Insights into the history and tendency of glycosylation and digestive system tumor: A bibliometric-based visual analysis.

BACKGROUND: Glycosylation, a commonly occurring post-translational modification, is highly expressed in several tumors, specifically in those of the digestive system, and plays a role in various cellular pathophysiological mechanisms. Although the importance and detection methods of glycosylation in digestive system tumors have garnered increasing attention in recent years, bibliometric analysis of this field remains scarce. The present study aims to identify the developmental trends and research hotspots of glycosylation in digestive system tumors. AIM: To find and identify the developmental trends and research hotspots of glycosylation in digestive system tumors. METHODS: We obtained relevant literature from the Web of Science Core Collection and employed VOSviewer 1.6.19 and CiteSpace (version 6.1.R6) to perform bibliometric analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2042 documents spanning from 1978 to the present were analyzed, with the research process divided into three phases: the period of obscurity (1978-1990), continuous development period (1991-2006), and the rapid outbreak period (2007-2023). These documents were authored by researchers from 66 countries or regions, with the United States and China leading in terms of publication output. Reis Celso A had the highest number of publications, while Pinho SS was the most cited author. Co-occurrence analysis revealed the most popular keywords in this field are glycosylation, expression, cancer, colorectal cancer, and pancreatic cancer. Furthermore, the Journal of Proteome Research was the most prolific journal in terms of publications, while the Journal of Biological Chemistry had the most citations. CONCLUSION: The bibliometric analysis shows current research focus is primarily on basic research in this field. However, future research should aim to utilize glycosylation as a target for treating tumor patients.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma: separate propensity score matching analyses of distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading causes of cancer mortality worldwide. Currently, laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) is extensively applied to treat benign and low-grade diseases related to the pancreas. The viability and safety of LPR for PDAC needs to be understood better. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) are the two main surgical approaches for PDAC. We performed separate propensity score matching (PSM) analyses to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of LPR for PDAC by comparing LDP with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) as well as LPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). METHODS: We assessed the data of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for PDAC between January 2004 and February 2020 at our hospital. A one-to-one PSM was applied to prevent selection bias by accounting for factors such as age, sex, body mass index, and tumour size. The DP group included 86 LDP patients and 86 ODP patients, whereas the PD group included 101 LPD patients and 101 OPD patients. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative effects, postoperative recovery, and survival outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Compared to ODP, LDP was associated with shorter operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. Of the 101 patients who underwent LPD, 10 patients (9.9%) required conversion to laparotomy. The short-term surgical advantage of LPD is not as apparent as that of LDP due to conversions. Compared with OPD, LPD was associated with longer operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. For oncological and survival outcomes, there were no significant differences in tumour size, R0 resection rate, and tumour stage in both the DP and PD subgroups. However, laparoscopic procedures appear to have an advantage over open surgery in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (DP subgroup: 14.4 ± 5.2 vs. 11.7 ± 5.1, p = 0.03; PD subgroup 21.9 ± 6.6 vs. 18.9 ± 5.4, p = 0.07). These two groups did not show a significant difference in the pattern of recurrence and overall survival rate. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic DP and PD are feasible and oncologically safe procedures for PDAC, with similar postoperative outcomes and long-term survival among patients who underwent open surgery.

Laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy: preliminary experience with 10 cases.

BACKGROUND: The radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) which is a reasonable surgical approach for left-sided pancreatic cancer is emphasis on the complete resection of regional lymph nodes and tumor-free margin resection. Laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (LRAMPS) has been rarely performed, with only 49 cases indexed on PubMed. In this study, we present our experience of LRAMPS. METHODS: From December 2018 to February 2020, 10 patients underwent LRAMPS for pancreatic cancer at our department. The data of the patient demographics, intraoperative variables, postoperative hospital stay, morbidity, mortality, pathologic findings and follow-up were collected. RESULTS: LRAMPS was performed successfully in all the patients. The median operative time was 235 min (range 212-270 min), with an EBL of 120 ml (range 100-200 ml). Postoperative complications occurred in 5 (50.0%) patients. Three patients developed a grade B pancreatic fistula. There was no postoperative 30-day mortality and reoperation. The median postoperative hospital stay was 14 days (range 9-24 days).The median count of retrieved lymph nodes was 15 (range 13-21), and four patients (40%) had malignant-positive lymph nodes. All cases achieved a negative tangential margin and R0 resection. Median follow-up time was 11 months (range 3-14 m). Two patients developed disease recurrence (pancreatic bed recurrence and liver metastasis) 9 months, 10 months after surgery, respectively. Others survived without tumor recurrence or metastasis. CONCLUSIONS: LRAMPS is technically safe and feasible procedure in well-selected patients with pancreatic cancer in the distal pancreas. The oncologically outcomes need to be further validated based on additional large-volume studies.

