Roles of lncRNAs in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Diagnosis, treatment, and the development of drug resistance.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most lethal cancers, primarily due to its late diagnosis, high propensity to metastasis, and the development of resistance to chemo-/radiotherapy. Accumulating evidence suggests that long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are intimately involved in the treatment resistance of pancreatic cancer cells via interacting with critical signaling pathways and may serve as potential diagnostic/prognostic markers or therapeutic targets in PDAC. DATA SOURCES: We carried out a systematic review on lncRNAs-based research in the context of pancreatic cancer and presented an overview of the updated information regarding the molecular mechanisms underlying lncRNAs-modulated pancreatic cancer progression and drug resistance, together with their potential value in diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of PDAC. Literature mining was performed in PubMed with the following keywords: long non-coding RNA, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, pancreatic cancer up to January 2022. Publications relevant to the roles of lncRNAs in diagnosis, prognosis, drug resistance, and therapy of PDAC were collected and systematically reviewed. RESULTS: LncRNAs, such as HOTAIR, HOTTIP, and PVT1, play essential roles in regulating pancreatic cancer cell proliferation, invasion, migration, and drug resistance, thus may serve as potential diagnostic/prognostic markers or therapeutic targets in PDAC. They participate in tumorigenesis mainly by targeting miRNAs, interacting with signaling molecules, and involving in the epithelial-mesenchymal transition process. CONCLUSIONS: The functional lncRNAs play essential roles in pancreatic cancer cell proliferation, invasion, migration, and drug resistance and have potential values in diagnosis, prognostic prediction, and treatment of PDAC.

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.

Role of Treg/Th17 Imbalance, Microbiota and miRNAs in Pancreatic Cancer: Therapeutic Options.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal kinds of cancer; numerous patients die from it every year all over the word. Fewer than 5% of people with pancreatic cancer survive death and recover. Recent evidence suggests that inflammation parameters, such as Th17 cells and Tregs, affect the progression and even the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer. In the inflammation process, T lymphocytes play an essential role in inflammation intensity, and related cytokines modulate immune responses in the tumor microenvironment. Their function is to establish a balance between destructive inflammation and defense against tumor cells via immune system, and Treg/Th17 imbalance is a common problem in this cancer. The role of microbiota in the development of some cancers is clear; microbiota may also be involved in the pancreatic cancer development. All risk factors for pancreatic cancer, such as chronic pancreatitis-related to microbiota, influence the acute or chronic immune response. Some evidence has been presented regarding the role of the immune response in carcinogenesis. In addition, miRNAs are very important in suppressing and stimulating the growth of cancer cells, and a variety of them have been identified. Some miRNAs are abnormally expressed in many cancers and have main roles as post-transcriptional regulators. They show oncogenic or tumor-suppressive functions by binding to marked mRNAs. In this review, we highlight recent findings regarding the role of Treg/Th17 imbalance, microbiota functions, and miRNAs performance in pancreatic cancer. We also present the evidence regarding therapeutic options.

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.

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.

The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. METHODS: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. RESULTS: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety. CONCLUSION: The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

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.

Recent advances in targeting cancer stem cells using oncolytic viruses.

Oncolytic virotherapy is a promising antitumor strategy which utilizes the lytic nature of viral replication to kill cancer cells. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) can induce cancer cell death and trigger immune responses to metastatic cancer in vivo. Reverse genetic systems have aided the insertion of anticancer genes into various OVs to augment their oncolytic capacity. Furthermore, OVs target and destroy the population of tumor-initiating cancer stem cells. These cancer stem cells are associated with metastasis and development of resistance to conventional anticancer approaches. Targeting cancer stem cells is essential since killing only differentiated tumor cells may lead to enrichment of cancer stem cells and thus indicate a poor prognosis. In this review, we summarize the oncolytic activity of various classes of OVs towards different types of cancer stem cells and also discuss the synergistic activity achieved by the combination of OVs with traditional therapies on chemo- and radiotherapy-resistant cancer stem cells.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Upregulation of HOXB7 promotes the tumorigenesis and progression of gastric cancer and correlates with clinical characteristics.

Several examples of aberrant homeobox gene expression have been found across a range of cancers, and it is also confirmed that homeobox genes play a critical roles in tumorigenesis and progression. Notwithstanding homeobox B7 (HOXB7) has been documented that its deregulation promotes carcinogenesis and development in gastrointestinal tract, its function in gastric cancer has not been investigated. In this study, HOXB7 expression was examined to be distinctly upregulated in gastric carcinoma GC cell lines and in the tumor relative to normal gastric tissue. High HOXB7 expression was correlated with tumor differentiation (P = 0.025) and TNM stage (P = 0.008). HOXB7 knockdown in BGC-823 and SGC-7901 resulted in decreased migration and invasion with alteration of epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) proteins and influenced proliferation, apoptosis, and cell cycle. Furthermore, complementary DNA (cDNA) microarray, qPCR, and Western blotting were performed to explore potential downstream target genes of HOXB7. HOXB7 is generally overexpressed in GC, associated with patient clinical characteristics, and specifically promotes GC cell malignant biological properties through PIK3R3/AKT signaling pathways, indicating HOXB7 as a causal factor in promoting tumor 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.

Totally laparoscopic gastrectomy using intracorporeally stapler or hand-sewn anastomosis for gastric cancer: a single-center experience of 478 consecutive cases and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Totally laparoscopic gastrectomy (TLG) using intracorporeal anastomosis has gradually become mature thanks to the advancements of laparoscopic surgical instruments and the accumulation of operative experience. The goal of this study is to review our institution's experience with TLG for the treatment of gastric cancer. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted to examine the short-term outcomes of TLG using intracorporeally stapler or hand-sewn anastomosis performed at Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital between March 2007 and June 2015. The details of intracorporeal anastomosis were described, and the clinicopathological data, surgical outcomes, and postoperative complications were evaluated. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-eight patients were included in the study. Generally speaking, the patients could be divided into stapler or hand-sewn groups according to whether intracorporeal anastomosis was performed by only hand-sewn technique (n = 97) or only stapling devices (n = 381). For overall patients, the mean operation time and anastomotic time were 225.7 and 30.0 min, respectively. Postoperative complications were observed in 65 patients. All of the patients recovered well without perioperative death by conservative or surgical management. CONCLUSIONS: TLG using intracorporeally stapler or hand-sewn anastomosis is a reasonable option for the treatment of gastric cancer, with early data showing acceptable perioperative outcomes.

Comparing the short-term outcomes of intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy with extracorporeal esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) using intracorporeal anastomosis has gradually developed due to advancements in laparoscopic surgical instruments. However, totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) with intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy (IE) is still uncommon because of technical difficulties. Herein, we evaluated various types of IE after TLTG in terms of the technical aspects. We compared the short-term operative outcomes between TLTG with IE and laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) with extracorporeal esophagojejunostomy (EE). METHODS: Between March 2006 and December 2014, a total of 213 patients with gastric cancer underwent TLTG and LATG. Overall, 92 patients underwent TLTG with IE, and 121 patients underwent LATG with EE. Generally, there are two methods of IE: mechanical staplers (circular or linear staplers) and hand-sewn sutures. Surgical efficiencies and outcomes were compared between two groups. We also described various types of IE using a subgroup analysis. RESULTS: The mean operation times were similar in the two groups, as was the number of retrieved lymph nodes. However, the mean estimated blood loss of TLTG was statistically lower than LATG. There were no significant differences in time to first flatus, the time to restart oral intake, the length of the hospital stay after operation, and postoperative complications. Four types of IE have been applied after TLTG, including 42 cases of hand-sewn IE. The overall mean operation time and the mean anastomotic time in TLTG were 279.5 ± 38.4 min and 52.6 ± 18.9 min respectively. There was no case of conversion to open procedure. Postoperative complication occurred in 16 patients (17.4%) and no postoperative mortality occurred. CONCLUSIONS: IE is a feasible procedure and can be safely performed for TLTG with the proper laparoscopic expertise. It is technically feasible to perform hand-sewn IE after TLTG, which can reduce the cost of the laparoscopic procedure.

