Minimally invasive surgery for remnant gastric cancer: a comparison with open surgery
- 669 Downloads
Completion total gastrectomy for remnant gastric cancer (RGC) is technically challenging, especially using the minimally invasive approach. Only a few small case series have reported the technical feasibility of completion total gastrectomy by minimally invasive surgery (MIS). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of MIS and open surgery for RGC.
We retrospectively analyzed 76 completion total gastrectomies for RGC between 2005 and 2012. Indications for MIS were limited to no evidence of serosa invasion or lymph node metastasis to extraperigastric areas on preoperative evaluation. We compared patient characteristics, intraoperative factors, post-operative outcomes, and survival for the MIS and open surgery groups.
Eighteen patients underwent completion total gastrectomy with MIS (10 laparoscopic, 8 robotic) and 58 patients underwent open surgery. Operation time was longer in the MIS than the open group (266 vs. 203 min, P = 0.004), but the groups had similar estimated blood loss, frequency of unplanned other organ resection, and number of retrieved lymph nodes. The MIS group had a significantly earlier initiation of soft diet, shorter hospital stay, and fewer pain medication injections. Complication rates, recurrence, and overall 5-year survival were similar for the two groups. When we compared laparoscopy with robotic, similar result was shown in all parameters except operation time.
Compared to open surgery, MIS for RGC demonstrated better short-term outcome and comparable oncologic results. MIS for RGC is feasible and safe and maintains advantages of minimal invasiveness. Both laparoscopic and robotic approaches are reasonable to the management of RGC.
KeywordsMinimally invasive surgery Remnant gastric cancer Stomach Completion total gastrectomy
We acknowledge the assistance of BioScience Writers, LLC (Houston, TX, USA) in copyediting of the manuscript and corrections of English language usage. This work was supported by a grant from Yonsei University College of Medicine (6-2008-0195).
All authors (I.G. Kwon, I. Cho, A. Guner, Y.Y. Choi, H.B. Shin, H.I. Kim, J.Y. An, J.H. Cheong, S.H. Noh, and W.J. Hyung) have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 2.Ikeguchi M, Kondou A, Shibata S, Yamashiro H, Tsujitani S, Maeta M, Kaibara N (1994) Clinicopathologic differences between carcinoma in the gastric remnant stump after distal partial gastrectomy for benign gastroduodenal lesions and primary carcinoma in the upper third of the stomach. Cancer 73:15–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (2011) Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 3rd English edition. Gastric Cancer 14:101–112Google Scholar
- 15.(2011) Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer 14:113–123Google Scholar
- 24.Makino H, Kunisaki C, Izumisawa Y, Tokuhisa M, Oshima T, Nagano Y, Fujii S, Kimura J, Takagawa R, Kosaka T, Ono HA, Akiyama H, Endo I (2010) Effect of obesity on laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy compared with open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol 102:141–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar