Open vs robotic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis on 1469 patients from the IMIGASTRIC prospective database.

BACKGROUND: Comparative data on D2-robotic gastrectomy (RG) vs D2-open gastrectomy (OG) are lacking in the Literature. Aim of this paper is to compare RG to OG with a focus on D2-lymphadenectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Data of patients undergoing D2-OG or RG for gastric cancer were retrieved from the international IMIGASTRIC prospective database and compared. RESULTS: A total of 1469 patients were selected for inclusion in the study. After 1:1 propensity score matching, a total of 580 patients were matched and included in the final analysis, 290 in each group, RG vs OG. RG had longer operation time (210 vs 330 min, p < 0.0001), reduced intraoperative blood loss (155 vs 119.7 ml, p < 0.0001), time to liquid diet (4.4 vs 3 days, p < 0.0001) and to peristalsis (2.4 vs 2 days, p < 0.0001), and length of postoperative stay (11 vs 8 days, p < 0.0001). Morbidity rate was higher in OG (24.1% vs 16.2%, p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: RG significantly expedites recovery and reduces the risk of complications compared to OG. However, long-term survival is similar.

Laparoscopic Compared with Open D2 Gastrectomy on Perioperative and Long-Term, Stage-Stratified Oncological Outcomes for Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the IMIGASTRIC Database.

BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic approach in gastric cancer surgery is being increasingly adopted worldwide. However, studies focusing specifically on laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy are still lacking in the literature. This retrospective study aimed to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer. METHODS: The protocol-based, international IMIGASTRIC (International study group on Minimally Invasive surgery for Gastric Cancer) registry was queried to retrieve data on patients undergoing laparoscopic or open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer with curative intent from January 2000 to December 2014. Eleven predefined, demographical, clinical, and pathological variables were used to conduct a 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis to investigate intraoperative and recovery outcomes, complications, pathological findings, and survival data between the two groups. Predictive factors of long-term survival were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 3033 patients from 14 participating institutions were selected from the IMIGASTRIC database. After 1:1 PSM, a total of 1248 patients, 624 in the laparoscopic group and 624 in the open group, were matched and included in the final analysis. The total operative time (median 180 versus 240 min, p < 0.0001) and the length of the postoperative hospital stay (median 10 versus 14.8 days, p < 0.0001) were longer in the open group than in the laparoscopic group. The conversion to open rate was 1.9%. The proportion of patients with in-hospital complications was higher in the open group (21.3% versus 15.1%, p = 0.004). The median number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the laparoscopic approach (median 32 versus 28, p < 0.0001), and the proportion of positive resection margins was higher (p = 0.021) in the open group (5.9%) than in the laparoscopic group (3.2%). There was no significant difference between the groups in five-year overall survival rates (77.4% laparoscopic versus 75.2% open, p = 0.229). CONCLUSION: The adoption of the laparoscopic approach for gastric resection with D2 lymphadenectomy shortened the length of hospital stay and reduced postoperative complications with respect to the open approach. The five-year overall survival rate after laparoscopy was comparable to that for patients who underwent open D2 resection. The types of surgical approaches are not independent predictive factors for five-year overall survival.

Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery.

AIM: To investigate the role of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer and determine surgical, clinical, and oncological outcomes. METHODS: This is a propensity score-matched case-control study, comparing three treatment arms: robotic gastrectomy (RG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), open gastrectomy (OG). Data collection started after sharing a specific study protocol. Data were recorded through a tailored and protected web-based system. Primary outcomes: harvested lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, complications rate. Among the secondary outcomes, there are: operative time, R0 resections, POD of mobilization, POD of starting liquid diet and soft solid diet. The analysis includes the evaluation of type and grade of postoperative complications. Detailed information of anastomotic leakages is also provided. RESULTS: The present analysis was carried out of 1026 gastrectomies. To guarantee homogenous distribution of cases, patients in the RG, LG and OG groups were 1:1:2 matched using a propensity score analysis with a caliper = 0.2. The successful matching resulted in a total sample of 604 patients (RG = 151; LG = 151; OG = 302). The three groups showed no differences in all baseline patients characteristics, type of surgery (P = 0.42) and stage of the disease (P = 0.16). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the LG (95.93 ± 119.22) and RG (117.91 ± 68.11) groups compared to the OG (127.26 ± 79.50, P = 0.002). The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was similar between the RG (27.78 ± 11.45), LG (24.58 ± 13.56) and OG (25.82 ± 12.07) approach. A benefit in favor of the minimally invasive approaches was found in the length of hospital stay (P < 0.0001). A similar complications rate was found (P = 0.13). The leakage rate was not different (P = 0.78) between groups. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic and robotic surgery can be safely performed and proposed as possible alternative to open surgery. The main highlighted benefit is a faster postoperative functional recovery.

Optimizing therapeutic timing in patients undergoing mastectomy through use of the Tiloop® synthetic mesh: single-step surgery.

Patients undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer have to face a long and elaborated therapeutic path, very often burdened by reoperation to replace the temporary expander, used to enlarge the submuscular pouch, with a definitive implant. Postoperative planning represents a critical moment of care, as it requires the integration of multiple treatments (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormonotherapy) each with a specific deadline. We believe that in such a complex multidisciplinary approach, coordination among the different therapeutic phases should be the key to success. The aim of the Breast Unit is to manage rapidly the ad hoc paths set out for each patient in order to guarantee compliance with adequate therapeutic timing. With this purpose in mind we tested the advantage of immediate reconstruction with definitive implants, by using a polypropylene mesh which, prolonging the inferolateral profile of the pectoralis major muscle (PMM), allows for direct accommodation of the desired implant volume. This leads to a single-step surgical approach, guaranteeing at the same time reduced interference with adjuvant therapies and good aesthetic results. We applied this technique to 4 patients, one of which was bilateral and, in spite of the restricted number of cases, our results seem to be promising.