4.6 Review

Systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic and open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 11, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7819-11-182

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Science and Technology Department of Zhejiang Province, China [2011C13036-2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The use of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains a controversial topic, mainly because of doubts about its oncologic validity. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available evidence. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed until June 2013 to identify comparative studies evaluating survival rates, recurrence rates, surgical outcomes and complications. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the random effects model. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out using RevMan 5.1 software. Results: Fifteen trials were involved in this analysis. Compared to open gastrectomy (OG), LG involved a longer operating time (WMD = 48.67 min, 95% CI 34.09 to 63.26, P < 0.001); less blood loss (WMD = -139.01 ml, 95% CI -174.57 to -103.44, P < 0.001); earlier time to flatus (WMD = -0.79 days, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.44, P < 0.001); shorter hospital stay (WMD = -3.11 days, 95% CI -4.13 to -2.09, P < 0.001); and a decrease in complications (RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.90, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference in the number of harvested lymph nodes, margin distance, mortality, cancer recurrence rate and long-term survival rate between the AGC patients treated with LG or OG (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Despite a longer operation, LG is a safe technical alternative to OG for AGC with a lower complication rate and enhanced postoperative recovery. Moreover, there were similar outcomes between both approaches in terms of cancer recurrence and the long-term survival rate. Because of the limitation of this study, methodologically high-quality studies are needed for further evaluation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available