Comparison of clinical outcomes and quality of life between laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with or without spleen preservation.

BACKGROUND: The studies comparing laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy (LDPS) are limited. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and quality of life of patients undergoing LSPDP and LDPS. METHODS: Between March 2004 and December 2014, patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy were reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups as LSPDP and LDPS. Data considered for comparison analysis were patient demographics, intraoperative variables, morbidity, postoperative hospital stay, mortality, pathologic findings, and quality of life (SF-36 questionnaire). RESULTS: A total of 110 patients (50 LSPDP and 60 LDPS) were included in the final analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. The LSPDP group had a significantly shorter operative time(153.3 ± 46.2 vs. 179.9 ± 54.1 min, p = 0.015) than the LDPS group. Also in analysis of propensity-matched population(LSPDP:LDPS = 35:35, 1:1 matching), LSPDP group still had a significantly shorter operative time (159.3 ± 36.2 vs. 172.9 ± 44.1 min, p = 0.045) than the LDPS group.There were no significant differences with respect to estimated blood loss, first flatus time, diet start time, and postoperative hospital stay. Postoperative outcomes, including morbidity, pancreatic fistula rates, and mortality, were similar in the LSPDP and LDPS group. On the follow-up survey, the total quality of life score (635.8 ± 50.7 vs. 596.1 ± 92.1)was higher in the LSPDP group compared with the LDPS group. However, the differences were not statistically significant(p > 0.05). The score in vitality (82.5 ± 14.4 vs. 68.9 ± 11.4, p = 0.046) was significantly higher in LSPDP group and not statistically significant in other areas (p > 0.05).Similar results of quality of life assessment were found in analysis of propensity-matched population. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to LDPS, LSPDP had shorter operating time and better quality of life with similar morbidity and recovery period.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Organ-Sparing Resection for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs) are rare neoplasms associated with a long life expectancy after resection. In this setting, patients may benefit from laparoscopic organ-sparing resection. Studies of laparoscopic organ-sparing resection for PNENs are limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic organ-sparing resection for PNENs. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed for patients with PNENs who underwent laparoscopic organ-sparing pancreatectomy between March 2005 and May 2018. The patients' demographic data, operative results, pathological reports, hospital courses and morbidity, mortality, and follow-up data (until August 2018) were analysed. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were included in the final analysis. There were 9 male and 26 female patients, with a median age of 46 years (range 25-75 years). The mean BMI was 24.6 ± 3.3 kg/m2. Nine patients received laparoscopic enucleation (LE), 20 received laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP), and 6 received laparoscopic central pancreatectomy. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, transfusion rate, and postoperative hospital stay were 186.4 ± 60.2 min, 165 ± 73.0 ml, 0 days, and 9 days (range 5-23 days), respectively. The morbidity rate, grade ≥ III complication rate, and grade ≥ B pancreatic fistula rate were 34.2%, 11.4%, and 8.7%, respectively, with no mortality. The rate of follow-up was 94.3%, and the median follow-up time was 55 months (range 3-158 months). One patient developed recurrence 36 months after LE and was managed with surgical resection. The other patients survived without metastases or recurrence during the follow-up. One patient had diabetes after LSPDP, and no patients had symptoms of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency. Nineteen patients who underwent LSPDP (16 with the Kimura technique and 3 with the Warshaw technique) were followed. Normal patency of the splenic artery and vein was observed in 14 and 14 patients within 1 month of surgery and in 15 and 14 patients 6 months or more after the operation, respectively. Partial splenic infarction was observed in 3 patients within 1 month of surgery and in no patients 6 months or more after the operation. Three patients eventually developed collateral venous vessels around the gastric fundus and reserved spleen, with one case of variceal bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic organ-sparing resection for selected cases of PNENs is safe and feasible and has favourable short- and long-term outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a single-center propensity score matching study.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic diseases has been increasingly utilized. However, the use of LDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial and has not been widely accepted. In this study, the outcomes of LDP versus conventional open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for left-sided PDAC were examined. A retrospective review of patients who underwent LDP or ODP for left-sided PDAC between January 2010 and January 2019 was conducted. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize selection biases by balancing factors including age, sex, ASA grade, tumor size, and combined resection. Demographic data, their pathological and short-term clinical parameters, and long-term oncological outcomes were compared between the LDP and ODP groups. A total of 197 patients with PDAC were enrolled. There were 115 (58.4%) patients in the LDP group and 82 (41.6%) patients in the ODP group. After 1:1 PSM, 66 well-matched patients in each group were evaluated. The LDP group had lesser blood loss (195 vs. 210 mL, p < 0.01), shorter operative time (193.6 vs. 217.5 min; p = 0.02), and shorter hospital stay (12 vs. 15 days, p < 0.01), whereas the overall complication rates were comparable between groups (10.6% vs.16.7%, p = 0.31). There were no significant differences between the LDP and ODP groups regarding 3-year recurrence-free or overall survival rate (p = 0.89 and p = 0.33, respectively). LDP in the treatment of left-sided PDAC is a technically safe, feasible and favorable approach in short-term surgical outcomes. Moreover, patients undergoing LDP than ODP for PDAC had comparable oncological metrics and similar middle-term survival rate.

