Efficacy Evaluation of Subtotal and Total Gastrectomies in Robotic Surgery for Gastric Cancer Compared with that in Open and Laparoscopic Resections: A Meta-Analysis

Purposes

Robotic gastrectomy (RG), as an innovation of minimally invasive surgical method, is developing rapidly for gastric cancer. But there is still no consensus on its comparative merit in either subtotal or total gastrectomy compared with laparoscopic and open resections.

Methods

Literature searches of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were performed. We combined the data of four studies for RG versus open gastrectomy (OG), and 11 studies for robotic RG versus laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Moreover, subgroup analyses of subtotal and total gastrectomies were performed in both RG vs. OG and RG vs. LG.

Results

Totally 12 studies involving 8493 patients met the criteria. RG, similar with LG, significantly reduced the intraoperative blood loss than OG. But the duration of surgery is longer in RG than in both OG and LG. The number of lymph nodes retrieved in RG was close to that in OG and LG (WMD = −0.78 and 95% CI, −2.15−0.59; WMD = 0.63 and 95% CI, −2.24−3.51). And RG did not increase morbidity and mortality in comparison with OG and LG (OR = 0.92 and 95% CI, 0.69−1.23; OR = 0.72 and 95% CI, 0.25−2.06) and (OR = 1.06 and 95% CI, 0.84−1.34; OR = 1.55 and 95% CI, 0.49−4.94). Moreover, subgroup analysis of subtotal and total gastrectomies in both RG vs. OG and RG vs. LG revealed that the scope of surgical dissection was not a positive factor to influence the comparative results of RG vs. OG or LG in surgery time, blood loss, hospital stay, lymph node harvest, morbidity, and mortality.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis highlights that robotic gastrectomy may be a technically feasible alternative for gastric cancer because of its affirmative role in both subtotal and total gastrectomies compared with laparoscopic and open resections.     

腹腔镜辅助胃癌D2根治术联合胃背侧系膜近胃端完整系膜切除术对进展期胃癌患者肠黏膜屏障功能和腹腔微转移的影响

摘要 目的：探讨腹腔镜辅助胃癌D2根治术联合胃背侧系膜近胃端完整系膜切除术对进展期胃癌（AGC）患者肠黏膜屏障功能和腹腔微转移的影响。方法：选取2016年12月～2018年12月我院收治的105例AGC患者,按随机数字表法分为对照组（n=52）和实验组（n=53）,分别施行腹腔镜辅助胃癌D2根治术、腹腔镜辅助胃癌D2根治术联合胃背侧系膜近胃端完整系膜切除术。观察两组手术情况（淋巴结清扫数量、手术时间、术中出血量、近切缘距离）、胃肠功能恢复指标（肛门排气时间、经口进食时间、肠鸣音恢复时间）、并发症、住院时间及术前、术后1 d、3 d、7 d肠黏膜屏障功能[尿乳果糖/甘露醇（L/M）、血清二胺氧化酶（DAO）]、气腹后、关腹前腹腔微转移指标[多巴胺脱羧酶（DDC）、癌胚抗原（CEA）],并于术后12个月随访两组复发率。结果：实验组术中出血量少于对照组（P＜0.05）;两组经口进食时间、肛门排气时间、住院时间、肠鸣音恢复时间比较无差异（P＞0.05）;术前、术后1 d、3 d、7 d两组血清DAO水平、尿L/M比较无差异（P＞0.05）;关腹前实验组腹腔冲洗液DDC、CEA水平低于对照组（P＜0.05）;两组并发症总发生率比较,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）;术后12个月随访,实验组和对照组各失访2例,实验组复发率3.92%（2/51）低于对照组20.00%（10/50）（P＜0.05）。结论：腹腔镜辅助胃癌D2根治术联合胃背侧系膜近胃端完整系膜切除术治疗AGC,能有效降低术中出血量,恢复胃肠功能,减少腹腔微转移及术后复发,且未增加肠黏膜屏障功能损伤,安全性高。     

3D腹腔镜胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌患者的疗效及对血清外泌体Dicer和PTEN的影响

