Laparoscopic versus open surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a multicenter propensity score analysis of short- term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery (LS) has been increasingly applied in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). In this study, we intend to compare the short-term outcomes of LS versus open operation (OP) for pCCA in a multicentric practice in China. METHODS: This real-world analysis included 645 pCCA patients receiving LS and OP at 11 participating centers in China between January 2013 and January 2019. A comparative analysis was performed before and after propensity score matching (PSM) in LS and OP groups, and within Bismuth subgroups. Univariate and multivariate models were performed to identify significant prognostic factors of adverse surgical outcomes and postoperative length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Among 645 pCCAs, 256 received LS and 389 received OP. Reduced hepaticojejunostomy (30.89% vs 51.40%, P = 0.006), biliary plasty requirement (19.51% vs 40.16%, P = 0.001), shorter LOS (mean 14.32 vs 17.95 d, P < 0.001), and lower severe complication (CD ≥ III) (12.11% vs. 22.88%, P = 0.006) were observed in the LS group compared with the OP group. Major postoperative complications such as hemorrhage, biliary fistula, abdominal abscess, and hepatic insufficiency were similar between LS and OP (P > 0.05 for all). After PSM, the short-term outcomes of two surgical methods were similar, except for shorter LOS in LS compared with OP (mean 15.19 vs 18.48 d, P = 0.0007). A series subgroup analysis demonstrated that LS was safe and had advantages in shorting LOS. CONCLUSION: Although the complex surgical procedures, LS generally seems to be safe and feasible for experienced surgeons. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05402618 (date of first registration: 02/06/2022).

Comparison of laparoscopy combined with gastroscopy positioning and open resection for gastric stromal tumours: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety in treating gastric stromal tumours by laparoscopy combined with gastroscopy positioning surgery. METHODS: I searched the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the efficacy and safety of laparoscopy combined with gastroscopy positioning surgery in treating gastric stromal tumours from the PubMed (1998~2018.06), Wanfang Data (1990~2018.06), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1979~2018.06) and International Statistical Institute (1998~2018.06). I extracted the data from these trials, and I got the meta-analysis from RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS: Twenty-six RCTs involving 1710 patients were included (870 patients in the laparoscopy combined with gastroscopy positioning group and 840 patients in openresection group). Compared with open resection group, this meta-analysis showed that laparoscopy combined with gastroscopy positioning group could reduce the intraoperative blood (P < 0.05), shorten the post-operative time of recovery of intestinal peristalsis (P < 0.05), shorten the diet recovery time (P < 0.05), reduce the incidence of the incision infection, intestinal obstruction and pneumonia and also shorten the post-operation hospital stay (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the operation time (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with open resection group, the total effect of laparoscopy combined with gastroscopy positioning group in the treatment of gastric stromal tumours is better. Laparoscopy combined with gastroscopy positioning group for the gastric stromal tumours is acceptable.

Open versus arthroscopic acromioclavicular joint resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis comparing open and arthroscopic surgical techniques for distal clavicle resection. METHODS: A systematic review of Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar identified relevant publications in the English and German literature between 1997 and 2017. All included studies were levels I-IV, describing both treatments, with a minimum of 12 month follow-up, had at least one validated outcome score and documented patient recruitment, study design, demographic details, and surgical technique. Studies were excluded if they were only abstracts or conference proceedings, involved revision procedures, or the loss to follow-up exceeded 20%. Publication bias and risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tools, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Four studies (n = 319 patients) met the criteria for inclusion. The pooled estimate for clinical outcomes (Constant, ASES) demonstrated no significant differences (SMD 0.323, I2 = 0%, p = 0.065) between open and arthroscopic resection, although the analysis favored open resection. The pooled estimate for clinical outcomes (SST) also demonstrated no significant differences (SMD 0.744, I2 = 49.82%, p = 0.144) between open and arthroscopic resection, but the analysis again favored open resection. The pooled estimate for VAS assessment of pain demonstrated no differences (SMD 0.217, I2 = 58.96%; p = 0.404) between open and arthroscopic resection. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that similar functional and clinical outcomes can be achieved with either open or arthroscopic distal clavicle resection. The observed trend that open resection may have a more favorable outcome warrants further investigation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3; systematic review and meta-analysis.

