Evidence Hub

Minimally invasive surgery for remnant gastric cancer: a comparison with open surgery

In Gyu Kwon, In Cho, A. Guner, Yoon Young Choi, H. Shin, Hyoung-il Kim, J. An, J. Cheong et al.

Surgical Endoscopy, 2014

58 participants · 56 citations

Abstract

AbstractBackground

Completion total gastrectomy for remnant gastric cancer (RGC) is technically challenging, especially using the minimally invasive approach. Only a few small case series have reported the technical feasibility of completion total gastrectomy by minimally invasive surgery (MIS). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of MIS and open surgery for RGC.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 76 completion total gastrectomies for RGC between 2005 and 2012. Indications for MIS were limited to no evidence of serosa invasion or lymph node metastasis to extraperigastric areas on preoperative evaluation. We compared patient characteristics, intraoperative factors, post-operative outcomes, and survival for the MIS and open surgery groups.ResultsEighteen patients underwent completion total gastrectomy with MIS (10 laparoscopic, 8 robotic) and 58 patients underwent open surgery. Operation time was longer in the MIS than the open group (266 vs. 203 min, P = 0.004), but the groups had similar estimated blood loss, frequency of unplanned other organ resection, and number of retrieved lymph nodes. The MIS group had a significantly earlier initiation of soft diet, shorter hospital stay, and fewer pain medication injections. Complication rates, recurrence, and overall 5-year survival were similar for the two groups. When we compared laparoscopy with robotic, similar result was shown in all parameters except operation time.ConclusionsCompared to open surgery,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 58 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free