Esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy by OrVil™ or hemi-double stapling technique.

AIM: To investigate the feasibility, advantages and disadvantages of two types of anvil insertion techniques for esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy. METHODS: This was an open-label prospective cohort study. Laparoscopy-assisted radical total gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection was performed in 84 patients with primary non-metastatic gastric cancer confirmed by pre-operative histological examination. Overweight patients were excluded, as well as patients with peritoneal dissemination and invasion of adjacent organs. After total gastrectomy, all patients were randomized into two groups. Patients in Group I underwent esophagojejunostomy using a transorally-inserted anvil (OrVil(TM)), while patients in Group II underwent esophagojejunostomy using the hemi-double stapling technique (HDST). Both types of esophagojejunostomy were performed under laparoscopy. Patients' baseline characteristics, preoperative characteristics, perioperative characteristics, short-term postoperative outcomes and operation cost were compared between the two groups. The primary endpoint was evaluation of the surgical outcome (operating time, time of digestive tract reconstruction and time of anvil insertion) and the medical cost of each operation (operation cost and total cost of hospitalization). The secondary endpoints were time to solid diet, post-surgical hospitalization time, time to defecation, time to ambulation and intra-operative blood loss. In addition, complications were assessed and compared. RESULTS: Laparoscopic total gastrectomy and esophagojejunostomy were successfully performed in all 84 patients, without conversion to laparotomy. There were no significant differences in the operative time and time for total gastrectomy between the two groups (287.8 ± 38.4 min vs 271.8 ± 46.1 min, P = 0.09, and 147.7 ± 31.6 min vs 159.8 ± 33.8 min, P = 0.09, respectively). The time for digestive tract reconstruction and for anvil insertion were significantly decreased in Group II compared with Group I (47.8 ± 12.1 min vs 55.4 ± 15.7 min, P = 0.01, and 12.6 ± 4.7 min vs 18.7 ± 7.5 min, P = 0.001, respectively). Intra-operative blood loss (96.4 ± 32.7 mL vs 88.2 ± 36.9 mL, P = 0.28), time to defecation (3.5 ± 0.9 d vs 3.2 ± 1.1 d, P = 0.12), time to ambulation (3.9 ± 0.7 d vs 3.6 ± 1.1 d, P = 0.12), time to solid diet (7.6 ± 1.4 d vs 8.0 ± 2.7 d, P = 0.31) and total hospitalization (10.6 ± 2.6 d vs 10.8 ± 3.5 d, P = 0.80) were similar between the two groups. In addition, the total costs of hospitalization were similar between the two groups (73848.7 ± 11781.0 RMB vs 70870.3 ± 14003.5 RMB, P = 0.296), but operation cost was significantly higher in Group I compared with Group II (32401.9 ± 1981.6 RMB vs 26961.9 ± 2293.8 RMB, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Anvil insertion was faster and easier using the HDST technique compared with OrVil(TM), and was more cost-effective. There was no significant difference in safety.

Treatment of gallbladder stone with common bile duct stones in the laparoscopic era.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for stone can be carried out by either laparoscopic transcystic stone extraction (LTSE) or laparoscopic choledochotomy (LC). It remains unknown as to which approach is optimal for management of gallbladder stone with common bile duct stones (CBDS) in Chinese patients. METHODS: From May 2000 to February 2009, we prospective treated 346 consecutive patients with gallbladder stones and CBDS with laparoscopic cholecystectomy and LCBDE. Intraoperative findings, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay and costs were analyzed. RESULTS: Because of LCBDE failure,16 cases (4.6%) required open surgery. Of 330 successful LCBDE-treated patients, 237 underwent LTSE and 93 required LC. No mortality occurred in either group. The bile duct stone clearance rate was similar in both groups. Patients in the LTSE group were significantly younger and had fewer complications with smaller, fewer stones, shorter operative time and postoperative hospital stays, and lower costs, compared to those in the LC group. Compared with patients with T-tube insertion, patients in the LC group with primary closure had shorter operative time, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and lower costs. CONCLUSIONS: In cases requiring LCBDE, LTSE should be the first choice, whereas LC may be restricted to large, multiple stones. LC with primary closure without external drainage of the CBDS is as effective and safe as the T-tube insertion approach.

[Assessment of lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer: status quo, recent advances and new perspectives].

The precondition of accurate gastric cancer surgery is precise assessment of lymph node metastasis. To date, no imaging modality achieves both high sensitivity and high specificity in detecting lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer. Intraoperative sentinel node tracing and biopsy are the most popular method to identify the localization of tumor cell, but is limited to early gastric cancer. Nano-composite materials, designed for tumor imaging and tracing, show us a newly emerging domain for tumor detection in gastric cancer. The function of these nano-composite materials to detect lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer relies on the effective backflow of lymph system. However, the lymph vessels can be obstructed by tumor cells in advanced gastric cancer, which may restrain the application of these nanoparticles. Therefore, more methods to detect lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer should be explored. This review summarizes the characteristic of the targeted nanosphere. Based on the reported studies, a novel idea is conceived that targeted multifunctional nanosphere may be a potential method to achieve precise assessment of lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer.