4.7 Review

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 102, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106678

Keywords

Laparoscopy; Minimally invasive surgery; Gastric cancer; meta-Analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital [Nn10]
  2. [Nn102017-03]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the benefits and risks of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) compared to open gastrectomy (OG) for the treatment of gastric cancer. The results showed that LG had advantages such as less blood loss, fewer postoperative complications, and faster recovery, but had disadvantages such as shorter proximal resection margin length, longer operation time, and fewer retrieved lymph nodes compared to OG. LG can be an alternative approach to OG for experienced surgeons, and patients with lower BMI and older age may benefit most.
Background: Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been widely used for advanced gastric cancer (GC), and its resection extent is not limited to distal gastrectomy. However, the superiority of this minimally invasive approach remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the benefits and risks of LG on the short- and long-term outcomes compared with open gastrectomy (OG) for GC. Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LG and OG for treatment of GC. The primary outcomes were adverse events, recurrence, mortality, and the quality of life. The secondary outcomes included operation-relevant outcomes and postoperative recovery outcomes. We employed random-effects meta-analyses to pool results with Hartung-Knapp adjustment. The prediction interval (PI) was used to quantify the between-study heterogeneity. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the potential sources of heterogeneity. Results: Twenty-eight studies involving 7643 patients were included. Most studies (22 out of 28) reported results from experienced surgeons. Compared to OG, LG was found to have the advantages of less blood loss, fewer postoperative complications, and faster recovery, but at the expense of lesser proximal resection margin length, longer operation time, and fewer retrieved lymph nodes. There were no significant differences for anastomosis-related complications, recurrence and survival and other outcomes between LG and OG. Significant between-study heterogeneity was observed. Body mass index (BMI) and age were two major sources of heterogeneity. Conclusions: For experienced surgeons, LG is an alternative approach to OG for patients with GC. Patients with lower BMI and older age may benefit most from LG. Future studies are needed to confirm our findings in low-volume hospitals and for less-experienced surgeons. Future trials focusing on patient-important outcomes are warranted for clinical decision-making.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available