4.3 Article

Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Journal

DIGESTIVE SURGERY
Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages 132-141

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000350884

Keywords

Laparoscopic surgery; Gastrectomy; Gastric cancer; Review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer is rapidly becoming popular because of the technical developments and the accumulated data of laparoscopic surgery in gastric cancer patients. The aim of this review is to present the current body of evidence and to highlight controversial issues of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) provides better or comparable outcomes compared to conventional open distal gastrectomy (ODG) in terms of short-term results. The long-term survival of LDG is expected to be comparable to that of ODG in early-stage gastric cancer, and an ongoing Korean multicenter randomized controlled trial (KLASS-01) will provide more clear evidence. Laparoscopic total gastrectomy is still selectively performed compared to LDG, and there is still debate on the safety of the laparoscopic esophagojejunostomy technique. Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving gastrectomy seems to be preferred for early gastric cancer in the middle third of the stomach in terms of functional advantages and comparable oncologic outcome. Evidence for LDG for advanced gastric cancer is still insufficient and the issue of lack of generalization still remains, even after ongoing multicenter randomized controlled trials have revealed clinical evidence. Laparoscopic sentinel node navigation surgery is still experimental and the surgical procedure has yet to be standardized. Robotic gastrectomy is feasible for early gastric cancer in terms of similar outcome, but is much more expensive in comparison to laparoscopic surgery. Its benefit over the conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy has not yet been proven. Copyright (C) 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available