Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open total or proximal gastrectomy using the transorally inserted anvil (OrVilTM) for the proximal reconstruction: a propensity score matching analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopic and open total/proximal gastrectomy using transorally inserted anvil (OrVilTM).

Method

Patients diagnosed with gastric cancer and underwent total or proximal gastrectomy using OrVilTM for reconstruction were included. Clinical and pathological characteristics, as well as postoperative outcomes, were analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline factors.

Results

From April 2012 to April 2020, 199 patients at our center were included. A total of 166 underwent open total or proximal gastrectomy (OTG/OPG), and 33 underwent laparoscopic total or proximal gastrectomy (LTG/LPG). Twenty-seven patients from each group were paired with propensity score matching. The operation time was significantly shorter in the OTG/OPG group after matching. The overall complication rate and the incidence of each complication did not show significant differences between the two groups before and after matching.

Conclusion

LTG/LPG and OTG/OPG using OrVilTM for the alimentary tract reconstruction are both feasible and can achieve similar short-term outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Picture 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

All data and material are available upon request.

Code availability

Not applicable

References

  1. Beyer K, Baukloh AK, Kamphues C et al (2019) Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. World J Surg Oncol 17:68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Buas MF, Vaughan TL (2013) Epidemiology and risk factors for gastroesophageal junction tumors: understanding the rising incidence of this disease. Semin Radiat Oncol 23:3–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Choi AH, Arrington A, Falor A et al (2016) Assessment of the double-staple technique for esophagoenteric anastomosis in gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 20:688–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gagner M (2011) Experience of 15 years using the 25-mm flexed end to end anastomosis anvil for safe transoral passage during intracorporeal circular-stapling gastrojejunostomy, esophagogastrostomy, and esophagojejunostomy. Surg Endosc 25:1339–1340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gagner M G-R A, Arca MJ 1998. Laparoscopic isolated gastric bypass after failed bariatric surgery. [M], ACS Video Library, product ACS-2061.

  6. Hiyoshi Y, Oki E, Ando K et al (2014) Outcome of esophagojejunostomy during totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy: a single-center retrospective study. Anticancer Res 34:7227–7232

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hosoda K, Washio M, Mieno H et al (2019) Comparison of double-flap and OrVil techniques of laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy in preventing gastroesophageal reflux: a retrospective cohort study. Langenbecks Arch Surg 404:81–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hu Y, Huang C, Sun Y et al (2016) Morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic versus open D2 distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 34:1350–1357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Inokuchi M, Otsuki S, Fujimori Y et al (2015) Systematic review of anastomotic complications of esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy. World J Gastroenterol 21:9656–9665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ito H, Inoue H, Odaka N et al (2014) Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of esophagojejunostomy after totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy using a trans-orally inserted anvil: a single-center comparative study. Surg Endosc 28:1929–1935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Japanese Gastric Cancer A (2011) Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer 14:113–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jeong O, Park YK (2009) Intracorporeal circular stapling esophagojejunostomy using the transorally inserted anvil (OrVil) after laparoscopic total gastrectomy. Surg Endosc 23:2624–2630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jeong O, Ryu SY, Zhao XF et al (2012) Short-term surgical outcomes and operative risks of laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) for gastric carcinoma: experience at a large-volume center. Surg Endosc 26:3418–3425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jung YJ, Kim DJ, Lee JH et al (2013) Safety of intracorporeal circular stapling esophagojejunostomy using trans-orally inserted anvil (OrVil) following laparoscopic total or proximal gastrectomy - comparison with extracorporeal anastomosis. World J Surg Oncol 11:209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Katai H, Mizusawa J, Katayama H et al (2017) Short-term surgical outcomes from a phase III study of laparoscopy-assisted versus open distal gastrectomy with nodal dissection for clinical stage IA/IB gastric cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG0912. Gastric Cancer 20:699–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Katai H, Mizusawa J, Katayama H et al (2020) Survival outcomes after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy versus open distal gastrectomy with nodal dissection for clinical stage IA or IB gastric cancer (JCOG0912): a multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 5:142–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim RH, Takabe K (2010) Methods of esophagogastric anastomoses following esophagectomy for cancer: A systematic review. J Surg Oncol 101:527–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim W, Kim HH, Han SU et al (2016) Decreased morbidity of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy compared with open distal gastrectomy for stage i gastric cancer: short-term outcomes from a multicenter randomized controlled trial (KLASS-01). Ann Surg 263:28–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim HH, Han SU, Kim MC et al (2019) Effect of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy vs open distal gastrectomy on long-term survival among patients with stage i gastric cancer: the KLASS-01 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 5:506–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kitano S, Shiraishi N, Fujii K et al (2002) A randomized controlled trial comparing open vs laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for the treatment of early gastric cancer: an interim report. Surgery 131:S306–S311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kunisaki C, Makino H, Oshima T et al (2011) Application of the transorally inserted anvil (OrVil) after laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy. Surg Endosc 25:1300–1305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lafemina J, Vinuela EF, Schattner MA et al (2013) Esophagojejunal reconstruction after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer using a transorally inserted anvil delivery system. Ann Surg Oncol 20:2975–2983

