Comparison of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction and laparoscopic total gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer with stage cT1-2.

ABSTRACT: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and nutritional benefits of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) with double-tract reconstruction (DTR) in comparison with laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG).The demographic, clinical, and pathological data and postoperative nutritional status of patients undergoing LPG with DTR (n = 21) or LTG (n = 26) at Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital between January 2016 and January 2019 were retrospectively reviewed and compared.The operative time in the LPG group was slightly longer than that in the LTG group; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Blood loss was not significantly different between groups. The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was higher in the LTG group than in the LPG group (P = .02). The time to first flatus, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complications were comparable between the groups. During the 3-year postoperative follow-up, a statistically significant decrease in hemoglobin level was observed in the LTG group. There were no differences between the two groups of patients before and after the operation regarding albumin levels. The mean vitamin B12 level was higher in the LPG group than in the LTG group from 12 to 18 months postoperatively.LPG with DTR is an acceptable procedure for patients with upper gastric cancer. LPG with DTR has numerous potential advantages in preserving the physiological and nutritional functions of the remnant stomach and the conservation of the gastric reservoir.

Total endoscopic sublay mesh repair for umbilical hernias.

ABSTRACT: Umbilical hernias constitute some of the most common surgical diseases addressed by surgeons. Endoscopic techniques have become standard of care together with the conventional open techniques for the treatment of umbilical hernias. Several different approaches were described to achieve laparoscopic sublay repair.We prospectively collected and reviewed the medical records of 10 patients with umbilical hernias underwent total endoscopic sublay repair (TES) at our institution from November 2017 to November 2019. All operations were performed by a same surgical team. The demographics, intraoperative details, and postoperative complications were evaluated.All TES procedures were successfully performed without conversion to an open operation. No intraoperative morbidity was encountered. The average operative time was 109.5 minutes (range, 80-140 minutes). All the patients resumed an oral diet within 6 hours after the intervention. The mean time to ambulation was 7.5 hours (range, 4-14 hours), and mean postoperative hospital stay was 2.2 day (range, 1-4 days). One patient developed postoperative seroma. No wound complications, chronic pain, or recurrence were registered during the follow-up.Initial experiences with this technique show that the TES is a safe, and effective procedure for the treatment of umbilical hernias.

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.

Trans-umbilical single-incision laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal hernioplasty of inguinal hernia by self-made glove port.

Laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy has been well established for the management of primary and recurrent inguinal hernias. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has now been accepted as a less invasive alternative to conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, commercially available access devices for SILS had disadvantages such as rigidness and crowding. This series aimed to analyze the feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal hernioplasty (SILS-TAPP) by applying our self-made device for managing inguinal hernia.We collected and reviewed the medical records of patients who received SILS-TAPP using a self-made glove-port device between January 2014 and January 2016. All operations were performed by the same surgical team. The demographics and intra- and perioperative outcomes were evaluated.SILS-TAPP was successfully performed in 105 patients (131 inguinal hernia repairs). No major intra- and postoperative morbidities were encountered, and no conversion to a conventional 3-port approach or open surgery was required. The mean operative time was 73.5 min and the mean postoperative hospital stay was 2.1 days. Three minor short-term complications were noted, which were resolved without surgical intervention. One recurrence was diagnosed during follow-up and treated using a second TAPP procedure.SILS-TAPP was shown to be a feasible, safe procedure in patients with an inguinal hernia. A simple self-made glove-port device was proven as a practical method of SILS-TAPP.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a single-center propensity score matching study.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic diseases has been increasingly utilized. However, the use of LDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial and has not been widely accepted. In this study, the outcomes of LDP versus conventional open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for left-sided PDAC were examined. A retrospective review of patients who underwent LDP or ODP for left-sided PDAC between January 2010 and January 2019 was conducted. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize selection biases by balancing factors including age, sex, ASA grade, tumor size, and combined resection. Demographic data, their pathological and short-term clinical parameters, and long-term oncological outcomes were compared between the LDP and ODP groups. A total of 197 patients with PDAC were enrolled. There were 115 (58.4%) patients in the LDP group and 82 (41.6%) patients in the ODP group. After 1:1 PSM, 66 well-matched patients in each group were evaluated. The LDP group had lesser blood loss (195 vs. 210 mL, p < 0.01), shorter operative time (193.6 vs. 217.5 min; p = 0.02), and shorter hospital stay (12 vs. 15 days, p < 0.01), whereas the overall complication rates were comparable between groups (10.6% vs.16.7%, p = 0.31). There were no significant differences between the LDP and ODP groups regarding 3-year recurrence-free or overall survival rate (p = 0.89 and p = 0.33, respectively). LDP in the treatment of left-sided PDAC is a technically safe, feasible and favorable approach in short-term surgical outcomes. Moreover, patients undergoing LDP than ODP for PDAC had comparable oncological metrics and similar middle-term survival rate.