Surgical treatment of diverticulitis and its complications: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

PURPOSE: The surgical interventions of diverticulitis vary according to its grade and severity. There is a controversy about the best of these different surgical procedures. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes and complications between different surgical approaches for acute diverticulitis and its complications. METHODS: Nine electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for RCTs comparing different surgical procedures for different grades of diverticulitis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015032290). RESULTS: Outcome data were analyzed from five RCTs comparing laparoscopic sigmoid resection (LSR) (n = 247) versus open sigmoid resection (OSR) (n = 237) for treatment of acute complicated diverticulitis with minimal heterogeneity. There was no significant difference in short-term postoperative overall morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-1.31; P = 0.56) and long-term postoperative major morbidity (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46-1.31, P = 0.34). In other six RCTs compared laparoscopic lavage with resection for treatment of perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis, the postoperative mortality rate was non-significant in both short-term (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.79-3.04; P = 0.21) and long-term (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29-1.58; P = 0.36) follow up. CONCLUSIONS: LSR is not superior over OSR regarding postoperative morbidity and mortality for acute symptomatic diverticulitis. Furthermore, laparoscopic lavage was proved to be as safe as resection for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis. Further RCTs are still needed to make an accurate decision regarding these and other procedures.

Meta-analysis comparing laparoscopic versus open resection for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors larger than 5 cm.

BACKGROUND: Data on the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic versus open resection for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) larger than 5 cm are limited. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis was to compared laparoscopic and open resection for gastric GISTs larger than 5 cm. METHODS: We perform a literature search on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase. Review Manage version 5.1 (RevMan 5.1) was used for data analysis. The GRADE profiler software (version 3.6) was used to estimate the level of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 6 observational studies and one unpublished retrospective cohort study met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis: 203 patients in LAP and 214 patients in OPEN group. The pooled result revealed that laparoscopic resection was associated with a same operative time (WMD = -0.87 min; 95% CI: -47.50 to 47.75; P = 0.97), intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -34.38 ml; 95% CI: -79.60 to 10.84; P = 0.14), overall complications (RR = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.12; P = 0.12), better 5-year disease-free survival (HR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.91; P = 0.03) and overall survival (HR = 0.09; 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.40; P = 0.002) compared with open resection. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic resection is a technically and oncologically safe and feasible approach for large-sized gastric GISTs (≥ 5 cm) compared to open resection.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection of Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors Larger Than 5 cm: A Single-Center, Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: The technical feasibility and oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) larger than 5 cm has not been adequately studied. Therefore, we performed this retrospective study to investigate the clinical outcomes of gastric GIST patients treated with laparoscopic surgery compared with those who underwent open surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the outcomes of 48 consecutive patients who underwent gastric resection for gastric GISTs larger than 5 cm. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on the surgery performed: the laparoscopic resection group (LAPG) and the open resection group (OG). We assessed all available patient data, including baseline information, tumor characteristics, surgical outcomes, pathological results, postoperative complications, and long-term patient survival. RESULTS: The 2 groups had similar baseline data. No differences were found in tumor size, location, mitotic count, and risk grade according to Fletcher's risk classification. The LAPG was superior to the OG in blood loss, time to first flatus, time to oral intake, and length of postoperative hospital stay. Perioperative complications, recurrence rate, and long-term survival, however, did not differ significantly between the groups. The mean operation time in the LAPG was 28 minutes longer than that in the OG. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with primary gastric GISTs larger than 5 cm, laparoscopic resection is a technically feasible and oncologically safe surgery when performed by experienced surgeons.

Laparoscopic versus open resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

The aims of this study were to explore whether laparoscopic surgical resections of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) would produce better perioperative and similar oncologic outcomes compared with open surgical resection in Chinese patients. Thirty-six gastric GISTs cases were divided into a minimally invasive laparoscopic group and open resection group, depending on the surgical approach that was used. The general preoperative information, operative time, incision length, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative time to first flatulence, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, total hospitalization costs, and such follow-up data as recurrence, metastasis, and mortality rates were compared between two groups. Among the 36 gastric GISTs, 15 received laparoscopic surgical treatment (laparoscopy group, n=15), and 21 received routine open resection treatment (open resection group, n=21). The laparoscopy group and the open resection group showed statistically significant differences (P<0.05) in incision length (7.8±2.3 vs. 16.9±3.8 cm), postoperative time to first flatulence (3.8±1.3 vs. 5.1±2.1 d), postoperative hospitalization time (7.6±2.5 vs. 11.3±3.7 d), and total cost of hospitalization (RMB 28,239±5,521 vs. RMB 23,761±5,362). There were no statistically significant differences (P>0.05) between the laparoscopy group and the open resection group in operative time (147.8±59.3 vs. 139.2±62.1 min) and intraoperative blood loss (149.8±98.9 vs. 154.2±99.3 mL). Both groups had no postoperative complications, no recurrence and metastasis, and no postoperative mortality. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in postoperative complications, postoperative recurrence and metastasis, and postoperative mortality. In conclusion, compared with open resection, the laparoscopic resection of gastric GISTs offers the advantages of less trauma, faster recovery, and shorter hospital stay.

Giant Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors of the Stomach Successfully Treated With Laparoscopic Resection: Case Report and Literature Review.

The stomach is the most common site of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), representing 60% to 70% of all GIST tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. Gastric GISTs are usually asymptomatic discovered incidentally during endoscopic or radiological investigations. A small percentage may present with melena, hematemesis, and anemia due to recurrent bleeding. We report a case of a giant gastric GIST presented with anemia, that successfully treated with laparoscopic resection.

Meta-Analysis on the Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopic Surgery for Large Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic versus open resection for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) larger than 5 cm. METHOD: We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase for relevant articles. Randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials were identified and included in this study. Searching for related articles on large GIST (>5 cm) for laparoscopic resection (laparoscopic group [LAPG]) and open resection (open group [OG]), RevMan 5.3 was used for data analysis, comparing 2 groups of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, length of hospital stay, recurrence rate, disease-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Seven studies including 440 patients were identified for the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that LAPG had less bleeding, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and a better 5-year disease-free survival. There was no significant difference between LAPG and OG in operation time, postoperative complications, recurrence rate, and overall survival. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic resection of large (>5 cm) GIST is safe and feasible and has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss and fast postoperative recovery, with a good outcome in the recent oncology.

Comparison Among Endoscopic, Laparoscopic, and Open Resection for Relatively Small Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (<5 cm): A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic resection (ESR) is a novel minimally invasive procedure for superficial tumors. Its safety, efficiency, and outcome for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (gGISTs) less than 5 cm remains unclear compared to laparoscopic resection (LAR) and open resection (ONR). The current network meta-analysis aimed to review and analyze the available evidence of this question. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify eligible studies published up to July 6, 2020. The perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes among ESR, LAR, and ONR for gGIST (<5 cm) were estimated through the Bayesian network meta-analysis with a random-effect model. RESULTS: Fifteen studies with 1,631 patients were included. ESR was associated with a shorter operative time [mean difference, MD: -36; 95% confidence interval, CI (-55, -16)], a higher rate of positive margin [odds ratio, OR: 5.1 × 1010, 95% CI (33, 2.5 × 1032)], and less costs [MD: -1 × 104, 95% CI (-1.6 × 104, -4.4 × 103)] but similar time to resume flatus [MD: 0.52, 95% CI (-0.16, 1.1)] and diet [MD: -3.5, 95% CI (-5.6, -1.6)] compared to LAR. A higher rate of total complications [OR: 11, 95% CI (1.2, 140)] was observed in patients who received ESR compared to patients who received LAR. After excluding perforation from the total complication category, the difference of complication between ESR and LAR disappeared [OR: 0.87, 95% CI (0.22, 2.3)]. The recurrence rate [OR: 1.3, 95% CI (0.40, 4.5)] and disease-free survival [hazard ratio: 1.26, 95% CI (0.60, 2.63)] showed no significant difference between ESR and LAR. ESR was associated with better or equivalent perioperative and long-term outcomes compared to ONR, except for positive margin. A subgroup analysis (<2 and 2-5 cm) showed no significantly different results among these three procedures either. CONCLUSION: ESR was shown to be a safe and efficient alternative procedure to both LAR and ONR for gGISTs less than 2 cm and within 2-5 cm, respectively, without worsening the oncologic outcomes. However, preoperative assessment of tumor site is of importance for the determination of procedures regarding the increased incidence of a positive margin related to ESR.

