0.000 the = 0.0499). No statistical difference was noted based on the number of harvested lymph nodes, the rate of major postoperative complication and 5-year overall survival.

Conclusions

In Western centers, laparoscopic gastrectomy has better short-term and equivalent long-term outcomes compared with the open approach, but more high-quality studies on long-term outcomes are required.

SUBMITTER: Garbarino GM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9267365 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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:Studies evaluating the outcomes after laparoscopic resections of transverse colon cancers are scant. This manuscript aimed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes after laparoscopic (Lap) and open procedures for transverse colon carcinomas. All consecutive patients who underwent resection for a cancer located in the transverse colon between 2003 and 2019 were reviewed. Patients were categorized according to the surgical approach (Lap versus open) and groups were compared. Outcome measures were the short-term results, complications and functional recovery; moreover, recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were compared overall and after propensity score matching (PSM) based on age, sex, ASA classification, BMI, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level, use of postoperative chemotherapy, location of tumour, stage and grading, operation time, blood loss and complications. Of 248 transverse resections reviewed, 146 (81 Lap and 65 open) were selected for data analysis. Blood loss, fluid intake and the incidence of wound infection were significantly lower and the hospital stay was significantly shorter in the Lap group (P < 0.001). The operation time and incidence of complications (Clavien-Dindo classification grade 3 or above) did not differ significantly between the two groups. Mean follow-up was of 75.4 months in the Lap group and 78.6 months in the open group. Regression analyses showed that OS was associated with the postoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level (hazard ratio 1.18 (95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.27); P < 0.001), BMI (hazard ratio 0.81 (95 per cent c.i. 0.68 to 0.96); P = 0.017), operation time (hazard ratio 0.99 (95 per cent c.i. 0.97 to 1.00; P = 0.010), and postoperative chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.27 (95 per cent c.i. 0.08 to 0.96); P = 0.042), while RFS was associated with the postoperative CEA level (hazard ratio 1.13 (95 per cent c.i. 1.07 to 1.20); P < 0.001). PSM selected 42 patients for data comparison of long-term results, and showed no significant differences between groups (RFS: P = 0.530; OS: P = 0.561). Lap and open resections for transverse colon cancer provided similar outcomes in terms of severe post-operative complication and long-term results.

Project description:Background:Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with improved postoperative outcomes compared to open surgery; however, economic studies have yielded contradictory results. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for patients with rectal cancer. Methods:Propensity score matching analysis was performed in a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent elective low anterior resection for rectal cancer treatment by laparoscopic and open surgery in a single Brazilian cancer center. Matched covariates included age, gender, body mass index, pTNM stage, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, type of anesthesia, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and index surgery. The clinical and economic outcomes were evaluated. The follow-up period was within 30 days of the index procedure. The clinical outcomes were reoperation, postoperative complications, operative time, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and postoperative hospital stay. For economic outcomes, a cost analysis was used to compare the costs. Results:Initially, 220 patients were evaluated. After propensity score matching, 100 patients were included in the analysis (50 patients in the open surgery group and 50 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group). There were no differences in patients' baseline characteristics. Operative time was longer for laparoscopic surgery (247 minutes vs 285 minutes, P=0.006). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes. The hospital costs were similar between the two groups (Brazilian reais 21,233.15 vs Brazilian reais 21,529.28, P=0.115), although the intraoperative costs were higher for laparoscopic surgery, mainly owing to the surgical devices and the theater-related costs. The postoperative costs were lower for laparoscopic surgery, owing to lower intensive care unit, ward, and reoperation costs. Conclusion:Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is not costlier than open surgery from the health care provider's perspective, since the intraoperative costs were offset by lower postoperative costs. Open surgery tends to have a longer length of stay.