Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this multicentre cohort study was to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for patients with gastric cancer. METHODS: Patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy by robotic or laparoscopic approaches from 1 March 2010 to 31 December 2018 at 10 high-volume centres in China were selected from institutional databases. Patients receiving RG were matched 1 : 1 by propensity score with patients undergoing LG. The primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes were overall survival and disease recurrence. RESULTS: Some 2055 patients who underwent RG and 4309 patients who had LG were included. The propensity score-matched cohort comprised 2026 RGs and 2026 LGs. Median follow-up was 41 (i.q.r. 39-58) months for the RG group and 39 (38-56) months for the LG group. The 3-year disease-free survival rates were 80.8% in the RG group and 79.5% in the LG group (log rank P = 0.240; HR 0.92, 95% c.i. 0.80 to 1.06; P = 0.242). Three-year OS rates were 83.9 and 81.8% respectively (log rank P = 0.068; HR 0.87, 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.068) and the cumulative incidence of recurrence over 3 years was 19.3% versus 20.8% (HR 0.95, 0.88 to 1.03; P = 0.219), with no difference between groups. CONCLUSION: RG and LG in patients with gastric cancer are associated with comparable disease-free and overall survival.

Robotic Gastrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Cohort Study of 5402 Patients in China.

OBJECTIVE: A large-scale multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: RG is being increasingly used worldwide, but data from large-scale multicenter studies on the short- and long-term oncologic outcomes of RG versus LG are limited. The potential benefits of RG compared with LG for gastric cancer remain controversial. METHODS: Data from eligible patients who underwent RG or LG for gastric cancer of 11 experienced surgeons from 7 centers in China between March 2010 and October 2019 were collected. The RG group was matched 1:1 with the LG group by using propensity score matching. The primary outcome was postoperative complications. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, a well-balanced cohort of 3552 patients was included for further analysis. The occurrence of overall complications (12.6% vs 15.2%, P = 0.023) was lower in the RG group than in the LG group. RG was associated with less blood loss (126.8 vs 142.5 mL, P < 0.001) and more retrieved lymph nodes in total (32.5 vs 30.7, P < 0.001) and in suprapancreatic areas (13.3 vs 11.6, P < 0.001).The long-term oncological outcomes were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this multicenter study demonstrate that RG is a safe and effective treatment for gastric cancer when performed by experienced surgeons, although longer operation time and higher costs are still concerns about RG. This study provides evidence suggesting that RG may represent an alternative surgical treatment to LG.

Effects of Transcutaneous Electrical Acupoint Stimulation (TEAS) on Postoperative Recovery in Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) is an innovative choice for postoperative pain management. However, the safety and effectiveness of this traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) therapy for patients who underwent gastrectomy is largely unknown. So, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of TEAS for patients who underwent gastrectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We recruited 96 patients with gastric cancer from May 2019 to November 2019; 82 patients were enrolled, and 81 patients completed. Patients were randomly assigned to TEAS group (TG) received TEAS on postoperative day (POD) 1-3 or control group (CG) at a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcomes were pain score and consumption of analgesics. The secondary were the time of first postoperative flatus and defecation, frequency of postoperative nausea, vomiting, distention, diarrhea, comfort of semi-fluid diet, Clavien-Dindo grade (C-D grade) and length of postoperative day. We performed hematological analysis to explore the possible mechanisms. RESULTS: Overall, 81 patients were enrolled included in the analysis. Compared with CG, pain scores in TG were lower on POD 1-5 (average: 2.55±0.21 vs 3.10±0.42, P<0.001), and the use rate of opioids was lower (43.9 vs 75.0, P=0.004); time of first postoperative flatus (55.63±16.74 vs 72.60±20.92, P<0.001) and defecation (72.20±16.24 vs 95.78±17.75, P<0.001) were shorter; the frequency of nausea were fewer (1.88±1.09 vs 2.58±0.77, P=0.029) and patients were more comfortable with semi-fluid diet (7.63±0.63 vs 6.93±0.69, P<0.001); among the hematologic results, ß-endorphin (ß-End), interleukin-2 (IL-2), motilin (MTL) on POD 3, POD 5 were lower, 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT), interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were higher. And no adverse event was reported. CONCLUSION: TEAS can relieve postoperative pain and promote the recovery of gastrointestinal function. Consequently, it can be an adjunctive therapy to enhance postoperative recovery for patients after gastrectomy.

Short- and long-term outcomes associated with enhanced recovery after surgery protocol vs conventional management in patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: At present, the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is widely implemented in the field of gastric surgery. However, the effect of the ERAS protocol on the long-term prognosis of gastric cancer has not been reported. AIM: To compare the effects of ERAS and conventional protocols on short-term outcomes and long-term prognosis after laparoscopic gastrectomy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 1026 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy between 2012 and 2015. The patients were divided into either an ERAS group or a conventional group. The groups were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores based on covariates that affect cancer survival. The primary outcomes were the 5-year overall and cancer-specific survival rates. The secondary outcomes were the postoperative short-term outcomes and inflammatory indexes. RESULTS: The patient demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups after matching. Compared to the conventional group, the ERAS group had a significantly shorter postoperative hospital day (7.09 d vs 8.67 d, P < 0.001), shorter time to first flatus, liquid intake, and ambulation (2.50 d vs 3.40 d, P < 0.001; 1.02 d vs 3.64 d, P < 0.001; 1.47 d vs 2.99 d, P < 0.001, respectively), and lower medical costs ($7621.75 vs $7814.16, P = 0.009). There was a significantly higher rate of postoperative complications among patients in the conventional group than among those in the ERAS group (18.1 vs 12.3, P = 0.030). Regarding inflammatory indexes, the C-reactive protein and procalcitonin levels on postoperative day 3/4 were significantly different between the two groups (P < 0.001 and P = 0.025, respectively). The ERAS protocol was associated with significantly improved 5-year overall survival and cancer-specific survival rates compared with conventional protocol (P = 0.013 and 0.032, respectively). When stratified by tumour stage, only the survival of patients with stage III disease was significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.044). CONCLUSION: Adherence to the ERAS protocol improves both the short-term outcomes and the 5-year overall survival and cancer-specific survival of patients after laparoscopic gastrectomy.

Restenosis after recanalization for Budd-Chiari syndrome: Management and long-term results of 60 patients.

BACKGROUND: Budd-Chiari syndrome is defined as hepatic venous outflow tract obstruction. For Asian Budd-Chiari syndrome patients, the major treatment modality is recanalization (percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with or without stent implantation). The cumulative 1-, 5-, and 10-year primary patency rates and survival rates are reported to be excellent or satisfactory, but the long-term outcome of patients with restenosis (the most common complication after recanalization) is unknown. AIM: To explore the treatment strategy for restenosis in patients with Budd-Chiari syndrome after interventional therapy and to evaluate the long-term follow-up results. METHODS: The clinical data and follow-up results of 60 patients with restenosis after interventional therapy from November 1983 to December 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty patients with restenosis were retrospectively divided into a percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) group (40 patients) and a PTA + stent group (20 patients) according to the primary recanalization method. For the patients with restenosis in the PTA group, 13 refused treatment, and 27 received further treatment; among these patients, five had a second restenosis, two had a third restenosis, and one had a fourth restenosis. For the patients with restenosis in the PTA + stent group, nine refused treatment, ten received PTA alone, and the other received PTA + stent implantation. Among the patients who received further treatment, five had a second restenosis, three had a third restenosis, and one had a fourth restenosis. The 1-, 5-, 10-, 20-, and 25-year cumulative survival rates of the 38 patients who received further treatment after restenosis were 100%, 78.3%, 78.3%, 70.5%, and 70.5%, respectively; however, for the 22 patients who refused treatment, the survival rates were 72.7%, 45.9%, 30.6%, 10.2%, and unavailable, respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Long-term follow-up after interventional therapy is very important. Active treatment for patients with restenosis can improve prognosis, and minimally invasive treatment strategies for restenosis allows to obtain satisfactory results.

Treatment effects of systematic two-stent and provisional stenting techniques in patients with complex coronary bifurcation lesions: rationale and design of a prospective, randomised and multicentre DEFINITION II trial.

INTRODUCTION: Provisional stenting (PS) for simple coronary bifurcation lesions is the mainstay of treatment. A systematic two-stent approach is widely used for complex bifurcation lesions (CBLs). However, a randomised comparison of PS and two-stent techniques for CBLs has never been studied. Accordingly, the present study is designed to elucidate the benefits of two-stent treatment over PS in patients with CBLs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This DEFINITION II study is a prospective, multinational, randomised, endpoint-driven trial to compare the benefits of the two-stent technique with PS for CBLs. A total of 660 patients with CBLs will be randomised in a 1:1 fashion to receive either PS or the two-stent technique. The primary endpoint is the rate of 12-month target lesion failure defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI) and clinically driven target lesion revascularisation. The major secondary endpoints include all causes of death, MI, target vessel revascularisation, in-stent restenosis, stroke and each individual component of the primary endpoints. The safety endpoint is the occurrence of definite or probable stent thrombosis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol and informed consent have been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Nanjing First Hospital, and accepted by each participating centre. Written informed consent was obtained from all enrolled patients. Findings of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02284750; Pre-results.