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lee JH, Yom CK, Han HS (2009) Comparison of long-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted and open distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 23:1759–1763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee MS, Lee JH, Park DJ et al (2013) Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy and open total gastrectomy in gastric cancer patients. Surg Endosc 27:2598–2605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Liao GQ, Ou XW, Liu SQ et al (2013) Laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy with trans-orally inserted anvil (OrVil): a single institution experience. World J Gastroenterol 19:755–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Liu F, Huang C, Xu Z, Et Al. (2020) Morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic vs open total gastrectomy for clinical stage i gastric cancer: the CLASS02 multicenter randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 6:1590–1597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lu X, Hu Y, Liu H et al (2016) Short-term outcomes of intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy using the transorally inserted anvil versus extracorporeal circular anastomosis during laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis. J Surg Res 200:435–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Shim JH, Yoo HM, Oh SI et al (2013) Various types of intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 16:420–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tokuhara T, Nakata E, Tenjo T et al (2019) Stenosis after esophagojejunostomy with the hemi-double-stapling technique using the transorally inserted anvil (OrVil™) in Roux-en-Y reconstruction with its efferent loop located on the patient’s left side following laparoscopic total gastrectomy. Surg Endosc 33:2128–2134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. World Health Organizaton International Agency for Research on Cancer: Globocan 2018 [M], Stomach.

  31. Xie JW, Huang CM, Zheng CH et al (2013) A safe anastomotic technique of using the transorally inserted anvil (OrVil) in Roux-en-Y reconstruction after laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy for proximal malignant tumors of the stomach. World J Surg Oncol 11:256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yajima K, Kanda T, Kosugi S et al (2014) Intrathoracic esophagojejunostomy using OrVil for gastric adenocarcinoma involving the esophagus. World J Gastrointest Surg 6:235–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Yu J, Huang C, Sun Y et al (2019) Effect of laparoscopic vs open distal gastrectomy on 3-year disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer: the CLASS-01 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 321:1983–1992

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The study is supported by the Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals’ Ascent Plan (No. DFL20181103, receiver: Ziyu Li) and the Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals’ Mission Plan (No. SML20151001, receiver: Jiafu Ji)

Author information

Author notes

  1. Fanling Hong and Yinkui Wang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, 52 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China

    Fanling Hong, Yinkui Wang, Yan Zhang, Shuangxi Li, Fei Shan, Yongning Jia, Ziyu Li & Jiafu Ji

Authors
  1. Fanling Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yinkui Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shuangxi Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fei Shan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yongning Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ziyu Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jiafu Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization and design of the study: ZY Li and Wang. Data acquisition: Hong, Wang, Zhang, and Shan. Analysis and interpretation of the data: Hong and Wang. Drafting the manuscript: Hong and Wang. Critical revision of the manuscript: ZY Li, SX Li, Shan, and Jia. Supervision of the study: Ji.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ziyu Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This research study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Patients signed informed consent regarding publishing their data.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplement Table 1

(DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hong, F., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y. et al. Comparison of the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open total or proximal gastrectomy using the transorally inserted anvil (OrVilTM) for the proximal reconstruction: a propensity score matching analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 406, 651–658 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-021-02126-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-021-02126-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation