A prospective randomized trial comparing the efficacy of temperature-responsive gel with local anesthetics versus local anesthetic infusion pump device for postoperative pain control after bariatric surgery.

Purpose: Bariatric surgery is the gold standard for the treatment of morbid obesity, but postoperative pain impedes recovery. Currently available pain-recovery treatments have patient safety concerns. This led to a noninferiority study of Welpass (Genewel Co., Ltd.) vs. On-Q PainBuster (B. Braun), each used alongside a traditional method of continuous local anesthetic administration, in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Methods: In this single-center prospective randomized clinical trial, patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the treatment group (Welpass) and the control group (On-Q PainBuster), with ketorolac administered as needed after surgery according to the protocol. To assess efficacy, the total amount of ketorolac used up to 72 hours postoperatively was measured. Additionally, ketorolac usage and numerical rating scales (NRS) were recorded at 6, 24, 48, and 72 hours after operation. Results: The total amounts of ketorolac used in the 72 hours postoperatively were 188.0 ± 84.6 mg in the treatment group and 198.7 ± 50.0 mg in the control group. The efficacy of the treatment group was noninferior to that of the control group, since the lower limit (-29.9 mg) of the confidence interval for the difference with the control group was greater than the prespecified noninferiority margin (-35.0 mg). Furthermore, when the NRS was evaluated after bariatric surgery, there was no significant difference in scores between the 2 groups at each time point (P > 0.05). Conclusion: We found no difference in effect on pain between the 2 groups, supporting the use of Welpass in clinical practice for pain management in patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

Safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in overweight and obese gastric cancer patients: a propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: The technical challenges and safety concerns of single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy for overweight and obese gastric cancer patients remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (SIDG) compared to multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) in overweight and obese gastric cancer patients. METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed overweight and obese patients (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2) and pathologic stage T1 primary gastric adenocarcinoma treated with either SIDG or MLDG. The SIDG and MLDG groups were propensity score matched at a 1:2 ratio using age, sex, height, body weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, year of surgery, pathologic N stage, and anastomosis method as covariates. RESULTS: After 1:2 matching, the study included patients who underwent SIDG (n = 179) and MLDG (n = 358). No significant difference in the number of retrieved lymph nodes was found between the SIDG and MLDG groups (52.8 ± 19.3 vs. 53.9 ± 21.0, P = 0.56). Operation times were significantly shorter in the SIDG group (170.8 ± 60.0 min vs. 186.1 ± 52.6 min, P = 0.004). The postoperative hospital length of stay was comparable between the 2 groups (SIDG: 5.9 ± 3.4 days vs. MLDG: 6.3 ± 5.1 days, P = 0.23), as was postoperative complication rate (SIDG: 13.4% vs. MLDG: 12.8%, P = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: SIDG was shown to be as safe and feasible as MLDG for overweight and obese gastric cancer patients, with comparable early postoperative complication rates without compromising operation time compared to MLDG.

Efficacy of Hyperthermic Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy in an In Vitro Model Using a Human Gastric Cancer AGS Cell Line and an Abdominal Cavity Model.

PURPOSE: Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) presents a major challenge in the treatment of late-stage, solid tumors, with traditional therapies limited by poor drug penetration. We evaluated a novel hyperthermic pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (HPIPAC) system using a human abdominal cavity model for its efficacy against AGS gastric cancer cells. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A model simulating the human abdominal cavity and AGS gastric cancer cell line cultured dishes were used to assess the efficacy of the HPIPAC system. Cell viability was measured to evaluate the impact of HPIPAC under 6 different conditions: heat alone, PIPAC with paclitaxel (PTX), PTX alone, normal saline (NS) alone, heat with NS, and HPIPAC with PTX. RESULTS: Results showed a significant reduction in cell viability with HPIPAC combined with PTX, indicating enhanced cytotoxic effects. Immediately after treatment, the average cell viability was 66.6%, which decreased to 49.2% after 48 hours and to a further 19.6% after 120 hours of incubation, demonstrating the sustained efficacy of the treatment. In contrast, control groups exhibited a recovery in cell viability; heat alone showed cell viability increasing from 90.8% to 94.4%, PIPAC with PTX from 82.7% to 89.7%, PTX only from 73.3% to 74.8%, NS only from 90.9% to 98.3%, and heat with NS from 74.4% to 84.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The HPIPAC system with PTX exhibits a promising approach in the treatment of PC in gastric cancer, significantly reducing cell viability. Despite certain limitations, this study highlights the system's potential to enhance treatment outcomes. Future efforts should focus on refining HPIPAC and validating its effectiveness in clinical settings.

MUC16 as a serum-based prognostic indicator of prometastatic gastric cancer.

Metastatic gastric cancer (GC) presents significant clinical challenges due to its poor prognosis and limited treatment options. To address this, we conducted a targeted protein biomarker discovery study to identify markers predictive of metastasis in advanced GC (AGC). Serum samples from 176 AGC patients (T stage 3 or higher) were analyzed using the Olink Proteomics Target panels. Patients were retrospectively categorized into nonmetastatic, metastatic, and recurrence groups, and differential protein expression was assessed. Machine learning and gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) methods were applied to discover biomarkers and predict prognosis. Four proteins (MUC16, CAIX, 5'-NT, and CD8A) were significantly elevated in metastatic GC patients compared to the control group. Additionally, GSEA indicated that the response to interleukin-4 and hypoxia-related pathways were enriched in metastatic patients. Random forest classification and decision-tree modeling showed that MUC16 could be a predictive marker for metastasis in GC patients. Additionally, ELISA validation confirmed elevated MUC16 levels in metastatic patients. Notably, high MUC16 levels were independently associated with metastatic progression in T3 or higher GC. These findings suggest the potential of MUC16 as a clinically relevant biomarker for identifying GC patients at high risk of metastasis.

Hyperthermic pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol drug delivery system in a large animal model: a feasibility and safety study.

BACKGROUND: We developed a novel drug delivery system called hyperthermic pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (HPIPAC) that hybridized Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). The present study aims to assess the feasibility and safety of HPIPAC system in a large animal survival model. METHODS: Eleven pigs (eight non-survival models and three survival models) were used in the experiment. The heat module in the HPIPAC controller circulates hyperthermic CO2 in a closed-loop circuit and creates gas-based dry intraperitoneal hyperthermia. Three 12 mm trocars were placed on the abdomen. The afferent CO2 tube wound with heat generating coil was inserted into a trocar, and the efferent tube was inserted into another trocar. Heated CO2 was insufflated and circulated in a closed circuit until the intra-abdominal and peritoneal surface temperature reached 42 °C. 100 ml of 5% dextrose in water was nebulized for 5 min and the closed-loop circulation was resumed for 60 min at 42 °C. Tissue biopsies were taken from several sites from the pigs in the survival model. RESULTS: The average change in core temperature of the pigs was 2.5 ± 0.08 °C. All three pigs displayed no signs of distress, and their vital signs remained stable, with no changes in their diet. In autopsy, inflammatory and fibrotic responses at the biopsy sites were observed without serious pathologic findings. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully proved the feasibility and safety of our novel HPIPAC system in an in-vivo swine survival model.

Analysis of Characteristics and Risk Factors of Patients with Single Gastric Cancer and Synchronous Multiple Gastric Cancer among 14,603 Patients.

Background/Aims: Synchronous multiple gastric cancer (SMGC) accounts for approximately 6% to 14% of gastric cancer (GC) cases. This study aimed to identify risk factors for SMGC. Methods: A total of 14,603 patients diagnosed with GC were prospectively enrolled. Data including age, sex, body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, family history, p53 expression, microsatellite instability, cancer classification, lymph node metastasis, and treatment were collected. Risk factors were analyzed using logistic regression analysis between a single GC and SMGC. Results: The incidence of SMGC was 4.04%, and that of early GC (EGC) and advanced GC (AGC) was 5.43% and 3.11%, respectively. Patients with SMGC were older (65.33 years vs 61.75 years, p<0.001) and more likely to be male. Lymph node metastasis was found in 27% of patients with SMGC and 32% of patients with single GC. Multivariate analysis showed that SMGC was associated with sex (male odds ratio [OR], 1.669; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.223 to 2.278; p=0.001), age (≥65 years OR, 1.532; 95% CI, 1.169 to 2.008; p=0.002), and EGC (OR, 1.929; 95% CI, 1.432 to 2.600; p<0.001). Survival rates were affected by Lauren classification, sex, tumor size, cancer type, distant metastasis, and venous invasion but were not related to the number of GCs. However, the survival rate of AGC with SMGC was very high. Conclusions: SMGC had unique characteristics such as male sex, older age, and EGC, and the survival rate of AGC, in which the intestinal type was much more frequent, was very good (Trial registration number: NCT04973631).

Single-port intragastric wedge resection using the tunnel method: a novel surgical approach for treating endophytic gastric subepithelial tumors.

BACKGROUND: Intragastric wedge resection is an effective method for treating endophytic gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). However, retracting the stomach wall to the umbilicus is difficult in certain patients. In response, we developed a novel surgical technique for single-port intragastric wedge resection, which we termed the "tunnel method." METHODS: A transumbilical incision is made, and a wound retractor is applied. After diagnostic laparoscopy, a gastrostomy is made on the greater curvature, lower body. Another small wound retractor is inserted into the gastrostomy, and extracted through the transumbilical incision, creating a tunnel from the gastrostomy site to the umbilicus. Articulating laparoscopic instruments are inserted via the tunnel, and intragastric wedge resection is performed. We collected and analyzed the clinicopathologic and operative data of patients who underwent intragastric wedge resection via the tunnel method. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients who underwent single-port intragastric wedge resection via the tunnel method in a single tertiary referral hospital were included in this study. The mean age of the patients was 54.6 ± 11.4 years, body mass index was 26.5 ± 3.4 kg/m2. Twenty-four (88.9%) patients had tumors located in the upper third of the stomach. The average operative time was 65.0 ± 24.2 min. None of the patients experienced Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa or higher postoperative complications. The average postoperative hospital stay length was 2.5 ± 0.8 days. Thirteen gastrointestinal stromal tumors, nine leiomyomas, and one neuroendocrine carcinoma, schwannoma, lipoma, spindle cell proliferative lesion, and fibrotic lesion were pathologically diagnosed. The average tumor size was 2.6 ± 1.3 cm. All cases had negative resection margins. CONCLUSIONS: Single-port intragastric wedge resection by the tunnel method is a feasible and safe approach for treating endophytic gastric SETs.

The Shorr Versus Modified Ultrafast Papanicolaou Method for Intraoperative Diagnosis of Peritoneal Washing Cytology in Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Phase II Study.

PURPOSE: According to the American Joint Committee on Cancer cancer staging system, positive peritoneal washing cytology (PWC) indicates stage IV gastric cancer. However, rapid intraoperative diagnosis of PWC has no established reliable method. This study evaluated and compared the diagnostic accuracy of the Shorr and the modified ultrafast Papanicolaou (MUFP) methods for intraoperative PWC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included patients with gastric cancer who were clinically diagnosed with stage cT3 or higher. The Shorr and MUFP methods were performed on all PWC specimens, and the results were compared with those of conventional Papanicolaou (PAP) staining with carcinoembryonic antigen immunohistochemistry. Sensitivity, specificity, and partial likelihood tests were used to compare the 2 methods. RESULTS: Forty patients underwent intraoperative PWC between November 2019 and August 2021. The average time between specimen reception and slide preparation using Shorr and MUFP methods was 44.4±4.5 minutes, and the average time between specimen reception and pathologic diagnosis was 53.9±8.9 minutes. Eight patients (20.0%) had positive cytology in PAP staining. The Shorr method had a sensitivity of 75.0% and specificity of 93.8%; the MUFP method had 62.5% sensitivity and 100.0% specificity. The area under the curve was 0.844 for Shorr and 0.813 for MUFP. In comparing the C-indices of each method with overall survival, no difference was found among the Shorr, MUFP, and conventional PAP methods. CONCLUSIONS: The Shorr and MUFP methods are acceptable for the intraoperative diagnosis of PWC in advanced gastric cancer.

Feasibility and safety of pure single-incision laparoscopic total and proximal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: propensity score-matched comparison to multiport totally laparoscopic approach.

BACKGROUND: There have been few studies regarding the feasibility and safety of pure single-incision laparoscopic total gastrectomy (SITG) or proximal gastrectomy (SIPG) for early gastric cancer (EGC). The purpose of this study was to analyze the surgical outcome of all consecutive SITG or SIPG cases compared with multiport laparoscopic total gastrectomy (MLTG) or proximal gastrectomy (MLPG) for EGC. METHODS: We analyzed all consecutive SITG or SIPG cases with double-tract reconstruction for ECG, including the initial case, between March 2013 and December 2021. SITG/SIPG was performed on patients without significant systemic comorbidities through a 3-4 cm vertical transumbilical incision. SITG/SIPG was matched to multiport laparoscopic total or proximal gastrectomy (MLTG/MLPG) cases performed in the same period using a 1:3 propensity score matching, including sex, body mass index (BMI), age and type of resection, year of operation, and institution as covariates. We compared perioperative clinicopathological characteristics and early postoperative morbidity within 1 month after surgery between the SITG/SIPG and MLTG/MLPG groups. RESULTS: In total, 21 patients with SITG and 15 patients with SIPG were compared with those with MLTG (n = 264) and MLPG (n = 220). No conversion to an open or multiport approach occurred in the SITG/SIPG group. After matching, operation time was similar between SITG/SIPG and MLTG/MLPG (223.9 ± 63.5 min vs 234.8 ± 68.7 min, P = 0.402). Length of stay was not significantly different between SITG/SIPG and MLTG/MLPG (11.9 ± 15.4 days vs 8.4 ± 5.0 days, P = 0.210). The average number of retrieved lymph nodes was not significantly different between SITG and MLTG (53.1 ± 16.3 vs 63.2 ± 27.5, P = 0.115), but it was significantly higher in SIPG than MLPG (59.6 ± 27.2 vs 46.0 ± 19.7, P = 0.040). The overall complication rate (30.6% vs 25.9%, P = 0.666) and Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complication rates (13.9% vs 6.5%, P = 0.175) were not significantly different between the SITG/SIPG and MLTG/MLPG groups. CONCLUSION: Cautious adoption of SITG/SIPG procedures for EGC is feasible and safe.

Feasibility of articulating laparoscopic instruments in laparoscopic gastrectomy using propensity score matching.

Advancements in minimally invasive surgery has led to the development of several surgical instruments, including the ArtiSential®. This new instrument provides a greater range of motion and improved dexterity to laparoscopic procedures, making it an alternative option to traditional straight instruments, and the Da Vinci robot system. The purpose of this study is to compare the postoperative outcomes of a prospective cohort of patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy using articulating instruments with those of a historical cohort of patients who underwent the same procedure using straight instruments. The study was designed as a prospective observational cohort study matched to a retrospective historical cohort using propensity score matching. The primary outcome was the rate of early complications within 90 days of surgery. Other outcomes included the operation time, estimated blood loss, time to first flatus, time to first soft fluid diet, hospital stay, and mortality. After propensity score matching, 41 patients were enrolled in both groups. The mean age was 62.4 ± 12.3 years in the conventional group and 63.5 ± 9.6 years in the artisential group (p = 0.647). Mean operative time was significantly shorter in the artisential group compared to the conventional group (136.1 min vs. 163.9 min, p = 0.032). The time to first soft fluid diet was also significantly shorter in the artisential group (2.2 days vs. 2.8 days, p = 0.030), but there was no significant difference in the time to first flatus and overall hospital stay. The incidence of early complications was lower in the artisential group, but the difference was not significant (24.4% vs 7.3%, p = 0.070). There was no mortality in either group. The use of articulating instruments for laparoscopic gastrectomy did not increase postoperative morbidity compared to straight laparoscopic instruments. The use of articulating instruments may be associated with faster bowel recovery and less early complications.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes between bipolar sealing, ultrasonic shears and a hybrid device during laparoscopic gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: a prospective, multicenter, randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Although EBDs are essential for minimally invasive surgery, well-established prospective randomized studies comparing EBDs are scarce. This study aimed to compare the intraoperative inflammatory response and short-term surgical outcomes among different energy-based devices (EBDs) in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG). METHODS: Patients with clinical stage I gastric cancer scheduled for LDG at two different medical centers were prospectively randomized into three groups: ultrasonic shears (US), advanced bipolar (BP) and ultrasonic-bipolar hybrid (HB). The C-reactive protein (CRP) level, operation time, intraoperative blood loss (IBL), laboratory tests, cytokines (interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-10), hospital stay, and complication rate were analyzed. A novel semiquantitative measurement method using indocyanine green (ICG) and a near-infrared camera measured the amount of lymphatic leakage. RESULTS: The primary endpoint, the CRP level, was significantly lower in the BP (n = 60) group than in the US (n = 57) or HB (n = 57) group [9.03 ± 5.55 vs. 11.12 ± 5.02 vs. 12.67 ± 6.14, p = 0.001, on postoperative day (POD) 2 and 7.48 vs. 9.62 vs. 9.48, p = 0.026, on POD 4]. IBL was significantly lower in BP than in US or HB (26.3 ± 25.3 vs. 43.7 ± 42.0 vs. 34.9 ± 37.0, p = 0.032). Jackson-Pratt drainage triglycerides were significantly lower in BP than in US (53.6 ± 33.7 vs. 84.2 ± 59.0, p = 0.11; HB: 71.3 ± 51.4). ICG fluorescence intensity, operation time, laboratory results, cytokines, hospital stay, and complication rate were not significantly different among the 3 groups. CONCLUSION: BP showed a lower postoperative CRP level and less IBL than US and HB, suggesting less collateral thermal damage and better sealing function. Surgeons may consider this when selecting EBDs for laparoscopic surgery.

Postoperative major bleeding risk in patients using oral antiplatelets and/or anticoagulants after laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery.

Purpose: The use of antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapies has become common. In rare cases, these therapies may increase the risk of dangerous postoperative bleeding. We investigated the association of antiplatelets and/or anticoagulants with postoperative major bleeding risk in laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 3,663 gastric cancer patients (antiplatelet/anticoagulant group, 518; control group, 3,145) who had undergone laparoscopic surgery between January 2012 and December 2017. To minimize selection bias, 508 patients in each group were matched using propensity score matching (PSM) method. The primary outcome was postoperative major bleeding. Secondary outcomes were intraoperative, postoperative transfusion and early complications. Results: After PSM, postoperative major bleeding occurred in 10 (2.0%) and 3 cases (0.6%) in the antiplatelets/anticoagulants and control groups, respectively (P = 0.090). Intraoperative and postoperative transfusions were not significantly different between 2 groups (2.4% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.355 and 5.5% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.469). Early complications developed in 58 (11.4%) and 43 patients (8.5%) in the antiplatelets/anticoagulants and control groups, respectively (P = 0.142). The mean amounts of intraoperative and postoperative transfusions were not significantly different between the groups (366.67 ± 238.68 mL vs. 371.43 ± 138.01 mL, P = 0.962; 728.57 ± 642.25 mL vs. 508.09 ± 468.95 mL, P = 0.185). In multivariable analysis, male (P = 0.008) and advanced stage (III, IV) (P = 0.024) were independent significant risk factors for postoperative major bleeding. Conclusion: Preoperative antiplatelets and/or anticoagulants administration did not significantly increase the risk of postoperative major bleeding after laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery.

Postoperative pain and quality of life after single-incision distal gastrectomy versus multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer - a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although it has been more than ten years since its first introduction, single-incision distal gastrectomy (SIDG) still lacks solid evidence and there are also no reports on patient quality of life (QOL). This study evaluates the postoperative outcomes and patient QOL of SIDG compared to multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG). METHODS: This study was designed as a prospective phase II randomized controlled study. Patients diagnosed with early gastric cancer in the distal 2/3rd of the stomach were randomized to either multiport or single-port group. Primary endpoint was pain using the visual analogue scale on postoperative day (POD) 1. Other outcomes include operative data, complications, and patient QOL using the EORTC C30 and STO22 modules. RESULTS: A total of 43 patients in the SIDG group and 40 patients in the MLDG group were enrolled from September 2017 to February 2020. Mean operation time was 154.3 ± 53.3 min in the MLDG group and 148.9 ± 50.1 min in the SIDG group (p = 0.631). There was no difference in POD1 pain scores between the two groups (MLDG = 4.0 ± 1.3, SIDG = 4.3 ± 1.3, p = 0.372). Mean hospital stay was 5.5 (range 4-12) days in the MLDG group and 5 (range 4-17) days in the SIDG group (p = 0.993). There was no statistical significance in postoperative QOL scores. CONCLUSION: Unlike previous reports, there was no difference in POD1 pain scores between SIDG and MLDG. Nevertheless, SIDG did not increase short-term morbidity compared to MLDG and had similar outcomes in QOL.

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma with propensity score matching.

Background: Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA) is a rare primary hepatic neoplasm. Currently, there are no well-structured studies that analyze the feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection in cHCC-CCA alone. This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the long-term survival of laparoscopic liver resection with open liver resection in cHCC-CCA. Methods: Patients with a postoperative pathologic report of cHCC-CCA who underwent liver resection from August 2004 to December 2017 were included in this study. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to analyze the 3-y disease-free survival and 3-y overall survival. Propensity score matching was done to reduce the influence of confounding variables. Results: A total of 145 patients were pathologically confirmed to have cHCC-CCA, of which 10 patients were excluded due to having received palliative surgery. Of the remaining 135 patients, 43 underwent laparoscopic and 92 underwent open liver resection; propensity score matching yielded 30 patients for each group. The 3-y overall survival was 38 (88.4%) in the laparoscopic group and 84 (91.3%) in the open group before propensity score matching (P = .678), and 25 (83.3%) and 28 (93.3%), respectively, after matching (P = .257). The 3-y disease-free survival was 24 (55.8%) in the laparoscopic group and 32 (34.8%) in the open group before matching (P = .040), and 17 (56.7%) and 16 (53.3%), respectively, after matching (P = .958). The hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group before and after matching, while other operative outcomes were similar in both groups. Conclusion: Laparoscopic liver resection for cHCC-CCA is technically feasible and safe, having a shorter hospital stay without compromising oncological outcomes.

Safety and Efficacy of Intraperitoneal Paclitaxel Plus Intravenous Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) for Gastric Cancer with Peritoneal Metastasis.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal metastasis (PM) remains a major obstacle in the treatment of stage IV gastric cancer. This is a dose-escalation study of intraperitoneal (IP) paclitaxel combined with intravenous (IV) fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) to determine the recommended phase II dose in gastric cancer patients. METHODS: Patients with gastric adenocarcinoma and PM were enrolled. The recommended phase II dose of IP paclitaxel was determined using the standard "3 + 3" dose escalation with planned doses ranging from 40 to 100 mg/m2. IV FOLFOX was administered on the same day (oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 (day 1), leucovorin 100 mg/m2 (day 1), fluorouracil 2,400 mg/m2 over 46 hours (day 1)). Both IP and IV regimens were repeated every 2 weeks. RESULTS: Among the 13 patients, there was no DLT at 40 and 60 mg/m2. Two patients had grade 3 febrile neutropenia at 80 mg/m2, and the recommended phase II dose was 60 mg/m2. Other patients underwent IP paclitaxel and FOLFOX without serious adverse events. Seven patients underwent second-look diagnostic laparoscopy, and the average change in PCI score was -7.0 ± 9.7. Conversion surgery rate was 23.1% (n = 3). The median overall survival was 16.6 months (95% confidence interval, 16.6-N/A), and progression-free survival was 9.6 months (95% confidence interval, 4.7-N/A). All adverse events were tolerable and manageable. CONCLUSIONS: The biweekly regimen of IP paclitaxel and FOLFOX is safe and the recommended dose of IP paclitaxel for a phase II trial is 60 mg/m2.

Should total omentectomy be performed for advanced gastric cancer?: The role of omentectomy during laparoscopic gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the era of minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic partial omentectomy (LPO) has seen widespread use as a curative surgical procedure for early gastric cancer. However, scientific evidence of the extent of omentectomy during laparoscopic gastrectomy remains unclear for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). METHODS: We analyzed 666 eligible patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy for AGC with curative intent between 2014 and 2018. Surgical outcome and postoperative prognosis were compared between LPO and laparoscopic total omentectomy (LTO) groups after 2:1 propensity score matching with age, sex, body mass index, tumor size, pT stage, pN stage, gastrectomy type, and clinical T stage as covariates. RESULTS: After extensive matching, there was no significant difference in pathologic or clinical stages between the LPO (n = 254) and LTO (n = 177) groups. LPO provided a significantly shorter operation time than LTO (199.2 ± 64.8 vs. 248.1 ± 68.3 min, P < 0.001). Pulmonary complication within postoperative 30 days was significantly lower in the LPO group (4.4 vs. 10.3%, P = 0.018). In multivariate analysis, LTO was the independent risk factor for pulmonary complication (odds ratio [OR] 2.53, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.12-5.73, P = 0.025), which became more obvious in patients with a Charlson's comorbidity index of 4 or higher (OR 27.43, 95% CI 1.35-558.34, P = 0.031). The 5-year overall survival rate (OS) and 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were not significantly different between the two groups, even after stage stratification. CONCLUSION: LPO provided significantly shorter operation time and less pulmonary complication than LTO without compromising 5-year OS and 3-year RFS for AGC. LTO was the independent risk factor for pulmonary complications, which became more evident in patients with severe comorbidities.

Long-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Distal Gastrectomy Compared with Conventional Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is gaining more attention due to advancements in surgical devices and techniques. Ten years have passed since the first report of single-incision distal gastrectomy. This study aims to analyze the long-term oncological safety of single-incision distal gastrectomy by comparing it with multiport distal gastrectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Patients diagnosed with gastric cancer who underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy from January 2010 to December 2017 were enrolled. Palliative surgery, history of other malignancy, preoperative chemotherapy, and distant metastasis were excluded. The 5-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival were set as coprimary endpoints. Operative time, blood loss, postoperative outcome, and risk factors for survival were secondary endpoints. Propensity score matching of 1:1 ratio was performed to adjust for age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, tumor size, operation history, and clinical stage. RESULTS: A total of 3,097 patients were enrolled. After propensity score matching, 378 patients were allocated to each group. There was no difference in patient demographics after matching. Operation time was faster (170.8 ± 65.3 minutes vs 147.2 ± 44.1 minutes, p < 0.001), with less blood loss in the single-port group (84.1 ± 87.6 mL vs 34.9 ± 49.9 mL, p < 0.001). Administration of additional intravenous analgesics was less frequent in the single-port group (p = 0.043). There was no difference in long-term survival (5-year overall survival: multiport 94.2%, single-port 95.8%, p = 0.43; 5-year disease-free survival: multiport 94.1%, single-port 95.8%, p = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Single-incision distal gastrectomy is safe and feasible with good long-term outcomes and less use of additional analgesics for patients diagnosed with early gastric cancer.

Safety and effectiveness of reduced-port laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in Asian morbidly obese patients.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is the most frequently performed surgical intervention in patients with morbid obesity. Single-port sleeve gastrectomy (SPSG) and reduced-port sleeve gastrectomy (RPSG) are increasingly reported in the literature. This study compared the short-term outcomes of SPSG, RPSG, and conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (CLSG). This is a single-center retrospective study of 238 morbidly obese patients, of whom 148 (62.2%) patients completed follow-up one year after surgery. Propensity score matching was performed on factors influencing the choice of approach, and fifty patients from the SPSG + RPSG and CLSG groups were successfully matched. The groups were comparable in postoperative weight loss, morbidity, pain, and resolution of obesity-related comorbidities. The percentage of excess weight loss after one year was 90.0% in the SPSG + RPSG group and 75.2% in the CLSG group (P < 0.001). Complication rates showed no significant difference. The CLSG group was superior in dyslipidemia remission (17 [37.0%] vs. 28 [63.6%], P = 0.018) in the total cohort; however, this difference disappeared after matching. Our results suggest that single-port and reduced-port approaches could be alternative choices for selected patients. As our study was limited by its retrospective nature and potential selection bias, further studies are necessary to set standardized guidelines for SPSG.

Laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: Current status and future direction.

Gastric cancer is still a major cause of death worldwide. While laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has gained evidence as a standard treatment for early gastric cancer in the distal stomach, there are still concerns regarding its application for gastric cancer in the upper stomach and advanced gastric cancer. Nevertheless, LG has shown to have faster recovery, shorter hospital stay, less pain, and less blood loss in many retrospective and prospective studies. The application of LG has now extended from conventional radical gastrectomy to novel approaches such as function-preserving gastrectomy and sentinel-node navigated surgery. Studies on the use of laparoscopy in treatment for stage IV gastric cancer are rare, but show that there may be some roles of LG in selected cases. With the development of new laparoscopic tools that augment human ability, the future of LG should move on from proving non-inferiority to demonstrating superiority compared to the traditional open gastrectomy.