Evolution of Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resections for Pancreatic and Periampullary Diseases: Perioperative Outcomes of 605 Patients at a High-Volume Center.

Background: Laparoscopic pancreatectomy (LP) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. We have applied LP to a variety of pancreatic resections since 2004. This article is to report results of 15-year practice of 605 LPs for pancreatic and periampullary diseases. Methods: Patients with benign or malignant diseases in the pancreas and periampullary region, who underwent LP from June 2004 to June 2018, were retrospectively reviewed. The demographics and indications, and intraoperative and perioperative outcomes were evaluated. Results: A total of 605 consecutive LPs were analyzed, including 237 (39.2%) distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS), 116 (19.2%) spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP), 30 (5.0%) enucleation (EN), 30 (5.0%) central pancreatectomy (CP), 186 (30.7%) pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), and 6 (1.0%) pancreatoduodenectomy with total pancreatectomy (PDTP). The most common pathologic finding was pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (146, 24.1%). Conversion to open procedure was required in 22 patients (3.6%) (12 with PD, 8 with DPS, 1 with CP, and 1 with PDTP). The mean operative time was 241.5 ± 105.5 minutes (range 50-550 minutes) for the entire population and 367.1 ± 61.8 minutes (range 230-550 minutes) for PD. Clinically significant pancreatic fistula (ISGPF grade B and C) rate was 12.4% for the entire cohort and 16.1% for PD. Rate of Clavien-Dindo III-V complications was 17.4% for the entire cohort and 23.7% for PD. Ninety-day mortality was observed only in the cohort of patients undergoing PD (n = 4). Conclusions: The LP procedure appears to be technically safe and feasible, with an acceptable rate of morbidity when performed at our experienced, high-volume center. However, PD has less favorable outcomes and needs further evaluation.

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.

Expanding laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy to pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy: major findings based on systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains to be established as a safe and effective alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare LPD with OPD for these malignancies regarding short-term surgical and long-term survival outcomes. METHODS: A literature search was conducted before March 2018 to identify comparative studies in regard to outcomes of both LPD and OPD for the treatment of pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancies. Morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), mortality, operative time, estimated blood loss, hospitalization, retrieved lymph nodes, and survival outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Among eleven identified studies, 1196 underwent LPD, and 8247 were operated through OPD. The pooled data showed that LPD was associated with less morbidity (OR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.41~ 0.78, P < 0.01), less blood loss (WMD = - 372.96 ml, 95% CI, - 507.83~ - 238.09 ml, P < 0.01), shorter hospital stays (WMD = - 197.49 ml, 95% CI, - 304.62~ - 90.37 ml, P < 0.01), and comparable POPF (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.59~ 1.24, P = 0.40), and overall survival (HR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.93~ 1.14, P = 0.54) compared to OPD. Operative time was longer in LPD (WMD = 87.68 min; 95%CI: 27.05~ 148.32, P < 0.01), whereas R0 rate tended to be higher in LPD (OR = 1.17; 95%CI: 1.00~ 1.37, P = 0.05) and there tended to be more retrieved lymph nodes in LPD (WMD = 1.15, 95%CI: -0.16~ 2.47, P = 0.08), but these differences failed to reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: LPD can be performed as safe and effective as OPD for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy with respect to both surgical and oncological outcomes. LPD is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative morbidity and may serve as a promising alternative to OPD in selected individuals in the future.

