BACKGROUND: ​The applicability of laparoscopy to nonmetastatic T4a patients with gastric cancer remains unclear due to the lack of high-quality evidence. The purpose of this study was to compare the survival rates of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) versus open gastrectomy (OG) for these patients through a meta-analysis of reconstructed individual participant data from propensity score-matched studies.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library and CNKI were examined for relevant studies without language restrictions through July 25, 2023. Individual participant data on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were extracted from the published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. One-stage and two-stage meta-analyses were performed. In addition, data regarding surgical outcomes and recurrence patterns were also collected, which were meta-analyzed using traditional aggregated data.
RESULTS: Six studies comprising 1860 patients were included for analysis. In the one-stage meta-analyses, the results demonstrated that LG was associated with a significantly better DFS (Random-effects model: P = 0.027; Restricted mean survival time [RMST] up to 5 years: P = 0.033) and a comparable OS (Random-effects model: P = 0.135; RMST up to 5 years: P = 0.053) than OG for T4a gastric cancer patients. Two-stage meta-analyses resulted in similar results, with a 13% reduced hazard of cancer-related death (P = 0.04) and 10% reduced hazard of overall mortality (P = 0.11) in the LG group. For secondary outcomes, the pooled results showed an association of LG with less estimated blood loss, faster postoperative recovery and more retrieved lymph nodes.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery for patients with nonmetastatic T4a disease is associated with a potential survival benefit and improved surgical outcomes.

UNASSIGNED: To compare the effects of open (OG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) on body composition and muscle strength.
UNASSIGNED: This study performed a propensity score matching analysis using cases from a large-scale, multicenter, phase III randomized controlled trial concerning oral nutritional supplements after gastrectomy and analyzed both the whole and matched cohorts. Measurements of body composition and hand grip strength (HGS) were performed at baseline (preoperatively) and at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months after gastrectomy.
UNASSIGNED: Of 835 patients, 275 and 560 underwent OG and LG, respectively. Skeletal muscle mass (SMM) and HGS loss were significantly lesser in the LG group than in the OG group. The propensity score-matched analysis, including 120 pairs of patients, confirmed that the % SMM loss values at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 POM were -4.5%, -4.0%, -4.7%, -4.6%, and -5.8% in the OG group and -3.0%, -1.9%, -2.4%, -2.2%, and -2.7% in the LG group, respectively. The % SMM loss was significantly lesser in the LG group than in the OG group (repeated measures ANOVA p < 0.001). The HGS loss was non-significantly smaller in the LG group than in the OG group.
UNASSIGNED: Skeletal muscle mass loss was significantly lesser in the LG group than in the OG group in both cohorts, indicating that LG may be more effective than OG for maintaining muscle mass.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is widely accepted as a minimally invasive approach for the treatment of early gastric cancer. However, its role in locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of LG vs open gastrectomy (OG) after NAT for the treatment of LAGC.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of LG vs OG after NAT for LAGC.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of 76 patients with LAGC who underwent NAT followed by LG (n = 38) or OG (n = 38) between 2021 and 2023. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), surgical complications, and quality of life (QOL).
RESULTS: The two groups had comparable baseline characteristics, with a median follow-up period of 24 mo. The 3-year OS rates in the LG and OG groups were 68.4% and 60.5%, respectively (P = 0.42). The 3-year DFS rates in the LG and OG groups were 57.9% and 50.0%, respectively (P = 0.51). The LG group had significantly less blood loss (P < 0.001), a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001), and a lower incidence of surgical site infection (P = 0.04) than the OG group. There were no significant differences in other surgical complications between the groups, including anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, or wound dehiscence. The LG group had significantly better QOL scores than the OG group regarding physical functioning, role functioning, global health status, fatigue, pain, appetite loss, and body image at 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: LG after NAT is a viable and safe alternative to OG for the treatment of LAGC, with similar survival outcomes and superior short-term recovery and QOL. LG patients had less blood loss, shorter hospitalizations, and a lower incidence of surgical site infections than OG patients. Moreover, the LG group had better QOL scores in multiple domains 6 mo postoperatively. Therefore, LG should be considered a valid option for patients with LAGC who undergo NAT, particularly for those who prioritize postoperative recovery and QOL.

UNASSIGNED: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is increasingly becoming the recommended treatment for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) with promising results. According to previous reports, few studies have evaluated the benefits of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) after NACT.
UNASSIGNED: 135 patients from our center who underwent gastrectomy with NACT were available, including 41 patients of LG and 94 OG between July 2018 and July 2022. To reduce selection bias, we used the nearest neighbor method and set caliper = 0.2 for 3:1 matching between LG and OG groups for propensity score matching method (PSM). After PSM, the matched 41 patients with LG and 80 patients with OG formed the cohort, respectively. Univariate and multivariate Cox analyses were performed on all variables to determine independent risk factors associated with survival.
UNASSIGNED: LG had a longer operating time compared to OG [260.00 min (220.00 min, 300.00 min) vs. 200.00 min (160.00 min, 260 min), P < 0.001]. The estimated blood loss, metastatic lymph nodes (LN), total LN examined, postoperative hospital stays, blood transfusion (P>0.05) and the incidence of postoperative complications did not show statistical differences from the OG group (P = 0.084). The type of surgery (LG vs. OG) did not show a significant risk propensity in the univariate and multivariate Cox analysis (HR = 0.69, P = 0.36, 95 % CI: 0.31-1.53). Through the Kaplan-Meier curves, a certain trend showed that the LG group had a better long-term survival outcomes than the OG group, although there was no statistical difference between two groups (P>0.05).
UNASSIGNED: LG is a promising treatment option for LAGC patients receiving NACT and had an acceptable safety and efficacy compared to OG.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of laparoscopic surgery in advanced gastric cancer patients who received neoadjuvant therapy represent a controversial issue. We performed an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the perioperative and long-term survival outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) versus conventional open gastrectomy (OG) in this subset of patients.
METHODS: Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were comprehensively searched up to May 2023. The short-term and long-term outcomes of LG versus OG in advanced gastric cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy were evaluated. Effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals were always assessed using random-effects model. The prospective protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022359126).
RESULTS: Eighteen studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 16 cohort studies) involving 2096 patients were included. In total, 933 patients were treated with LG and 1163 patients were treated with OG. In perioperative outcomes, LG was associated with less estimated blood loss (MD = - 65.15; P < 0.0001), faster time to flatus (MD = - 0.56; P < 0.0001) and liquid intake (MD = - 0.42; P = 0.02), reduced hospital stay (MD = - 2.26; P < 0.0001), lower overall complication rate (OR = 0.70; P = 0.002) and lower minor complication rate (OR = 0.69; P = 0.006), while longer operative time (MD = 25.98; P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of proximal margin, distal margin, R1/R2 resection rate, retrieved lymph nodes, time to remove gastric tube and drainage tube, major complications and other specific complications. In survival outcomes, LG and OG were not significantly different in overall survival, disease-free survival and recurrence-free survival.
CONCLUSIONS: LG can be a safe and feasible technique for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy. However, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are still needed to further validate the results of our study.

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic technique has gradually been applied to the treatment of carcinoma in the remnant stomach (CRS), but its clinical efficacy remains controversial.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the short-term and long-term results of 3D laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (3DLAG) with open gastrectomy (OG) for CRS.
METHODS: The clinical data of patients diagnosed with CRS and admitted to the First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital from January 2016 to January 2021 were retrospectively collected. A total of 84 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled. All their clinical data were collected and a database was established. All patients were treated with 3DLAG or OG by experienced surgeons and were divided into two groups based on the different surgical methods mentioned above. By using outpatient and telephone follow-up, we were able to determine postoperative survival and tumor status. The postoperative short-term efficacy and 1-year and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: Among 84 patients with CRS, 48 were treated with OG and 36 with 3DLAG. All patients successfully completed surgery. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index, ASA score, initial disease state (benign or malignant), primary surgical anastomosis method, interval time of carcinogenesis, and tumorigenesis site. Patients in the 3DLAG group experienced less intraoperative blood loss (188.33 ± 191.35 mL vs 305.83 ± 303.66 mL; P = 0.045) and smaller incision (10.86 ± 3.18 cm vs 20.06 ± 5.17 cm; P < 0.001) than those in the OG group. 3DLAGC was a more minimally invasive method. 3DLAGC retrieved significantly more lymph nodes than OG (14.0 ± 7.17 vs 10.73 ± 6.82; P = 0.036), whereas the number of positive lymph nodes did not differ between the two groups (1.56 ± 2.84 vs 2.35 ± 5.28; P = 0.413). The complication rate (8.3% vs 20.8%; P = 0.207) and intensive care unit admission rate (5.6% vs 14.5%; P = 0.372) were equivalent between the two groups. In terms of postoperative recovery, the 3DLAGC group had a lower visual analog score, shorter indwelling time of gastric and drainage tubes, shorter time of early off-bed motivation, shorter time of postoperative initial flatus and initial soft diet intake, shorter postoperative hospital stay and total hospital stay, and there were significant differences, showing better short-term efficacy. The 1-year and 3-year OS rates of OG group were 83.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 72.4%-95.6%] and 73.3% (95%CI: 60.0%-89.5%) respectively. The 1-year and 3-year OS rates of the 3DLAG group were 87.3% (95%CI: 76.4%-99.8%) and 75.6% (95%CI: 59.0%-97.0%), respectively. However, the 1-year and 3-year OS rates were similar between the two groups, which suggested that long-term survival results were comparable between the two groups (P = 0.68).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with OG, 3DLAG for CRS achieved better short-term efficacy and equivalent oncological results without increasing clinical complications. 3DLAG for CRS can be promoted safely and effectively in selected patients.

