Efficacy evaluation of subtotal and total gastrectomies in robotic surgery for gastric cancer compared with that in open and laparoscopic resections: a meta-analysis.

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.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.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.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

Meta-analyses results for robotic gastrectomy vs. open gastrectomy.

<p>SG, subtotal gastrectomy; TG, total gastrectomy; NA, not applicable; NE, not estimable; OR, odds ratio; WED, weighted mean difference; CI, confidence interval.</p

Flow chart of literature selection.

<p>Flow chart of literature selection.</p

RG <i>vs.</i> LG: a) Clavien-Dindo grade I and II; b) Clavien-Dindo grade III; c) Clavien-Dindo grade IV; d) Clavien-Dindo grade V.

<p>RG <i>vs.</i> LG: a) Clavien-Dindo grade I and II; b) Clavien-Dindo grade III; c) Clavien-Dindo grade IV; d) Clavien-Dindo grade V.</p

RG <i>vs.</i> LG: a) Operation time; b) Intraoperative blood loss; c) Hospital stay; d) Lymph node harvest; e) Anastomotic leakage; f) Morbidity; g) Mortality.

<p>RG <i>vs.</i> LG: a) Operation time; b) Intraoperative blood loss; c) Hospital stay; d) Lymph node harvest; e) Anastomotic leakage; f) Morbidity; g) Mortality.</p

Signature and Prediction of Perigastric Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Gastric Cancer and Total Gastrectomy: Is Total Gastrectomy Always Necessary?

Background: A growing number of studies suggest that the current indications for partial gastrectomy, including proximal gastrectomy and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG), may be expanded, but evidence is still lacking. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 300 patients with gastric cancer (GC) who underwent total gastrectomy. We analyzed the incidence of pLNMs in relation to tumor location, tumor size and T stage. We further identified predictive factors for perigastric lymph node metastasis (pLNM) in stations 1, 2, 3, 4sa, 4sb, 4d, 5, and 6. Results: No patients with upper-third T1&ndash;T2 stage GC had pLNMs in stations 4sa, 4sb, 4d, 5, or 6, but 3.8% of patients with stage T3 had 4d pLNM. No patients with upper-third GC &lt; 4 cm in diameter had pLNMs in 2, 4sa, 4d, 5, or 6, and 2.3% of patients had pLNMs in 4sb. For middle-third GCs, 2.9% of patients with T1 stage had pLNMs in 4sa and 5, but no patients with T2 stage or tumors &lt; 4 cm had pLNMs in 2, 4sa, or 5. The shortest distance from pylorus ring to distal edge of tumor (sDPD) was a new predictive factor for pLNMs in 2, 4d, 5, and 6. Conclusions: Proximal gastrectomy may be expanded to patients with stage T1&ndash;T2 GC and/or tumor diameter &lt; 4 cm in the upper-third stomach, whereas PPG may be expanded to include T1&ndash;T2/N0 and/or tumors &lt; 4 cm in the middle-third stomach. A new predictive factor, sDPD, showed good predictive performance for pLNMs, especially in stations 4d, 5, and 6

Main characteristics of all studies included in the meta-analysis.

<p>Main characteristics of all studies included in the meta-analysis.</p

Pregnancy, delivery, and breastfeeding after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a case report

Abstract Background The reports of pregnancy after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer are rare. Case presentation We report a case of a 35-year-old woman, gravida 0, para 0, who became pregnant and delivered a baby 2 years and 6 months after laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Postoperatively, she showed a good progress during the follow-up and was continuously taking oral iron supplement and administered with methylcobalamin intramuscular injection. Two years after gastrectomy, she became pregnant. During the pregnancy, she kept taking iron and vitamin B12 supplementation and had a good course of pregnancy and a normal delivery. However, 2 months after the delivery, liver dysfunction was detected via blood examination. The patient switched from exclusive breastfeeding to combined feeding with formula, and her laboratory results returned to normal. During 10 years of follow-up after the delivery, the patient was in good condition without any recurrence and nutritional deficiencies, and her child had thrived. Conclusions Careful monitoring and management of iron and vitamin deficiencies are essential during pregnancy and the lactation periods for patients who previously underwent total gastrectomy. During the lactation period, a combination of formula and breastfeeding provides maternal and fetal nutritional support

Columnar Metaplasia in Three Types of Surgical Mouse Models of Esophageal RefluxSummary

Background and Aims: Esophageal adenocarcinoma develops in the setting of gastroesophageal reflux and columnar metaplasia in distal esophagus. Columnar metaplasia arising in gastroesophageal reflux models has developed in rat; however, gastroesophageal reflux models in mice have not been well-characterized. Methods: One hundred thirty-five C57Bl/6J mice aged 8 weeks old were divided into the following operations: esophagogastrojejunostomy (side-to-side) (EGJ), esophageal separation and esophagojejunostomy (end-to-side) (EJ), and EJ and gastrectomy (end-to-side) (EJ/TG). The animals were euthanized after 40 weeks and the histology of the junction was examined. Immunohistochemistry for p53, PDX-1, and CDX-2 was performed. Results: Metaplasia developed in 15/33 (45.5%) of EGJ, 0/38 (0%) of EJ, and 6/39 (15.4%) of EJ/TG (P < .05) and dysplasia developed 7/33 (21.2%) of EGJ, 0% of EJ, and 1/39 (2.6%) of EJ/TG. p53 was positive in all of the dysplastic regions, 12/15 (80%) metaplasias in the EGJ model, and 1/6 (16.7%) metaplasia in the EJ/TG model. CDX-2 was positive in all cases of metaplasias, but decreased in some cases of dysplasia. PDX-1 was positive in 7/8 (88%) cases of dysplasia and in 15/21 (71%) cases of metaplasia (P < .05). Conclusions: The EGJ model, which causes reflux of gastric acid and duodenal content, developed metaplasia and dysplasia most frequently. No metaplasia developed in the EJ model in which gastric juice and duodenal content mixed before reflux. Thus, duodenal contents alone can induce columnar metaplasia and dysplasia; however, the combination of gastric acid with duodenal content reflux can cause metaplasia and dysplasia more efficiently. Keywords: GERD, Esophageal Reflux, Barrettâs Esophagus, Esophageal Adenocarcinom