Application of Laparoscopic Gastrectomy in Obese Patients (BMI≥30 kg/m2) with Gastric Cancer: A Comparison With Open Gastrectomy Regarding Short-term Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have compared the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic (LG) and open (OG) gastrectomy in obese patients (BMI≥30 kg/m) with gastric cancer. The current study aimed to investigate the short-term outcomes of LG in this group of patients. METHODS: A total of 33 LG cases and 23 OG cases (BMI≥30 kg/m) were identified from our gastric cancer database. Clinicopathologic features, operative details, laboratory examination, and postoperative outcomes were compared between both groups. Regression analysis was used to determine the effects of BMI on intraoperative outcomes. RESULTS: The 2 groups had comparable clinicopathologic characteristics. LG was associated with significantly lesser blood loss, whereas both also groups had a similar operative time, and number of harvested lymph nodes. However, regression analysis indicated that increased BMI affected the operative time and blood loss in patients that underwent OG but had little effect on patients who received LG. The elevation of inflammatory factors (WBC, CRP) was lower in LG than in OG, postoperatively. Postoperative hepatic (alanine aminotransferase, total bilirubin, albumin) and renal (creatinine, blood urea nitrogen) functions in the LG group were not worse than in the OG group. The time to first flatus, initiation of diet, hospitalization, and postoperative complications seemed superior in LG than in OG, but these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: LG can be safely performed in obese gastric cancer patients. Compared with conventional OG, LG is less invasive and is characterized by less blood loss and milder surgical trauma. LG is also less adversely affected by increased BMI.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopic distal gastrectomy at a high-volume center.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) for gastric cancer has gradually gained popularity. However, laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) has been reported rarely when compared with LDG. This study was designed to evaluate the surgical outcomes as well as the morbidity and mortality of LTG compared with LDG to confirm the feasibility and safety of LTG. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed the data of patients at our institution undergoing LTG (n = 448) or LDG (n = 956) for gastric cancer between January 2008 and July 2016. Then the clinical characteristics and perioperative clinical outcomes of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: Except for tumor size and stage, there were no statistically significant differences in the clinicopathological parameters between the groups. LTG was associated with significantly longer operation time, late time to postoperative diet, and longer hospital stay compared with the LDG group. Overall complications developed in 60 patients (13.4%) and surgical complications in 48 patients (10.7%) after LTG. Postoperative complications were less frequent in the LDG group than in the LTG group (8.4% versus 13.4%, p < .01), and fewer surgical complications were observed with LDG than with LTG (7.5% versus 10.7%, p = .05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of LTG were favorable even though are not inferior to those of LDG. LTG for gastric cancer is technically feasible and safe. However, because of the limits of this study, other high-quality studies are needed for further evaluation.

Interplay between apoptosis and autophagy in colorectal cancer.

Autophagy and apoptosis are two pivotal mechanisms in mediating cell survival and death. Cross-talk of autophagy and apoptosis has been documented in the tumorigenesis and progression of cancer, while the interplay between the two pathways in colorectal cancer (CRC) has not yet been comprehensively summarized. In this study, we outlined the basis of apoptosis and autophagy machinery firstly, and then reviewed the recent evidence in cellular settings or animal studies regarding the interplay between them in CRC. In addition, several key factors that modulate the cross-talk between autophagy and apoptosis as well as its significance in clinical practice were discussed. Understanding of the interplay between the cell death mechanisms may benefit the translation of CRC treatment from basic research to clinical use.

Totally laparoscopic versus open total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A case-matched study about short-term outcomes.

Although surgical outcomes of totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) have been reported from several centers, the effectiveness of this technique has not been conclusively established. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of TLTG for gastric cancer.A prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed data were used by comparing the short-term surgical outcomes of 124 patients who underwent TLTG with those of 124 patients who underwent open total gastrectomy (OTG) between March 2007 and March 2016.The 2 groups were well matched with respect to age, sex, body mass index, ASA score, and tumor stage. There was no significant difference with regard to the operation time but TLTG showed significantly less intraoperative blood loss (115.5 ±â€Š70.2 vs 210.5 ±â€Š146.7 mL, P < .01). Total numbers of retrieved lymph nodes were similar in the 2 groups. Postoperatively, no significant differences were found for morbidity or mortality. The time to first flatus, initiate oral intake, and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the TLTG group than in the OTG group (3.2 ±â€Š1.0 vs 4.1 ±â€Š1.2 days; 4.4 ±â€Š1.2 vs 5.6 ±â€Š2.0 days; and 8.9 ±â€Š3.1 vs 11.3 ±â€Š4.5 days, respectively; P < .01).TLTG for gastric cancer is technically safe, feasible, and minimally invasive compared with OTG. A prospective randomized trial is needed to establish the value of TLTG.