Superior Verbal Memory Outcome After Stereotactic Laser Amygdalohippocampotomy.

Objective: To evaluate declarative memory outcomes in medically refractory epilepsy patients who underwent either a highly selective laser ablation of the amygdalohippocampal complex or a conventional open temporal lobe resection. Methods: Post-operative change scores were examined for verbal memory outcome in epilepsy patients who underwent stereotactic laser amygdalohippocampotomy (SLAH: n = 40) or open resection procedures (n = 40) using both reliable change index (RCI) scores and a 1-SD change metric. Results: Using RCI scores, patients undergoing open resection (12/40, 30.0%) were more likely to decline on verbal memory than those undergoing SLAH (2/40 [5.0%], p = 0.0064, Fisher's exact test). Patients with language dominant procedures were much more likely to experience a significant verbal memory decline following open resection (9/19 [47.4%]) compared to laser ablation (2/19 [10.5%], p = 0.0293, Fisher's exact test). 1 SD verbal memory decline frequently occurred in the open resection sample of language dominant temporal lobe patients with mesial temporal sclerosis (8/10 [80.0%]), although it rarely occurred in such patients after SLAH (2/14, 14.3%) (p = 0.0027, Fisher's exact test). Memory improvement occurred significantly more frequently following SLAH than after open resection. Interpretation: These findings suggest that while verbal memory function can decline after laser ablation of the amygdalohippocampal complex, it is better preserved when compared to open temporal lobe resection. Our findings also highlight that the dominant hippocampus is not uniquely responsible for verbal memory. While this is at odds with our simple and common heuristic of the hippocampus in memory, it supports the findings of non-human primate studies showing that memory depends on broader medial and lateral TL regions.

Surgical outcomes of endoscopic versus open resection for the management of sinonasal malignancies.

The purpose of this review is to assess the surgical outcomes of two different treatment modalities, endoscopic and open resection, for the management of sinonasal malignancies by comparing the effectiveness of these two methods. A wide search was carried out considering various electronic databases for English language articles from 2013 to 2018 using keywords such as sinonasal malignancies, endoscopic surgery, open resection for sinonasal malignancies, and endoscopic versus open surgery. One thousand articles were identified from the literature for screening. After a thorough systematic assessment and based on the selection criteria, 10 articles with 4,642 patients were included in this quantitative analysis. With a total of 4,642 patients, 1,730 patients were operated on using endoscopic resection and 2,912 patients were operated on using open resection. The endoscopic approach was found to have a shorter hospital stay compared to open surgical resection (P<0.05). The rate of positive margins and the recurrence rate for open surgical resection were both smaller compared to those for endoscopic resection (P>0.05), and the endoscopic approach had smaller complication rates and a higher survival rate compared to open resection (P>0.05). Though endoscopic resection and open surgical resection have comparable postoperative benefits, preoperative evaluation of cases presenting with sinonasal malignancies is necessary for determining the right treatment method to obtain the best possible results postoperatively.

