4.7 Review

Efficacy of fast track surgery in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 50, Issue -, Pages 28-34

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.12.026

Keywords

Fast track surgery; Laparoscopy; Radical resection of gastric cancer; Meta-analysis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To conduct a systematic review of efficacy and security of fast track surgery (FTS) in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library Databases and supplemented by other searches to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the comparison of fast track surgery combined with laparoscopy versus laparoscopy separately used in radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer before December 2016. After screening for inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment, meta-analysis was conducted by the Review Manager 5.3 software. Results: A total of 6 RCTs, involving 464 patients, were included. There were 232 patients in the FTS group and conventional care group separately. Compared with the conventional care group, patients of FTS group had shorter postoperative hospital stay [WMD = -1.85, 95% CI: (-2.60, -1.11), P < .00001], earlier first flatus [WMD = -9.33, 95% CI: (-13.74, -4.91), P < .0001], lower level of C-reactive protein (CRP) at postoperative day 4 [WMD = -13.94, 95% CI: (-22.74, -5.15), P = .002], and less hospitalization fees [SMD = -1.12, 95% CI: (-2.07, -0.18), P = .02]. There were no significant differences in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative complications between the two groups. Conclusion: Based on current evidence, the FTS protocol is safe and effective in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Due to the limitations of our study, further larger and multicenter studies are needed to validate our findings.

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