摘要 目的：探讨3D腹腔镜胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌患者的疗效及对血清外泌体Dicer和人第10号染色体缺失的磷酸酶与张力蛋白同源物基因（PTEN）的影响。方法：选择2017年7月到2021年5月选择在本院诊治的进展期胃癌患者60例作为研究对象,根据1:1随机信封抽签法把患者分为3D组与开腹组各30例。开腹组给予开腹手术治疗,3D组给予3D腹腔镜胃癌根治术治疗,对比分析两组的手术指征、并发症、疼痛视觉模拟评分法（VAS）评分以及Dicer和PTEN的表达。结果：两组的手术时间、淋巴结清扫个数对比无差异（P>0.05）,3D组的术后排气时间等围手术指标较开腹组低（P<0.05）。3D组术后14 d的并发症发生率较开腹组低（P<0.05）。3D组术后1 d、7 d与14 d的VAS评分低于开腹组（P<0.05）。两组术后14 d的血清外泌体Dicer和PTEN相对表达水平高于术前1 d,3D组高于开腹组（P<0.05）。所有患者随访到2021年11月1日,平均随访时间为（17.92±0.22）个月,3D组的复发率为3.33 %,低于开腹组的20.00 %（P<0.05）。结论：3D腹腔镜胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌患者可促进血清外泌体Dicer和PTEN的分泌,不增加手术复杂度,还可促进患者康复,减少并发症,促进缓解患者疼痛,降低随访复发率。     

Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Middle and Lower Rectal Cancer

Background

Laparoscopic surgery for middle and lower rectal cancer remain controversial because anatomical and complex surgical procedures specifically influence oncologic outcomes. This study analyzes the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for middle and lower rectal cancer.

Methods

Patients (laparoscopic: n = 129, open: n = 152) who underwent curative resection for middle and lower rectal cancer from 2003 to 2008 participated in the study. The same surgical team performed all operations. The mean follow up time of all patients was 74.3 months.

Results

No statistical difference in local recurrence rate (7.8% vs. 7.2%; log-rank = 0.024; P = 0.876) and distant recurrence rate (20.9% vs.16.4%; log-rank = 0.699; P = 0.403) between laparoscopic and open groups were observed within 5 years. The 5-year overall survival rates of the laparoscopic and open groups were 72.9% and 75.7%, respectively; no significant statistical difference was observed between them (log-rank = 0.163; P = 0.686). The 5-year survival rates between groups were not different between stages: Stage I (92.6% vs. 86.7%; log-rank = 0.533; P = 0.465); stage II (75.8% vs. 80.5%; log-rank = 0.212; P = 0.645); and Stage III (63.8% vs. 69.1%, log-rank = 0272;P = 0.602). However, significant statistical difference amongst different stages were observed (log-rank = 1.802; P = 0.003).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic and open surgery for middle and lower rectal cancer offer equivalent long-term oncologic outcomes. Laparoscopic surgery is feasible in these patients.     

腹腔镜与开腹手术对胃癌根治术患者TNF-alpha和IL-6 水平的影响研究

目的:探讨腹腔镜与开腹手术对胃癌根治术患者肿瘤坏死因子-α(TNF-α)和白细胞介素-6(IL-6)水平的影响.方法:选取自2011年3月至2013年5月期间来我院就医并行胃癌根治术的72例胃癌患者作为研究对象.并将所有患者随机平均分成腹腔镜组和传统开腹组各36例.其中,腹腔镜组行腹腔镜辅助下胃癌根治术,传统开腹组行传统开腹胃癌根治术.比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、肛门排气时间及住院时间;比较两组患者术前及术后血清TNF-α和IL-6水平.结果:腹腔镜组术中出血量、肛门排气时间及住院时间均明显低于对照组(P＜0.05)腹腔镜组术后TNF-α和IL-6水平明显低于开腹组(P＜0.05),两组比较有显著性差异(P＜0.05).结论:腹腔镜辅助下胃癌根治术较传统开腹胃癌根治术术后血清TNF-α和IL-6水平低,对机体免疫功能影响较小,可减少患者术后感染机会,值得在临床中推广应用.     

Comparison of the Operative Outcomes and Learning Curves between Laparoscopic and Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Background

Minimally invasive surgery, including laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy, has become more popular in the treatment of gastric cancer. However, few studies have compared the learning curves between laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Methods

Data were prospectively collected between July 2008 and Aug 2014. A total of 145 patients underwent minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer by a single surgeon, including 73 laparoscopic and 72 robotic gastrectomies. The clinicopathologic characteristics, operative outcomes and learning curves were compared between the two groups.