Isolated Drain Site Metastasis After Open Resection in Ileal Adenocarcinoma-an Uncommon Site.

Although port site implants have been described after laparoscopic resection for gastrointestinal malignancies, drain site metastasis in solid intra-abdominal tumor after open resection is a rare phenomenon. Only few cases have been reported in literature describing drain site metastasis after open resection for carcinoma in the colon, stomach, cervix etc. Isolated drain site metastasis is even rare. To our knowledge, drain site recurrence after laparotomy for ileal cancer has not been published. We report a 50-year-old gentleman who had undergone laparotomy and ileal resection for distal ileal adenocarcinoma presented with an isolated drain site metastasis after 1 year of completion of chemotherapy.

Comparing endoscopic resection and open resection for management of sinonasal mucosal melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Sinonasal mucosal melanoma (SMM) is a rare, aggressive cancer, optimally managed with complete surgical resection. This study aimed to assess the impact of surgical approach on outcomes by comparison of cases managed with open vs endoscopic resection. METHODS: The National Cancer Database 2010-2015 datasets were queried for all cases of non-metastatic SMM initially managed with definitive surgery. Patients were grouped according to surgical approach (open vs endoscopic) and compared for patient, tumor, and treatment variables using chi-square analyses. Case-control matching was used to generate subgroups of cases paired 1:1 between groups, matched for significantly distributed variables. Subgroups were compared for perioperative outcomes and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: Of the 686 cases of SMM managed with definitive surgery, 46.2% were treated endoscopically. Open and endoscopic groups did not differ significantly by T-stage, primary site, or rates of adjuvant therapies. Case-control matching for these variables generated a subpopulation of 240 paired cases. Comparison of matched groups found no significant differences in 30-day or 90-day mortality. Endoscopically managed patients had higher rates of unplanned readmission whereas open resection patients had longer length of stay (LOS). There was no significant difference in OS between groups. CONCLUSION: In surgically managed SMM, open resection patients have significantly longer LOS, whereas endoscopic patients have higher rates of unplanned readmission. Surgical approach does not appear to influence OS.

Comparison between laparoscopic and open surgery for large gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A meta-analysis.

AIM: To investigate whether laparoscopic surgery is as safe and feasible as open resection for patients with larger gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) (≥ 5 cm). METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library database was performed. Relevant studies of laparoscopic and open surgery for GISTs of > 5 cm published before December 2016 were identified from these databases. The quality of the studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The tumor size, operation time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, complication rate, and disease-free survival rate were assessed. The software Stata (version 12.0) was used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Five clinical trials comprising 209 patients with GISTs of similar larger sizes were evaluated. The pooled analysis of 100 patients in the laparoscopic resection group and 109 patients in the open resection group demonstrated that laparoscopic surgery was significantly associated with a shorter postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001) and less blood loss (P = 0.002). Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences in the operation time (P = 0.38), postoperative complication rate (P = 0.88), or disease-free survival rate (P = 0.20) between two groups. CONCLUSION: Our findings revealed that for patients with large GISTs of comparable sizes, laparoscopic surgery did not significantly influence the operation factors or clinical outcomes compared with open surgery. This suggests that laparoscopic resection is as acceptable as open surgery for treatment of large gastric GISTs.

Transfacial and Craniofacial Approaches for Resection of Sinonasal and Ventral Skull Base Malignancies.

Malignancies of the paranasal sinuses and ventral skull base present unique challenges to physicians. A transfacial or craniofacial approach allows for wide, possibly en bloc, resection and is ideal for tumors that involve surrounding soft tissue, the palate, the orbit, anterolateral frontal sinus, and lateral dura. Transfacial approaches include a lateral rhinotomy often combined with a medial, subtotal, or total maxillectomy. Reconstruction is most commonly performed with a pericranial flap to separate the intranasal and intracranial compartments. These approaches have evolved and been refined but now are usually reserved for advanced tumors not amenable to endoscopic resection.

