Current status of minimal access surgery for gastric cancer

Abstract

Background: The aim was to conduct a systematic review of the literature on the subject of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and determine the relative merits of laparoscopic (LG) and open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric carcinoma.

Material and methods: A search of the Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents and PubMed databases identified individual retrospective and prospective series on LG (proximal, distal and total). Furthermore, all clinical trials that compared LG and OG published in the English language between January 1990 and the end of December 2006 were also identified. A large number of outcome variables were analysed for individual series and comparative trials between LG and OG and results discussed and tabulated.

Results: The majority of the literature is published from Japan showing both oncological adequacy and safety of LG. The majority of early series and comparative studies have utilized laparoscopic resection for early and distal gastric cancer. However, with increasing advanced laparoscopic experience, advancement in digital technology and improvement in instrumentation, more advanced gastric cancers and more extensive procedures such as laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy and laparoscopy-assisted D2 dissection are becoming more common. To date lymph node harvesting, resection margins and complication rates seem to be equivalent to open procedures. Furthermore, the earlier fears of port-site metastases have not been borne out.

Conclusions: The available data suggests that LG seems to be associated with quicker return of gastrointestinal function, faster ambulation, earlier discharge from hospital, and comparable complications and recurrence rate to OG. However, the operating time for LG remains significantly longer compared to its open counterpart, although with experience it is achieving parity with OG. However, the majority of the comparative trials (if not all) probably do not have the power to detect differences in the outcome. As far as the RCT's (LG vs. OG) are concerned, the numbers of patients in such trials are small and the majority of patients were operated upon for early distal gastric cancer and, therefore, any meaningful conclusions regarding the advantages or disadvantages of LG for both the ECGs and extensive and advanced gastric tumours are difficult to justify.