OBJECTIVE: Currently, there is no consensus regarding whether super-elderly (aged > 80 years) patients are suitable candidates for laparoscopic surgery. This study aimed to analyse the short-term outcomes and oncological prognosis of laparoscopic gastrectomy in super-elderly patients with gastric cancer (GC).
METHODS: Following PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 guidelines, we searched the Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Pubmed databases from inception until May 2024 and performed a meta-analysis. All published studies exploring the surgical outcomes and oncological prognosis of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy in super-elderly patients with GC were reviewed. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3.
RESULTS: A total of 1,085 studies were retrieved, eight of which were included in the meta-analysis, comprising 807 patients > 80 years of age with GC. The meta-analysis showed that compared with open gastrectomy, patients with GC > 80 years old who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy had a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 30.48, p < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -166.96, P < 0.001), shorter postoperative exhaust time (WMD =-0.83, p < 0.001), shorter length of stay (WMD = -0.78, p < 0.001), fewer overall complications (Odds ratio [OR] = 0.54, p = 0.003), higher 5-year overall survival rate (OR = 1.66, p = 0.03) and disease-specific survival rate (OR = 3.23, p < 0.001). Furthermore, laparoscopic gastrectomy did not significantly affect the number of lymph node dissections, the rate of D2 radical gastrectomy, major postoperative complications, or postoperative pneumonia.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to open gastrectomy, patients with GC aged > 80 years who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy may have better short-term outcomes. Age should not be a contraindication for minimally invasive surgery.

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.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) is a well-established surgical technique in treating patients with early gastric cancer. However, the efficacy and safety of LAG versus open gastrectomy (OG) in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains unclear.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library in June 2023 for RCTs comparing LAG versus OG in patients with AGC. We pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary and continuous endpoints, respectively. We performed all statistical analyses using R software version 4.3.1 and a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Nine RCTs comprising 3827 patients were included. There were no differences in terms of intraoperative complications (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.82), number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD -0.54 lymph nodes; 95% CI -1.18 to 0.09), or mortality (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.30 to 2.83). LAG was associated with a longer operative time (MD 49.28 minutes; 95% CI 30.88 to 67.69), lower intraoperative blood loss (MD -51.24 milliliters; 95% CI -81.41 to -21.06), shorter length of stay (MD -0.83 days; 95% CI -1.60 to -0.06), and higher incidence of pancreatic fistula (RR 2.44; 95% CI 1.08 to 5.50). Postoperatively, LAG was also superior to OG in reducing bleeding rates (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.86) and time to first flatus (MD -0.27 days; 95% CI -0.47 to -0.07), with comparable results in anastomotic leakage, wound healing issues, major complications, time to ambulation, or time to first liquid intake. In the long-term analyses at 3 and 5 years, there were no significant differences between LAG and OG in terms of overall survival (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.03) or relapse-free survival (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.04).
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of RCTs suggests that LAG may be an effective and safe alternative to OG for treating AGC; albeit, it may be associated with an increased risk for pancreatic fistula.

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: The prediction of complications before gastric surgery is of utmost importance in shared decision making and proper counseling of the patient in order to minimize postoperative complications. Our aim was to evaluate the predictive validity of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) risk calculator in gastric cancer patients who underwent gastrectomy.
METHODS: Preoperative assessment data of 432 patients were retrospectively reviewed and manually entered into the calculator. The accuracy of the calculator was evaluated using Pearson\'s chi-squared test, C-statistic, Brier score, and Hosmer-Lemeshow test.
RESULTS: The lowest Brier scores were observed in urinary tract infection, renal failure, venous thromboembolism, pneumonia, and cardiac complications. Best results were obtained for predicting sepsis, discharge to rehabilitation facility, and death (low Brier scores, C-statistic >.7, and Hosmer-Lemeshow P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The calculator had a strong performance in predicting sepsis, discharge to the rehabilitation facility, and death. However, it performed poor in predicting the most commonly observed events (any or serious complication and surgical site infection).

BACKGROUND: Comparative data on D2-robotic gastrectomy (RG) vs D2-open gastrectomy (OG) are lacking in the Literature. Aim of this paper is to compare RG to OG with a focus on D2-lymphadenectomy.
METHODS: Data of patients undergoing D2-OG or RG for gastric cancer were retrieved from the international IMIGASTRIC prospective database and compared.
RESULTS: A total of 1469 patients were selected for inclusion in the study. After 1:1 propensity score matching, a total of 580 patients were matched and included in the final analysis, 290 in each group, RG vs OG. RG had longer operation time (210 vs 330 min, p < 0.0001), reduced intraoperative blood loss (155 vs 119.7 ml, p < 0.0001), time to liquid diet (4.4 vs 3 days, p < 0.0001) and to peristalsis (2.4 vs 2 days, p < 0.0001), and length of postoperative stay (11 vs 8 days, p < 0.0001). Morbidity rate was higher in OG (24.1% vs 16.2%, p = 0.017).
CONCLUSIONS: RG significantly expedites recovery and reduces the risk of complications compared to OG. However, long-term survival is similar.

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.

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) may have greater clinical benefits as a less invasive surgery for elderly patients with gastric cancer (GC). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the survival benefit of LG in elderly patients with GC, especially focusing on preoperative comorbidities, and nutritional and inflammatory status.
METHODS: Data collected from 115 patients aged ≥75 years with primary GC who underwent curative gastrectomy, comprising 58 patients who underwent open gastrectomy (OG) and 57 patients who underwent LG, were retrospectively reviewed (total cohort), and 72 propensity-matched patients (matched cohort) were selected for survival analysis. The aim of the study was to determine short- and long-term outcomes, and the clinical markers to identify a population who may benefit from LG in elderly patients.
RESULTS: The complication and mortality rates as a short-term outcome in the total cohort and overall survival (OS) as a long-term outcome in the matched cohort did not differ significantly between the groups. In the total cohort, advanced tumor stage and ≥3 comorbidities were independent factors for poor prognosis in terms of OS [hazard ratio (HR)=3.73, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.78-7.78, p<0.001 and HR=2.50, 95% CI=1.35-4.61, p<0.01, respectively]. The surgical approach was not an independent risk factor for postoperative complications (grade ≥III) and OS. In subgroup analysis of the total cohort, patients with a neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥3 in the LG group demonstrated a trend toward greater OS (HR=0.26, 95% CI=0.10-0.64, interaction p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: LG might offer greater survival benefits than OG in frail patients such as those with high NLR.