Cirugía radical del cáncer del recto localmente avanzado: análisis comparativo de la cirugía laparoscópica con la cirugía abierta / Radical surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer: comparative analysis of laparoscopic surgery with open surgery

Resumen Introducción: El tratamiento estándar del cáncer del recto localmente avanzado (CRLA) actual es multimodal. La cirugía mínimamente invasiva es factible en el manejo de este tumor, aunque existe controversia sobre sus resultados alejados. Objetivo: Comparar los resultados inmediatos y alejados de una serie laparoscópica (CL) con una serie de cirugía convencional (CA) intervenidos por CRLA. Materiales y Método: Revisión retrospectiva de ambas técnicas de abordaje en un periodo de 14 años. Se analiza la morbilidad, los resultados patológicos, la recidiva local y la sobrevida a largo plazo. Para estimar las curvas de sobrevida se utilizó el método de Kaplan-Meier. Para comparar las curvas de sobrevida se usó el test de log-rank. Resultados: Se compara 163 pacientes intervenidos por CL con 164 operados mediante CA. Ambos grupos resultaron equivalentes en cuanto a las variables demográficas, morbilidad perioperatoria y estadios patológicos finales, salvo un menor tiempo de hospitalización en el grupo CL (p = 0,007). Los tumores bajos recibieron radioterapia preoperatoria en el 90% de los casos. La recidiva local global y la sobrevida a largo plazo no muestran diferencias de acuerdo al tipo de abordaje. Al excluir los pacientes con una lesión en el recto superior se aprecia que los tumores de recto bajo tienen peor pronóstico, independiente de la técnica empleada (p = 0,007). Conclusiones: La CL es equivalente a la CA en el manejo multimodal del CRLA. La inclusión de tumores del recto superior tiende a mejorar artificialmente los resultados de la cirugía en cuanto a recidiva local y sobrevida global.

Introduction: Total mesorectal excison and preoperative radiotherapy are important components of multimodal treatment in patients with a low locally advanced rectal cancer. Short-term results of laparoscopic surgery has proven to be safe but oncological results are unclear. Aim: To compare short-term and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection of locally advanced rectal cancer operated on in the same period. Materials and Method: A total of 327 patientes with rectal cancer treated by open and laparoscopic curative surgery were retrospectively reviewed. Long-term follow up was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and survival data were tested by log rank test. Results: Demographic data, levels of carcinoembryonaric antigen, perioperative morbidity and pathologic stages were similar in both groups, except for less inhospital time in laparoscopic group (p = 0.007). Over 90% of middle and low tumors recived preoperative radiotherapy. Local recurrence and overall survival shows no difference between both groups. Low and middle rectal cancer showed worst prognosis than tumors of the high rectum, no matter of type of surgery (p = 0.007). Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery is non-inferior to open resection for pathological and oncological outcomes. It's not convenient to include on trials lesions located in the high rectum, usually treated with primary surgery as colon cancer.

Role of laparoscopy in rectal cancer: a review.

Despite established evidence on the advantages of laparoscopy in colon cancer resection, the use of laparoscopy for rectal cancer resection is still controversial. The initial concern was mainly regarding the feasibility of laparoscopy to achieve an adequate total mesorectal excision specimen. These concerns have been raised following early studies demonstrating higher rates of circumferential margins positivity following laparoscopic resection, as compared to open surgery. Similar to colon resection, patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal cancer resection are expected to benefit from a shorter length of hospital stay, less analgesic requirements, and a faster recovery of bowel function. In the past decade there have been an increasing number of large scale clinical trials investigating the oncological and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection. In this review we summarize the current literature available on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

Open resection for lung cancer in right upper lobe.

An open radical surgery for lung cancer of the right upper lobe is performed under suitable conditions in this case. According to the actual conditions, the horizontal fissure is made a "tunnel" dissociation during the operation to fully expose hilar structures (artery, vein, and bronchus). Since intraoperative frozen section diagnosis shows malignant result, lymph nodes are dissected. Hemostasis, protection of the important peripheral organs and standard postoperative placement of drainage tube should be noted. The observability of this surgery is the clear exposure and brief operation.