Results

Compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group was associated with less blood loss and longer operative time. After the surgeon learning curves were overcome for each technique, the operative outcomes became similar between the two groups except longer operative time in the robotic group. After accumulating more cases of robotic gastrectomy, the operative time in the laparoscopic group decreased dramatically.

Conclusions

After overcoming the learning curves, the operative outcomes became similar between laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy. The experience of robotic gastrectomy could affect the learning process of laparoscopic gastrectomy.     

腹腔镜下完整系膜切除术治疗结肠癌的临床效果

目的:探讨腹腔镜下完整系膜切除术治疗结肠癌中的临床效果及安全性。方法:选取2015年1月至2017年5月在本院经纤维结肠镜及活组织病理检查确诊为结肠癌的患者作为研究对象,并按照手术方式不同分为开腹手术组及腹腔镜手术组两组,每组各选取93例。开腹手术组采用开腹完整结肠系膜结肠癌根治术进行治疗,腹腔镜手术组采用腹腔镜下完整结肠系膜切除结肠癌根治术进行治疗,比较两组的手术指标、术后并发症和手术质量。结果:与开腹手术组比较,腹腔镜手术组手术时间延长,术中出血量减少,术后排气时间缩短,术后引流量减少,引流管拔管时间缩短,住院时间缩短(P0.05)。腹腔镜手术组术后并发症总发生率(20.43%)显著低于开腹手术组(35.48%)(P0.05);切口相关感染发生率(1.08%)明显低于开腹手术组(6.45%),但差异无统计学意义(P0.05);总感染发生率(11.83%)低于开腹手术组(30.11%)(P0.05)。腹腔镜手术组与开腹手术组均达到完整系膜切除标准,肿瘤组织、系膜等均整块完整切除且系膜未发现损伤,切除标本质量分级达到C级及以上,切除肠管均距离恶性肿瘤上缘10 cm、下缘15 cm,且对切除肠管上切缘及下切缘的病理组织学检查结果均未发现恶性肿瘤细胞。腹腔镜手术组与开腹手术组在清扫淋巴结数量、肿瘤TNM病理分期方面比较均未发现具有统计学差异(P0.05)。腹腔镜手术组肿瘤大小明显小于开腹手术组(P0.05)。结论:腹腔镜下完整系膜切除术治疗结肠癌的手术创伤小,可降低术后并发症发生率,但手术时间还有待优化,应用指征还有待进一步拓宽。     

急诊胃癌穿孔腹腔镜手术方式选择的研究

目的:对急诊胃癌穿孔腹腔镜手术方式的选择进行探讨,为进一步优化治疗方案提供依据。方法:选取笔者所在医院2008年6月-2013年6月经治的21例胃癌穿孔临床资料作为研究对象,所有患者的病历资料完整,术式选择、并发症发生情况和术后存活时间进行分析。结果:21例均成功行腹腔镜手术。3例行单纯腹腔镜修补术,12例行经腹腔镜胃癌根治术(Ⅰ期7例+Ⅱ期5例),6例行姑息性远侧胃大部切除术(Ⅰ期5例+Ⅱ期1例)。结论:胃癌穿孔患者,全身情况较好可耐受全麻及腹腔镜根治性切除者,可积极行Ⅰ期腹腔镜根治行切除术。无条件者行穿孔修补术后2-3周再施行Ⅱ期经腹腔镜胃癌根治术。     