Comparison of overall survival and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes and clinical efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register for studies published between May 1998 and May 2018. The included studies compared LPD and OPD for the treatment of PDAC. The oncological outcomes and perioperative data were analyzed. RESULTS: Eight studies involving 15,278 patients were included in our meta-analysis. No significant difference was found in the 5-year overall survival (OS) between patients undergoing the two types of surgery (HR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.82-1.15, p = 0.76). LPD resulted in a higher rate of R0 resection than OPD (OR: 1.16, 95% CI 0.85-1.57, p > 0.05). This study showed that compared with OPD, LPD resulted in comparable rates of postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.68-1.68, p = 0.77) and postoperative hemorrhage (OR: 1.74, 95% CI 0.96-3.71, p = 0.07), more harvested lymph nodes (WMD: 1.84, 95% CI: 0.95-2.72, p < 0.05), shorter hospital stays (WMD: -2.45, 95% CI: - 3.33- -1.56, p < 0.05), and less estimated blood loss (WMD: -374.30, 95% CI: - 513.06- -235.54, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LPD is equivalent to OPD with respect to 5-year OS and results in better perioperative clinical outcomes for patients with PDAC.

Evolution of Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resections for Pancreatic and Periampullary Diseases: Perioperative Outcomes of 605 Patients at a High-Volume Center.

Background: Laparoscopic pancreatectomy (LP) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. We have applied LP to a variety of pancreatic resections since 2004. This article is to report results of 15-year practice of 605 LPs for pancreatic and periampullary diseases. Methods: Patients with benign or malignant diseases in the pancreas and periampullary region, who underwent LP from June 2004 to June 2018, were retrospectively reviewed. The demographics and indications, and intraoperative and perioperative outcomes were evaluated. Results: A total of 605 consecutive LPs were analyzed, including 237 (39.2%) distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS), 116 (19.2%) spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP), 30 (5.0%) enucleation (EN), 30 (5.0%) central pancreatectomy (CP), 186 (30.7%) pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), and 6 (1.0%) pancreatoduodenectomy with total pancreatectomy (PDTP). The most common pathologic finding was pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (146, 24.1%). Conversion to open procedure was required in 22 patients (3.6%) (12 with PD, 8 with DPS, 1 with CP, and 1 with PDTP). The mean operative time was 241.5 ± 105.5 minutes (range 50-550 minutes) for the entire population and 367.1 ± 61.8 minutes (range 230-550 minutes) for PD. Clinically significant pancreatic fistula (ISGPF grade B and C) rate was 12.4% for the entire cohort and 16.1% for PD. Rate of Clavien-Dindo III-V complications was 17.4% for the entire cohort and 23.7% for PD. Ninety-day mortality was observed only in the cohort of patients undergoing PD (n = 4). Conclusions: The LP procedure appears to be technically safe and feasible, with an acceptable rate of morbidity when performed at our experienced, high-volume center. However, PD has less favorable outcomes and needs further evaluation.

Do patients benefit more from robot assisted approach than conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy? A meta-analysis of perioperative and economic outcomes.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Robotic approach has improved the ergonomics of conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), but whether patients benefit more from robot assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to compare the perioperative and economic outcomes of RADP with LDP. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was carried out on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library between January 1990 and March 2017. All eligible studies comparing RADP versus LDP were included. Perioperative and economic outcomes constituted the end points. RESULTS: 13 English studies with 1396 patients were included. Regarding to intraoperative outcomes, RADP was associated with a significant decrease in conversion rate (OR = 0.52; 95%CI: 0.34, 0.78; P = 0.002). Although the spleen-preserving rates were comparable between RADP and LDP, a significant higher splenic vessels conservation rate was observed in the RADP group (OR = 4.71; 95%CI: 1.77, 12.56; P = 0.002). No statistically significant differences were found at operation time, estimated blood loss and blood transfusion rate. Concerning postoperative outcomes, pooled data indicated the overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula and the length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the RADP and LDP groups. And concerning pathological outcomes, positive margin rate and the number of lymph nodules harvested were comparable between the two groups. The operative cost of RADP was almost double that of LDP (WMD = 2350.2 US dollars; 95%CI: 1165.62, 3534.78; P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: RADP showed a slight technical advantage. But whether this benefit is worth twofold cost should be considered by patient's individuation.

Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in elderly and octogenarian patients: a single-center, comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Although recent reports have suggested the advantages of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), the potential benefits of this approach in elderly patients remain unclear. The aim of this study was to clarify the value of LDP in the elderly, in whom co-morbid diseases were generally more common. METHODS: Seventy elderly patients (≥ 70 years) and 264 non-elderly patients (40-69 years) who underwent LDP, and 48 elderly patients (≥ 70 years) who underwent open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) between May 2005 and May 2018 were studied. Demographics, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Comorbidity was more common in elderly patients than in non-elderly patients who underwent LDP (57.1 vs. 38.3%, p < 0.01). The intraoperative factors, postoperative complication rate, and length of hospital stay were comparable in these two groups. Elderly patients who underwent LDP had a significantly shorter operative time (185.5 vs. 208.0 min, p = 0.02), less blood loss (191.0 vs. 291.8 mL, p < 0.01), and reduced length of postoperative hospital stay (11.4 vs. 15.1 days, p < 0.01) than elderly patients who had ODP. The overall complication rate tended to be lower in LDP group than that in ODP group (20.0 vs. 33.3%, p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: LDP performed on the elderly is safe and feasible, leading to short-term outcomes similar to those of non-elderly patients. LDP could be an alternative to ODP in elderly patients, providing a lower rate of morbidity and favorable postoperative recovery and outcomes.

Short and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A single-center experience (retrospective cohort study).

BACKGROUND: Limited studies have been designed to evaluate the short and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG). The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and oncological outcomes of LTG. METHODS: A total of 290 consecutive patients underwent radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer in our institution between 2010 and 2016, from which 110 were performed laparoscopically and included in the study. Short and long-term outcomes of LTG, such as operative results, postoperative courses, morbidities, and mortality, were investigated and compared with those of laparoscopy distal gastrectomy (LDG) patients. RESULTS: From the total of 110 patients who underwent LTG, no one underwent conversion. The mean operation time was 267 ±â€¯88 min. The mean reconstruction time was 45.3 ±â€¯15 min, and the mean intraoperative blood loss was 75.4 ±â€¯20 ml. The time until the first flatus was 4 ±â€¯1.5 days. The time to start soft diet was 7 ±â€¯1.8 days. The length of postoperative hospital stay was 9 ±â€¯2 days. The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was 34.7 ±â€¯9. Compared with the LDG group, the mean operation time, the mean reconstruction time, number of retrieved lymph nodes, and time of start soft diet were significantly longer in the LTG group (P＜0.05).The postoperative complication rates of the LTG group and LDG group were 10% and 8.3% (P＞0.05), respectively. The 3-year cumulative survival rates of the LTG group and LDG group were 53.8% and 56.6% (P = 0.21), respectively. CONCLUSION: LTG for gastric cancer is a safe, reliable and minimally invasive procedure with short and long-term outcomes similar to those of LDG.

Emergent Laparoscopic Colectomy Is an Effective Alternative to Open Resection for Benign and Malignant Diseases: a Meta-Analysis.