Robotic versus laparoscopic Gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Advanced minimally invasive techniques including robotic surgery are being employed with increasing frequency around the world, primarily in order to improve the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy (RG). METHODS: Studies, which compared surgical outcomes between LG and RG, were retrieved from medical databases before May 2017. Outcomes of interest were estimated as weighted mean difference (WMD) or risk ratio (RR) using the random-effects model. The software Review Manage version 5.1 was used for all calculations. RESULTS: Nineteen comparative studies with 5953 patients were included in this analysis. Compared with LG, RG was associated with longer operation time (WMD = -49.05 min; 95% CI: -58.18 ~ -39.91, P < 0.01), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = 24.38 ml; 95% CI: 12.32 ~ 36.43, P < 0.01), earlier time to oral intake (WMD = 0.23 days; 95% CI: 0.13 ~ 0.34, P < 0.01), and a higher expense (WMD = -3944.8 USD; 95% CI: -4943.5 ~ -2946.2, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding time to flatus, hospitalization, morbidity, mortality, harvested lymph nodes, and cancer recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: RG can be performed as safely as LG. However, it will take more effort to decrease operation time and expense.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy in obese gastric cancer patients: a comparative study with non-obese patients and evaluation of difference in laparoscopic methods.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a growing epidemic around the world, and obese patients are generally regarded as high risk for surgery compared with normal weight patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of obesity on the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer. METHODS: We reviewed data for all patients undergoing LG for gastric cancer at our institute between October 2004 and December 2016. Patients were divided into non-obese and obese groups and the perioperative outcomes were compared. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate which of the two commonly used methods of LG, laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) and totally laparoscopic gastrectomy (TLG), is more suitable for obese patients. RESULTS: A total of 1691 patients, 1255 non-obese and 436 obese or overweight patients, underwent LG during the study period. The mean operation time was significantly longer in the obese group than in the non-obese group (209.9 ± 29.7 vs. 227.2 ± 25.7 min, P < 0.01), and intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the non-obese group (113.4 ± 34.1 vs. 136.9 ± 36.7 ml, P < 0.01). Time to first flatus, time to oral intake, and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the non-obese group than in the obese group (3.3 ± 0.8 vs. 3.6 ± 0.9 days; 4.3 ± 1.0 vs. 4.6 ± 1.0 days; and 9.0 ± 2.2 vs. 9.6 ± 2.2 days, respectively; P < 0.01). 119 (9.5%) of the non-obese patients had postoperative complications as compared to 44 (10.1%) of the obese patients (P = 0.71). In the subgroup analysis of all patients, TLG showed improved results for early surgical outcomes compared to LAG, mainly due to its advantages in obese patients. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity is associated with long operation time, increased blood loss, and slow recovery after laparoscopic gastric resection but does not affect intraoperative security or effectiveness. TLG may have less negative results in obese patients than LAG due to a variety of reasons. Our analysis shows that TLG is more advantageous, with regard to early surgical outcomes, for obese patients.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection of Small Bowel Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic resection (LAP) for small bowel gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) is not as common as for stomach. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LAP for small bowel GISTs with systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: The Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases before December 2016 were comprehensively searched to retrieve comparative trials of LAP and conventional open resection (OPEN) for GISTs of small bowel with a relevance of review object. These researches reported intraoperative and postoperative clinical course (operation time, blood loss, time to first flatus and oral intake, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality), oncologic outcomes, and long-term survival status. RESULTS: Six studies involving 391 patients were identified. Compared to OPEN, LAP had associated with a shorter operation time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -27.97 min, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -49.40--6.54, P < 0.01); less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -0.72 ml; 95% CI: -1.30--0.13, P = 0.02); earlier time to flatus (WMD = -0.83 day; 95% CI: -1.44--0.22, P < 0.01); earlier time to restart oral intake (WMD = -1.95 days; 95% CI: -3.31--0.60, P < 0.01); shorter hospital stay (WMD = -3.00 days; 95% CI: -4.87--1.13, P < 0.01); and a decrease in overall complications (risk ratio = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.33-0.97, P = 0.04). In addition, the tumor recurrence and long-term survival rate showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups of patients. CONCLUSIONS: LAP for small bowel GISTs is a safe and feasible procedure with shorter operation time, less blood loss, less overall complications, and quicker recovery. Besides, tumor recurrence and the long-term survival rate are similar to open approach. Because of the limitations of this study, methodologically high-quality studies are needed for certain appraisal.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic local resection for gastric submucosal tumors: a single-center experience of 266 patients.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic resections for submucosal tumors (SMTs) of the stomach have been developed rapidly over the past decade. Several types of laparoscopic methods for gastric SMTs have been created. We assessed the short-term outcomes of two commonly used types of laparoscopic local resection (LLR) for gastric SMTs and reported our findings. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinicopathological results of 266 patients with gastric SMTs whom underwent LLR between January 2006 and September 2016. 228 of these underwent laparoscopic exogastric wedge resection (LEWR), the remaining 38 patients with the tumors near the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) or antrum underwent laparoscopic transgastric resection (LTR). RESULTS: All the patients underwent laparoscopic resections successfully. The mean operation times of LEWR and LTR were 90.2 ± 37.2 min and 101.7 ± 38.5 min respectively. The postoperative length of hospital stays for LEWR and LTR were 5.1 ± 2.1 days and 5.3 ± 1.7 days respectively. There was a low complication rate (4.4%) and zero mortality in our series. CONCLUSION: ELWR is technically feasible therapy of gastric SMTs. LTR is secure and effective for gastric intraluminal SMTs located near the EGJ or antrum.

Intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy using the transorally inserted anvil (OrVil) after laparoscopic total gastrectomy for upper gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy gained wide popularity in recent years. Laparoscopic total gastrectomy with intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy (LTGIE) is much less performed. In this study, we reported our preliminary experience of LTGIE using the transorally inserted anvil (OrVil). METHODS: Clinical data of patients with upper gastric cancer who underwent LTGIE from January 2016 to January 2017 were retrospectively collected. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery time of intestinal function, the length of hospitalization and postoperative complications were summarized and compared between early and later cases. RESULTS: There were totally 26 patients underwent LTGIE using OrVil successfully. The mean total operation time and esophagojejunostomy time was 272.8 min and 45.3 min. The mean estimated blood loss was 113.8 ml. The mean first flatus time was 3.1±0.9 days and the postoperative length of hospitalization (LOH) was 13.0±6.4 days. Three patients suffered postoperative complications, including one abdominal fluid collection, one pulmonary embolism and one pulmonary infection. During the follow-up period, neither local recurrence nor anastomosis-related morbidity was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The LTGIE using OrVil is feasible and safe for upper gastric cancer. These preliminary results warrant further evaluation in a larger population to validate.

Totally laparoscopic versus laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy for upper and middle gastric cancer: a single-unit experience of 253 cases with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) is the most commonly used methods of laparoscopic gastrectomy for upper and middle gastric cancer. However, totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) is unpopular because reconstruction is difficult, especially for the intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy. We adopted TLTG with various types of intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy. In this study, we compared LATG and TLTG to evaluate their outcomes. METHODS: From March 2006 to September 2015, 253 patients with upper and middle gastric cancer underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG), 145 patients underwent LATG, and 108 patients underwent TLTG. The clinicopathological characteristics and postoperative outcomes were retrospectively compared between the two groups. Furthermore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. RESULTS: The operation time and estimated blood loss were similar between the groups. There were no significant differences in first flatus, diet initiation, and postoperative hospital stay. The surgical complication rates were 17.2% (25/145) and 13.9% (15/108) in the LATG and TLTG groups, respectively. The meta-analysis also revealed no significant differences in the operation time, estimated blood loss, time to first flatus, length of hospital stay, overall, and anastomosis-related complications among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: TLTG is a feasible choice for gastric cancer patients, with comparable results to the LATG approach.

[Laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery with biological mesh in treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the application of biological mesh in laparoscopic anti-reflux procedure for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: The clinical data of 20 consecutive GERD patients underwent anti-reflux surgery in Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital from December 2012 to April 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. The laparoscopic hiatal repair with 360 fundoplicaiton was performed and the biological mesh (BiodesignTM, Surgsis) was implanted for reinforcement of hiatal repair. RESULTS: All laparoscopic procedures were successful, no conversion and no intra-operative complications occurred. The pre-operative complains were relieved in all patients, and no recurrence was observed during 3-18 month of follow-up. Six patients got dysphagia after operation; 5 of them were controlled through medication and psychological induction; 1 received esophageal dilatation by bougie. CONCLUSION: The application of biological mesh in laparoscopic anti-reflux procedure for gastroesophageal reflux disease is satisfactory.