腹腔镜与传统开腹手术对胃癌临床疗效、术后并发症及免疫功能的影响比较

目的:探讨腹腔镜与传统开腹手术治疗胃癌的临床疗效、安全性及对患者免疫功能的影响。方法:选择2012年3月至2014年3月在我院行胃癌D2根治术的胃癌患者92例并随机分为两组,开腹组(A组)44例接受传统开腹手术,腹腔镜组(B组)48例接受腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术,观察和比较两组患者的手术情况以及手术前后患者免疫功能的变化,比较两组患者围术期不良反应的发生情况及临床疗效。结果:B组患者术中切口长度、出血量明显优于A组患者(P0.05),且B组患者较A组患者术后排气时间以及疼痛缓解情况明显较好(P0.05);两组患者接受手术前后,机体的免疫功能有所变化,B组患者术后24hCD3~+、CD4~+、CD8~+、CD4~+/CD8~+以及NK细胞相对活性等细胞免疫指标明显高于A组(P0.05),体液免疫指标IgM、IgG以及IgA等免疫球蛋白明显高于A组;两组患者术中并发症的发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05),B组患者术后并发症的发生率与A组比较明显降低,且差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:腹腔镜辅助胃癌D2根治术对胃癌患者术中临床疗效有显著改善作用,可降低对机体免疫功能的影响并提高治疗的安全性。     

Autophagy induced by a sulphamoylated estrone analogue contributes to its cytotoxic effect on breast cancer cells

Background

The conventional radical resection of proximal gastric cancer is even more risky when performed laparoscopically, though this technique is widely used in gastrointestinal surgery and is accepted as the superior method. This paper explores the feasibility of laparoscopic spleen-preserving hilar lymph node dissection using a retro-pancreatic approach for the treatment of proximal gastric cancer.

Methods

Two cadavers were dissected for examination of and the pre-pancreatic and retro-pancreatic spaces. Following the dissection of the cadavers, ten live patients with proximal gastric cancer from May 2008 to May 2013 at Nanfang Hospital, Guangzhou, China, were given total gastrectomy and adjuvant splenic hilar lymph node clearance through pre-pancreatic and retro-pancreatic approach on the precondition of preserving the pancreas and spleen. The clinicopathologic characteristics, as well as the intraoperative and postoperative variables affecting the procedure, were observed and analyzed.

Results

Anatomy of the space anterior and posterior to the pancreas in the two cadavers demonstrated the feasibility of pre-pancreatic and retro-pancreatic approach. The surgeries were all successfully performed laparoscopically; conversion to laparotomy was not necessary for any of the ten patients. The overall mean operative time was 243.6 ± 45 min. The mean estimated blood loss was 232 ± 80 ml. At the time of follow-up (median 12 months post-surgery), there had been neither local recurrence nor mortality in any of the patients.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic spleen- and pancreas-preserving splenic hilar lymph node dissection during total gastrectomy, using both pre-pancreatic and retro-pancreatic approaches, is indicated as a safe and feasible method for the treatment of proximal gastric cancer.

     

Robotic versus Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Aim

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Knowledge was performed. Systematic review was carried out to identify studies comparing robotic gastrectomy and open gastrectomy in gastric cancer. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were also analyzed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the surgery. A fixed effects model or a random effects model was utilized according to the heterogeneity.

Results

Four studies involving 5780 patients with 520 (9.00%) cases of robotic gastrectomy and 5260 (91.00%) cases of open gastrectomy were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to open gastrectomy, robotic gastrectomy has a significantly longer operation time (weighted mean differences (WMD) =92.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 55.63 to 129.12, P<0.00001), lower blood loss (WMD: -126.08, 95% CI: -189.02 to -63.13, P<0.0001), and shorter hospital stay (WMD = -2.87; 95% CI: -4.17 to -1.56; P<0.0001). No statistical difference was noted based on the rate of overall postoperative complication, wound infection, bleeding, number of harvested lymph nodes, anastomotic leakage and postoperative mortality rate.

Conclusions

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that robotic gastrectomy is a better alternative technique to open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. However, more prospective, well-designed, multicenter, randomized controlled trials are necessary to further evaluate the safety and efficacy as well as the long-term outcome.     

早期胃癌的治疗现状与进展

胃癌是常见的消化道肿瘤之一,是我国死亡率最高的恶性肿瘤之一。与日本韩国等发达国家相比,我国胃癌患者多数在就诊时已处于进展期,早期胃癌所占比例不足10%。传统的开腹胃癌手术仍是治疗早期胃癌的主要手段。相较于传统开腹手术,腹腔镜手术对于早期胃癌的治疗优势是显而易见的。早期胃癌患者行腹腔镜手术,具有术后恢复快,生活质量好,近期疗效佳等优势。内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD,endoscopic submucosal dissection)是近年来出现的一项新的治疗早期胃癌的手段。本文就传统开腹手术、腹腔镜手术及ESD分别在早期胃癌治疗中的应用进行了综述。微创手术治疗早期胃癌将逐渐代替开腹手术,成为早期胃癌治疗的主要手段。     

Robotic total gastrectomy with <Emphasis Type="Italic">π</Emphasis>-shaped esophagojejunostomy using a linear stapler as a novel technique

Objective

To evaluate the intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes of a novel robotic intracorporeal π-shaped esophagojejunostomy (EJS) after D2 total gastrectomy (TG) using the Da Vinci robotic surgical system for intracorporeal anastomosis after TG.

Background

Intracorporeal π-shaped EJS, using a linear stapler, was recently reported for laparoscopic total gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer. However, robotic intracorporeal π-shaped EJS using a linear stapler has not been reported. This report aimed to describe the use of a novel technique for π-shaped EJS using the Da Vinci robotic system.

Methods

Robotic intracorporeal π-shaped esophagojejunostomy after total gastrectomy was performed in 11 consecutive patients diagnosed with early gastric cancer, and their perioperative outcomes were analyzed.

Results

All the operations were successful without conversion to open or laparoscopic surgery and postoperative complications. The total number of patients was 11 (7 males and 4 females). The mean age of the patients was 63.36?±?10.56?years old. Seven patients were diagnosed with cardia cancer, 3 patients were diagnosed with gastric body cancer, and 1 patient was diagnosed with gastric antrum cancer. The patients’ mean proximal resection margin was 3.18?±?1.17?cm, the distal resection margin was 6.18?±?1.40?cm, the mean length of the incision was 4.55?±?0.69?cm, the mean operative time was 287.27?±?30.69?min, the mean day of first flatus was 3.27?±?0.79?days, the mean day of the start of diet was 2.91?±?0.94?days, the mean postoperative hospital stay was 11.45?±?5.13?days, and the mean operative blood loss was 47.27?±?31.33?ml. No complications were observed during anastomosis, and the median anastomosis time was 19.5?min. The mean number of lymph node dissections was 17.91?±?4.59, the mean number of positive lymph nodes was 0.45?±?0.69, all patients were diagnosed with stage I–II gastric cancer, and the mean maximum diameter of the tumor was 2.67?±?1.30?cm. All the patients had a smooth hospital discharge.

Conclusion

A novel robotic gastrectomy with intracorporeal π-shaped EJS for esophagojejunal anastomosis described and shows acceptable resulted. This technique has the potential to offer better short-term surgical outcomes and overcomes the drawbacks of laparoscopy with a decreased risk of complications during and after surgery.

     

达芬奇机器人与腹腔镜手术治疗胰腺癌的近期疗效比较及对血清CRP、PCT及肿瘤标志物的影响

摘要 目的：探讨达芬奇机器人与腹腔镜手术治疗胰腺癌的近期疗效比较及对血清C-反应蛋白（CRP）、降钙素原（PCT）及肿瘤标志物的影响。方法：选择2019年1月至2020年1月在我院接受治疗的61例胰腺癌患者,根据手术方法分为机器人组（n=26）和腹腔镜组（n=35）。腹腔镜组给予腹腔镜手术治疗,机器人组给予达芬奇机器人辅助治疗。比较两组围术期情况、CRP 、PCT、糖类抗原19-9（CA19-9）、糖类抗原125（CA125）、术后恢复情况及并发症发生情况。结果：机器人组禁食时间及排气时间显著低于腹腔镜组,差异显著（P<0.05）;治疗前,两组血清CA19-9、CA125水平无明显差异;治疗后,两组血清CA19-9、CA125水平治疗后较治疗前均显著下降差异显著（P<0.05）;两组治疗后血清CA19-9、CA125水平比较无显著差异（P>0.05）;治疗前,两组CRP、PCT水平无明显差异;治疗后,两组CRP、PCT明显升高,且机器人组低于腹腔镜组差异显著（P<0.05）;机器人组和腹腔镜组术后下床活动时间、拔尿管时间、术后住院时间比较无显著差异;机器人组术后重症监护时间显著低于腹腔镜组,差异显著（P<0.05）;两组患者治疗期间并发症总发生率分别为4.44%、6.67%,无显著差异（P>0.05）。结论：达芬奇机器人辅助能够显著提高胰腺癌手术质量,且对血清CRP 、PCT的影响较小,且对肿瘤标志物的影响与腹腔镜手术较为接近,为患者提供机器人微创治疗是未来临床的必然发展趋势。     

Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Expert laparoscopic surgeons have demonstrated that laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with or without robotic assistance can be performed with excellent results. There is no evidence that laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with or without robotic assistance offers any clinically relevant advantage over open radical prostatectomy. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with or without robotic assistance requires a significant learning curve, is a longer surgical procedure, carries greater costs, and requires an expanded operating room team. The literature suggests that laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is associated with more intraoperative complications and higher positive surgical margins. The lesser amount of postoperative bleeding associated with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is not clinically relevant. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is not associated with less pain and does not facilitate earlier urinary catheter removal. The best way to improve overall outcomes after radical prostatectomy is to direct patients to expert open or laparoscopic surgeons.     

腹腔镜结肠癌根治术治疗老年局部进展期结肠癌的疗效和安全性及对患者免疫功能的影响

目的:比较分析腹腔镜和开腹结肠癌根治术治疗老年局部进展期结肠癌的临床疗效和安全性及对患者免疫功能的影响。方法:根据随机数字表法,将64例老年局部进展期结肠癌患者随机分为腹腔镜组和开腹组,每组各32例,分别接受腹腔镜、开腹结肠癌根治术治疗。比较两组手术相关指标、手术前后免疫功能变化、术后近远期并发症的发生情况及预后。结果:与开腹组比较,腹腔镜组患者手术时间明显延长,而术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间则明显缩短(P<0.05)。两组淋巴结清扫数比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后3个月,腹腔镜组CD4+、CD4+/CD8+比值均明显高于开腹组(P<0.05),且与术前比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。与开腹组比较,腹腔镜组患者术后切口感染的发生率明显降低(P<0.05),两组其他近期并发症如吻合口瘘、吻合口出血,远期并发症如黏连性肠梗阻、切口疝的发生率比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。腹腔镜组与开腹组术后2年的局部复发率、1年和2年生存率比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:腹腔镜手术和开腹手术治疗老年局部进展期结肠癌患者的临床疗效和预后相当,但腹腔镜手术对患者的免疫功能影响更小,且安全性更高。     

经腹腔镜实施结直肠癌根治术对高龄患者胃肠功能的影响

目的:探讨结直肠癌高龄患者经腹腔镜实施结直肠癌根治术对胃肠功能产生的影响。方法:选取92例接受结直肠癌根治手术的结直肠癌患者,将其随机数字表法随机分为试验组和对照组两组,其中对照组患者均采用开腹手术进行治疗,而试验组患者则采取腹腔镜下结直肠癌根治手术。观察比较两组患者的术中情况和术后的胃肠功能。结果:两组患者之间的淋巴结清扫数目和标本切除长度均无明显差异(均P0.05),试验组患者的术中出血量以及手术时间均低于对照组患者(t=10.394,P0.05;t=6.983,P0.05)。胃泌素和胃动素水平和患者术后的肛门排气时间以及腹胀持续时间呈显著的负相关关系;试验组患者的术后肛门排气时间和腹胀持续时间均低于对照组患者,并且其胃泌素和胃动素含量均明显高于对照组患者(均P0.05)。结论:腹腔镜下结直肠癌根治手术较开腹手术具有创伤小的优势,并且对于高龄结直肠癌患者术后的胃肠功能具有较好的恢复效果。     

Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Resection for Large (≥ 6 CM) Pheochromocytomas Without Suspected Malignancy