The aim of this study is to compare the perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic and open resections performed for colonic emergencies. A systematic search of the literature identified previously published comparative studies regarding emergent laparoscopic colectomy (ELC) and emergent open colectomy (EOC). Meta-analysis was performed utilizing a pooled odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous variables and a weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous variables with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Eleven studies involving 752 patients were identified. Although operation time was noted to be significantly shorter for EOC, patients post-ELC had significantly lower overall morbidity (OR 0.44; 95 % CI 0.30, 0.66; P < 0.0001). Meanwhile, recovery time for post-ELC patients was significantly shorter, as was the length of hospital stay (WMD -2.78 days; 95 % CI -3.17, -2.38; P < 0.00001), the time to regular dietary habits (WMD -1.32 days; 95 % CI -2.51, -0.13; P = 0.03), and the time to recover bowel movement (WMD -0.55 days; 95 % CI -0.89, -0.22; P = 0.001). Reoperation rate and mortality were found to be comparable between ELC and EOC. The R0 resection rate and the number of lymph nodes harvested were also comparable between ELC and EOC for malignant diseases. Whether for benign or malignant disease, ELC is a safe and feasible procedure for colonic emergencies compared with EOC, despite being relatively time-consuming.

Comparison of clinical outcomes and quality of life between laparoscopic and open central pancreatectomy with pancreaticojejunostomy.

BACKGROUND: The studies comparing laparoscopic and open central pancreatectomy with pancreaticojejunostomy are limited. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and quality of life of patients undergoing laparoscopic and open central pancreatectomy with pancreaticojejunostomy. METHODS: Between December 1997 and December 2015, patients who underwent central pancreatectomy with pancreaticojejunostomy were reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups as laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) and open central pancreatectomy (OCP). Data considered for comparison analysis were patient demographics, intraoperative variables, morbidity, postoperative hospital stay, mortality, pathologic findings, and quality of life (SF-36 questionnaire). RESULTS: Thirty-six patients (17 LCP and 19 OCP) were included in the final analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. The operating time (280.4 ± 33.6 vs. 290.5 ± 62.5 min, p = 0.455) were similar between two groups. LCP group showed significantly lower estimated blood loss (76.4 ± 70.3 vs. 390.3 ± 279.0 ml, p = 0.001), shorter first flatus time (2.4 ± 0.9 vs. 3.9 ± 1.3 days, p = 0.001), and shorter diet start time (4.1 ± 2.2 vs. 6.1 ± 2.4 days, p = 0.030). However, the postoperative hospital stay was not significantly different between two groups (15.6 ± 12.1 vs. 24.0 ± 27.5 days, p = 0.347). Postoperative outcomes, including morbidity (58.8 vs. 52.6%, p = 0.749), pancreatic fistula rates (≥grade B: 17.6 vs. 36.8%, p = 0.106), and mortality, were similar in the 2 groups. The median follow-up period was 45 months (range 4-216 months). No local recurrence or distant metastasis was detected in either group. On the follow-up survey, the total quality of life score (702.9 ± 47.9 vs. 671.8 ± 94.1), physical health score (353.9 ± 24.8 vs. 326.6 ± 67.6) and mental health score (349.0 ± 26.5 vs. 345.2 ± 34.6) were higher in the LCP group compared with the OCP group. However, these differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The score in role physical (100 vs. 73.1 ± 4.8, p = 0.042) was significantly higher in LCP group, and not statistically significant in other areas (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LCP with pancreaticojejunostomy is safe and feasible for benign or borderline malignant lesions in the pancreatic neck and proximal body. Compared to OCP, LCP is associated with lower estimated blood loss, faster recovery, and better quality of life.

Risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy using stapler closure technique from one single surgeon.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is a safe and reliable treatment for tumors in the body and tail of the pancreas. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a common complication of pancreatic surgery. Despite improvement in mortality, the rate of POPF still remains high and unsolved. To identify risk factors for POPF after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, clinicopathological variables on 120 patients who underwent LDP with stapler closure were retrospectively analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for POPF. The rate of overall and clinically significant POPF was 30.8% and13.3%, respectively. Higher BMI (≥25kg/m2) (p-value = 0.025) and longer operative time (p-value = 0.021) were associated with overall POPF but not clinically significant POPF. Soft parenchymal texture was significantly associated with both overall (p-value = 0.012) and clinically significant POPF (p-value = 0.000). In multivariable analyses, parenchymal texture (OR, 2.933, P-value = 0.011) and operative time (OR, 1.008, P-value = 0.022) were risk factors for overall POPF. Parenchymal texture was an independent predictive factor for clinically significant POPF (OR, 7.400, P-value = 0.001).

Laparoscopic ligation of celiac trunk and splenic artery aneurysms with function preservation.

Celiac trunk aneurysms (CTAs) are rare and usually asymptomatic. Although most of these aneurysms can be treated with percutaneous embolization, some uncommon locations of the aneurysm may make this approach impossible. We report a patient with a celiac trunk aneurysm (CTA) and a proximal splenic artery aneurysm (SAA). Due to the size and location of these two aneurysms, after multidisciplinary discussion, endovascular management was considered inappropriate and they were treated by laparoscopic ligation of the two aneurysms and revascularization. This procedure offers good postoperative recovery with good preservation of the visceral function. Some collateral vessels in the viscera were obvious on postoperative day 7.

Aldehyde dehydrogenase 3A1 is robustly upregulated in gastric cancer stem-like cells and associated with tumorigenesis.

Enhanced aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) activity has been shown to serve as a hallmark for cancer stem cells (CSCs). Recent evidence suggests that its role as a stem cell-related marker has come down to the specific isoform. However, little is known about the specific ALDH isoform contributing to aldefluor activity in gastric cancer. In this study, we isolated ALDHbright cells from 2 human gastric cancer cell lines MKN-45 and SGC­7901 by using an Aldefluor assay and found elevated self-renewal, differentiation and tumorigenicity, as demonstration of stemness characteristics. We also found that ALDHbright cells expressed decreased levels of E-cadherin but increased levels of Snail and Vimentin, indication of an epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) phenotype which may be responsible for the enhanced metastatic potential. Since further research and prognostic application based on ALDH prevalence require the quantification of the specific ALDH isoform, we characterized the expression of all 19 ALDH isoforms in the sorted gastric cancer cell lines by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Compared with the non-stem counterparts, robust upregulation of ALDH-3A1 was observed in these gastric cancer stem-like cells. Furthermore, we performed immunohistological analysis on 93 fixed patient gastric tumor samples and found that ALDH-3A1 expression correlated well with gastric cancer dysplasia and grades, differentiation, lymph node metastasis and cancer stage. Our data, therefore, provide strong evidence that ALDH-3A1 is a novel gastric cancer stem cell related marker with potential prognostic values and demonstrate a clear association between ALDH-3A1 prevalence and gastric cancer progression.

Laparoscopic versus open enucleation for pancreatic neoplasms: clinical outcomes and pancreatic function analysis.