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.

UNASSIGNED: Open gastrectomy\"OG\" compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy\"LG\" in patients with gastric cancer\"GC\" has been widely discussed over the past years. However, the lack of comparative analysis in postoperative pancreatic fistula \"POPF\" hinders its severity as surgical procedures developed rapidly. Therefore, there are still moot on whether one of these surgical options is superior in POPF.
UNASSIGNED: To compare the incidence of POPF in patients undergoing OG and LG for gastric cancer \"GC\".
UNASSIGNED: Articles from January 2011 to August 2021 that compared LG and OG for GC were reviewed. Cohort studies were included in our study. The quality of enrolled studies was evaluated. Outcomes regarding POPF complication and relative operation results were analyzed. Statistical analysis portrayed the Weighted mean difference\"WMD\"and the odds ratio\"OR\"with a 95% confidence interval \"CI\". The curative effect was analyzed using RevMan 5.4.1 software.
UNASSIGNED: Totally 7 articles met the inclusion criteria, including 3194 patients with treatment of gastrectomy surgeries for gastric cancer \"GC\". There was no significant difference observed in POPF incidence (OR, 95% CI = 1.04 [0.74,1.46], P = 0.81) between OG group and LG group in patients undergoing GC gastrectomy.
UNASSIGNED: We stringently explored the current incidence of POPF after GC gastrectomy, comparing its incidence during LG and OG, there was no significant difference between OG and LG in the incidence of POPF, and surgeons should give more concern for improvement in surgical techniques. Further research is still needed to explore the risk of causes and surgical techniques should be considered cautiously in a clinical procedure.

UNASSIGNED: In gastric cancer, laparoscopic gastrectomy is commonly performed in Asian countries. In other regions where tumor incidence is relatively low and patient characteristics are different, developments in this issue have been limited. In this study, we aimed to compare the early results for patients who underwent open or laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in a low volume center.
UNASSIGNED: We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients who underwent curative gastric resection (open gastrectomy n: 30; laparoscopic gastrectomy n: 30) by the same surgical team between 2014 and 2019.
UNASSIGNED: The tumor was localized in 60% (36/60) of the patients in the proximal and middle 1/3 stomach. In laparoscopic gastrectomy group, the operation time was significantly longer (median, 297.5 vs 180 minutes; p <0.05). In open gastrectomy group, intraoperative blood loss (median 50 vs 150 ml; p <0.05) was significantly higher. Tumor negative surgical margin was achieved in all cases. Although the mean number of lymph nodes harvested in laparoscopic gastrectomy group was higher than the open surgery group, the difference was not statistically significant (28.2 ± 11.48 vs 25.8 ± 9.78, respectively; p= 0.394). The rate of major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade 3) was less common in the laparoscopic group (6.7% vs 16.7%; p= 0.642). Mortality was observed in four patients (2 patients open, 2 patients laparoscopic).
UNASSIGNED: In low-volume centers with advanced laparoscopic surgery experience, laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer can be performed with the risk of morbidity-mortality similar to open gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive techniques show improved short-term and comparable long-term outcomes compared to open techniques in the treatment of gastric cancer and improved survival has been seen with the implementation of multimodality treatment. Therefore, focus of research has shifted towards optimizing treatment regimens and improving quality of life.
METHODS: A randomized trial was performed in thirteen hospitals in Europe. Patients were randomized between open total gastrectomy (OTG) or minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This study investigated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following OTG or MITG, using the Euro-Qol-5D (EQ-5D) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires, modules C30 and STO22. Due to multiple testing a p-value < 0.001 was deemed statistically significant.
RESULTS: Between January 2015 and June 2018, 96 patients were included in this trial. Forty-nine patients were randomized to OTG and 47 to MITG. A response compliance of 80% was achieved for all PROMs. The EQ5D overall health score one year after surgery was 85 (60-90) in the open group and 68 (50-83.8) in the minimally invasive group (P = 0.049). The median EORTC-QLQ-C30 overall health score one year postoperatively was 83,3 (66,7-83,3) in the open group and 58,3 (35,4-66,7) in the minimally invasive group (P = 0.002). This was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: No differences were observed between open total gastrectomy and minimally invasive total gastrectomy regarding HRQoL data, collected using the EQ-5D, EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-STO22 questionnaires.