ObjectiveTo determine whether laparoscopic adrenalectomy in patients without radiologic evidence of cancer compromises the perioperative and long-term outcomes in patients with large (≥ 6 cm) pheochromocytomas.MethodsWe analyzed a prospective adrenal database of consecutive patients who underwent adrenalectomy at our institution between September 2000 and September 2010. Patients with diagnosed pheochromocytoma who underwent laparoscopic adrenalectomy were included. Patients with tumors smaller than 6 cm were compared with those presenting with tumors 6 cm or larger.ResultsOne hundred fifty-seven patients underwent adrenalectomy, and there were 32 catecholamine-secreting tumors. Of the 33, 7 were excluded from the study because of open surgery. Thus, 25 patients presented with 26 pheochromocytomas and underwent laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Thirteen of the 25 patients (52%) were women. Mean age (± standard error of the mean) was 53 ± 3 years. Mean tumor size was 5.2 ± 0.5 cm, and 11 pheochromocytomas (42%) were 6 cm or larger. Tumor size was significantly different between the large pheochromocytoma and the small pheochromocytoma groups (7.6 ± 0.4 vs 3.6 ± 0.4 cm, P <.001), but there was no significant difference in intraoperative complications, estimated blood loss, cancer diagnosis, or recurrence. The length of stay was comparable between the 2 cohorts, and there were no incidents of capsular invasion or adverse cardiovascular events.ConclusionLaparoscopic adrenalectomy of pheochromocytomas larger than 6 cm is feasible and safe with comparable results to those achieved with laparoscopic adrenalectomy in patients with smaller pheochromocytomas. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:720-726)     

Laparoscopic versus Open Hepatectomy with or without Synchronous Colectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastasis: A Meta-Analysis

Background

To compare short-term and long-term results of colorectal patients undergoing laparoscopic and open hepatectomy. Moreover, outcomes of laparoscopic versus open procedures for simultaneous primary colorectal tumor and liver metastasis resection were compared.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed and EmBase databases (until Oct. 22. 2013) with no limits. Bibliographic citation management software (EndNote X6) was used for extracted literature management. Quality assessment was performed according to a modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The data were analyzed using Review Manager (Version 5.1), and sensitivity analysis was performed by sequentially omitting each study.

Results

Finally, 14 studies, including a total of 975 CLM (colorectal liver metastasis) patients, compared laparoscopic with open hepatectomy. 3 studies of them, including a total of 107 CLM patients, compared laparoscopic with open procedures for synchronous hepatectomy and colectomy. Laparoscopic hepatectomy was associated with a significantly less blood loss, shorter hospitalization time, and less operative transfusion rate. In addition, lower hospital morbidity rate (OR = 0.57, 95%CI:0.42–0.78, P = 0.0005) and better R0 resection (OR = 2.44, 95%CI:1.21–4.94, P = 0.01) were observed in laparoscopic hepatectomy. For long-term outcomes, there were no significant differences between two surgical procedures on recurrence and overall survival. In comparison of synchronous hepatectomy and colectomy, laparoscopic procedure displayed shorter hospitalization (MD = −3.40, 95%CI:−4.37–2.44, P<0.00001) than open procedure. Other outcomes, including surgical time, estimated blood loss, hospital morbidity, and overall survival did not differ significantly in the comparison.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic hepatectomy with or without synchronous colectomy are acceptable for selective CLM patients. We suggest standard inclusion criteria of CLM patients be formulated.     

Expert opinion on laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer parallels evidence from a cumulative meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

This study sought to synthesize survival outcomes from trials of laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery, and to determine whether expert acceptance of this technology in the literature has parallel cumulative survival evidence.

Study Design

A systematic review of randomized trials was conducted. The primary outcome was survival, and meta-analysis of time-to-event data was conducted. Expert opinion in the literature (published reviews, guidelines, and textbook chapters) on the acceptability of laparoscopic colorectal cancer was graded using a 7-point scale. Pooled survival data were correlated in time with accumulating expert opinion scores.

Results

A total of 5,800 citations were screened. Of these, 39 publications pertaining to 23 individual trials were retained. As well, 414 reviews were included (28 guidelines, 30 textbook chapters, 20 systematic reviews, 336 narrative reviews). In total, 5,782 patients were randomized to laparoscopic (n = 3,031) and open (n = 2,751) colorectal surgery. Survival data were presented in 16 publications. Laparoscopic surgery was not inferior to open surgery in terms of overall survival (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.80, 1.09). Expert opinion in the literature pertaining to the oncologic acceptability of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer correlated most closely with the publication of large RCTs in 2002–2004. Although increasingly accepted since 2006, laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remained controversial.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is non-inferior to open surgery in terms of overall survival, and has been so since 2004. The majority expert opinion in the literature has considered these two techniques to be equivalent since 2002–2004. Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has been increasingly accepted since 2006, but remains controversial. Knowledge translation efforts in this field appear to have paralleled the accumulation of clinical trial evidence.