BACKGROUND: The studies comparing laparoscopic enucleation (LE) with open enucleation (OE) are limited. This study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing LE and OE and to assess the pancreatic function after LE. METHODS: Between February 2001 and July 2014, patients who underwent enucleation were reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups as LE and OE. Data considered for comparison analysis were patient demographics, intraoperative variables, morbidity, postoperative hospital stay, mortality, pathologic findings, and long-term follow-up (including pancreatic function). RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (15 LE and 22 OE) were included in the final analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. LE group showed significantly shorter operating time (118.2 ± 33.1 vs. 155.2 ± 44.3 min, p = 0.009), lower estimated blood loss (80.0 ± 71.2 vs. 195.5 ± 103.4 ml, p = 0.001), shorter first flatus time (1.8 ± 1.0 vs. 3.4 ± 1.8 days, p = 0.004), shorter diet start time (2.4 ± 1.0 vs. 4.4 ± 2.0 days, p = 0.001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (7.9 ± 3.4 vs. 11.2 ± 5.7 days, p = 0.046). Postoperative outcomes, including morbidity (40.0 vs. 45.5 %, p = 1.000), grade B/C pancreatic fistula rates (20.0 vs. 13.6 %, p = 0.874), and mortality, were similar in the two groups. The median follow-up period was 47 months (range 7-163 months). No local recurrence or distant metastasis was detected in either group. Only one patient (4.8 %) underwent OE developed new-onset diabetes, in comparison with none in the LE group. One patient (7.1 %) had weight loss and received pancreatic enzyme supplementation in the LE group, in comparison with two patients (9.5 %) in the OE group. CONCLUSIONS: LE is a safe and feasible technique for the benign or low malignant-potential pancreatic neoplasms. Compared to OE, LE had shorter operating time, lower estimated blood loss, and faster recovery. LE could preserve the pancreatic function as the OE.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign or premalignant pancreatic neoplasms: a two-center comparative study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the peri-operative outcomes for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for benign or premalignant pancreatic neoplasms in two institutions. METHODS: This prospective comparative study included 91 consecutive patients who underwent LDP (n=45) or ODP (n=46) from Jan. 2010 to Dec. 2012. Demographics, intra-operative characteristics, and post-operative outcomes were compared. RESULTS: The median operating time in the LDP group was (158.7±38.3) min compared with (92.2±24.1) min in the ODP group (P<0.001). Patients had lower blood loss in LDP than in the ODP ((122.6±61.1) ml vs. (203.1±84.8) ml, P<0.001). The rates of splenic conservation between the LDP and ODP groups were similar (53.3% vs. 47.8%, P=0.35). All spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomies were conducted with vessel preservation. LDP also demonstrated better post-operative outcomes. The time to oral intake and normal daily activities was faster in the LDP group than in the ODP group ((1.6±0.5) d vs. (3.2±0.7) d, P<0.01; (1.8±0.4) d vs. (2.1±0.6) d, P=0.02, respectively), and the post-operative length of hospital stay in LDP was shorter than that in ODP ((7.9±3.8) d vs. (11.9±5.8) d, P=0.006). No difference in tumor size ((4.7±3.2) cm vs. (4.5±1.8) cm, P=0.77) or overall pancreatic fistula rate (15.6% vs. 19.6%, P=0.62) was found between the groups, while the overall post-operative complication rate was lower in the LDP group (26.7% vs. 47.8%, P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: LDP is safe and effective for benign or premalignant pancreatic neoplasms, featuring lower blood loss and substantially faster recovery.

Resection of a cholangiocarcinoma via laparoscopic hepatopancreato- duodenectomy: a case report.

Some laterally advanced cholangiocarcinomas behave as ductal spread or local invasion, and hepatopancreatoduodenectomy (HPD) may be performed for R0 resection. To date, there have been no reports of laparoscopic HPD (LHPD) in the English literature. We report the first case of LHPD for the resection of a Bismuth IIIa cholangiocarcinoma invading the duodenum. The patient underwent laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and right hemihepatectomy. Child's approach was used for the reconstruction. The patient recovered well with bile leakage from the 2(nd) postoperative day and was discharged on the 16(th) postoperative day with a drainage tube in place which was removed 2 wk after discharge. Postoperative pathology revealed a well-differentiated cholangiocarcinoma and the margin of liver parenchyma, pancreas and stomach was negative for metastases. The results suggest that LHPD is a feasible and safe procedure when performed in highly specialized centers and in suitable patients with cholangiocarcinoma.

[Totally laparoscopic versus laparoscopic assisted distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis].

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) with laparoscopic assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for gastric cancer by meta-analysis. METHODS: The literature on comparative studies of TLDG and LADG up to June 2014 were extensively retrieved from database PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Biosis Previews. The operation time, blood loss, time to flatus, time to first oral intake, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative morbidity, times of analgestic requirement, pain score, and the level of C-reactive protein (CRP) on postoperative day 1 and 7 were analyzed. The statistical analysis was performed with RevMan 5.1 software. RESULTS: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. A total of 1783 Patients were included for meta-analysis, among whom 727 cases underwent TLDG and 1056 underwent LADG. Comparing with LADG, TLDG experienced less blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD)=22.86 ml，95% confidence interval (CI): 12.0-33.72, P<0.01)], less times of analgesic requirement (WMD=0.58, 95% CI: 0.35-0.81, P< 0.01)，less pain score on postoperative day 1 and day 3 (day1: WMD=0.60, 95% CI: 0.20-0.99, P < 0.01; day3: WMD=0.36, 95% CI: 0.24-0.48, P < 0.01), earlier beginning to take diet (WMD=0.66, 95% CI: 0.13-1.19, P=0.01). The operation time, postoperative hospital stay, overall morbidity and anastomosis-related morbidity, and the level of CRP on postoperative day 1 and 7 were similar between two groups (Ps>0.05). CONCLUSION: TLDG is a safe and feasible procedure with less blood loss, less pain, and quicker recovery than those of LADG.