Clinical efficacy of endoscopic resection versus laparoscopic resection and open resection for gastric stromal tumor / 中华消化外科杂志

Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy of endoscopic resection,laparoscopic resection and open resection in the treatment of gastric stromal tumor (GIST).Methods The retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted.The clinicopathological data of 254 GIST patients who were admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University between January 2007 and June 2017 were collected.The endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and laparoscopic or open wedge resection of GIST were performed according to the patients' conditions.Observation indicators:(1) surgical and postoperative recovery situations;(2) postoperative pathological examination;(3) follow-up and survival situations.Follow-up using outpatient examination and telephone interview was performed to detect postoperative adjuvant therapy and survival up to June 2017.Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as-x±s.Measurement data with skewed distribution were described as M (range).Results (1) Surgical and postoperative recovery situations:of 254 patients,112 underwent ESD,including 111 with successful operation and 1 with intraoperative conversion to open surgery due to excessive bleeding-induced blurred operating view,93 underwent successful laparoscopic wedge resection of GIST and 49 underwent successful open wedge resection of GIST.The operation time,volume of intraoperative blood loss,time for initial fluid diet intake,duration of hospital stay and hospital expenses were respectively (75±21) minutes,(6.9±0.5)mL,(2.8±0.9)days,(5.5 ± 0.2)days,(22 167±1 364) yuan in patients with ESD and (137±65) minutes,(48.1±2.6)mL,(3.9±1.4) days,(8.3 ± 2.2)days,(32 937±1 823) yuan in patients with laparoscopic operation and (168± 60) minutes,(157.2± 10.3) mL,(5.8± 1.7) days,(11.3 ± 3.5) days,(38 462± 1 961) yuan in patients with open operation.Two patients with ESD had subcutaneous emphysema and didn't receive special treatment,and then emphysema disappeared after 2 days.No complication was detected in patients with laparoscopic or open operations.(2) Postoperative pathological examination:tumor diameter in patients with ESD,laparoscopic operation and open operation was respectively (2.6± 1.6)cm,(6.1 ±2.2)cm and (6.4±2.3) cm.The cases with positive CD117,discovered on GIST-1 (DOG1),CD34 and smooth muscle actin (SMA) were 106,105,86,17 with ESD and 89,87,59,11 with laparoscopic operation and 46,47,30,8 with open operation,respectively.The extremely low risk,low risk,medium risk and high risk were respectively detected in 67,42,3,0 patients with ESD and 16,36,23,18 patients with laparoscopic operation and 7,20,14,8 in patients with open operation.(3) Follow-up and survival situations:210 of 254 patients were followed up for 6.0-120.0 months,with an average time of 36.0 months,including 86 with ESD,82 with laparoscopic operation and 42 with open operation.During the follow-up,of patients with ESD,3 patients with medium risk respectively received imatinib therapy for 7.0 months,1.5 years and 2.0 years,and postoperative gastroscopy reexaminations every 6 months,without tumor recurrence;81 with extremely low risk and low risk received postoperative gastroscopy reexaminations every 6 months and didn't receive targeted therapy,without tumor recurrence;2 died of non-stromal tumor.The postoperative average survival time,1-,3-and 5-year survival rates were respectively 56.3 months,98.8％ (81/82),91.5％ (75/82),74.4％ (61/82) in patients with laparoscopic surgery and 52.4 months,97.6％ (41/42),85.7％ (36/42),81.0％ (34/42) in patients with open surgery.Conclusions According to patients' conditions,endoscopic resection,laparoscopic resection and open resection are safe and feasible in the treatment of GIST.Endoscopic resection of GIST should be selectively applied to patients with smaller diameter,with advantages of lower hospitalization expenses and better long-term prognosis.