Comparison of short-term surgical outcomes between totally laparoscopic and laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a 10-y single-center experience with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) and totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) are two commonly used methods of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. This study aimed to compare the short-term surgical outcomes of these two methods. METHODS: A prospectively maintained gastric cancer database between October 2004 and February 2014 was reviewed and 115 patients underwent LADG and 198 patients underwent TLDG were included. The clinical characteristics and perioperative clinical outcomes of two groups were compared. Moreover, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. RESULTS: The mean operation time and blood loss were similar in two groups, as was the number of retrieved lymph nodes. There was no significant difference in time to first flatus, the time to restart oral intake, the length of the hospital stay after surgery, and postoperative complications. The meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in the operative time, surgical margin, time to first flatus, length of hospital stay, mortality, overall, and anastomosis-related complications among the groups. However, the intraoperative blood loss was lower in TLDG (weighted mean difference = 21.50 mL; 95% confidence interval: 9.79-33.22; P < 0.01), and number of retrieved lymph nodes was higher in TLDG (weighted mean difference = -1.56; 95% confidence interval: -2.69 to -0.44; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: TLDG is safe and feasible compared with LADG. However, it is difficult to identify the clinical advantages of TLDG over LADG based on our study. Thus, the choice of surgical approach mainly depends on the patient conditions and the preference of the patients or surgeons.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and efficacy of laparoscopic resection for gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the stomach.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic resection for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) of the stomach with systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: The literature database before March, 2014 was extensively searched to retrieve the comparative studies of laparoscopic (LAP) and open resection (OPEN) for GISTs with a relevance of study goal. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were formulated. After a quality evaluation, the data were extracted. The Cochrane collaboration RevMan5.1 version software was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: There are nineteen studies meeting the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The total sample size of these studies was 1,060 cases. The operation time was similar between the two groups [weighted mean difference (WMD) -7.20 min, 95 % confidence interval (CI) -25.65 to 11.25, P = 0.44)]. Compared to OPEN, however, LAP experienced less blood loss (WMD -54.21 ml, 95 % CI -82.65 to -25.77, P < 0.01), earlier time to flatus (WMD -1.34 days, 95 % CI -1.62 to -1.06, P < 0.01) and oral diet (WMD -1.80 days, 95 % CI -2.18 to -1.42, P < 0.01), shorter hospital stay (WMD -3.68 days, 95 % CI -4.52 to -2.85, P < 0.01) and decrease in overall complications [relative risk (RR) 0.51, 95 % CI 0.32-0.80, P < 0.01)]. In addition, the long-term follow-up result shows that there is no significant difference in the two groups of patients. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic resection for gastric GISTs is a safe and feasible procedure with less blood loss, less overall complications and quicker recovery. The long-term survival situation of patients mainly depends on the tumor itself risk, and laparoscopic surgery will not increase the risks of tumor relapse and metastasis.

Laparoscopic versus open wedge resection for gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the stomach: a single-center 8-year retrospective cohort study of 156 patients with long-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compared laparoscopic (LWR) and open wedge resection (OWR) for the treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). METHODS: The data of 156 consecutive GISTs patients underwent LWR or OWR between January 2006 and December 2013 were collected retrospectively. The surgical outcomes and the long-term survival rates were compared. Besides, a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Clinicopathological characteristics of the patients were similar between the two groups. The LWR group was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (67.3 vs. 142.7 ml, P < 0.001), earlier postoperative flatus (2.3 vs. 3.2 days, P < 0.001), earlier oral intake (3.2 vs. 4.1 days, P < 0.001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (6.0 vs. 8.0 days, P = 0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications was lower in LWR group but did not reach statistical significance (4/90, 4.4% vs. 8/66, 12.1%, P = 0.12). No significant difference was observed in 3-year relapse-free survival rate between the two groups (98.6% vs. 96.4%, P > 0.05). The meta-analysis revealed similar results except less overall complications in the LWR group (RR = 0.49, 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.95, P = 0.04). And the recurrence risk was similar in two group (RR = 0.80, 95% CI, 0.28 to 2.27, P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LWR is a technically and oncologically safe and feasible approach for gastric GISTs compared with OWR. Moreover, LWR appears to be a preferable choice with mini-invasive benefits.

[Single-incision laparoscopic surgery with self-made port for totally extraperitoneal hernioplasty: a report of 7 cases].

OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal hernioplasty (SILS-TEP) with self-made port for repairing of inguinal hernia. METHODS: SILS-TEP was performed in 7 inguinal hernia patients (9 sides) with conventional laparoscopic instruments and self-made port, which composed of a wound retractor, surgical gloves and 3 ordinary trocars. The clinical data and follow-up results of 7 cases were retrospectively collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The self-made port was applied for SILS-TEP uneventfully without the need of additional ports in all 7 patients (9 inguinal hernias). The median operating time was 90. 0 (70-125) min, intraoperative blood loss was 10. 0 (5. 0-20. 0) mL and postoperative hospital stay was 2.0 (2. 0-4. 0) d. The median pain scores of visual analog scale (VAS) at 6 h,12 h, 24 h and 14 d were 3(2~4), 2(1~2), 1(0~2) and 0(0~1), respectively. There were no intraoperative complications reported, and all patients were satisfied with wound healing. No hernia recurrence was observed during the 3-months of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our initial experiences show that SILS-TEP with self-made port is a safe and feasible surgery, which can simplify the procedure with available equipments and reduce the cost, therefore can be applied in grass-root hospitals.