Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Jul 5;28(1):224.
doi: 10.1186/s40001-023-01197-1.

Comparisons of perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: an updated pooled analysis of eighteen studies

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Comparisons of perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: an updated pooled analysis of eighteen studies

Hua-Yang Pang et al. Eur J Med Res. .

Abstract

Background: Outcomes of laparoscopic surgery in advanced gastric cancer patients who received neoadjuvant therapy represent a controversial issue. We performed an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the perioperative and long-term survival outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) versus conventional open gastrectomy (OG) in this subset of patients.

Methods: Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were comprehensively searched up to May 2023. The short-term and long-term outcomes of LG versus OG in advanced gastric cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy were evaluated. Effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals were always assessed using random-effects model. The prospective protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022359126).

Results: Eighteen studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 16 cohort studies) involving 2096 patients were included. In total, 933 patients were treated with LG and 1163 patients were treated with OG. In perioperative outcomes, LG was associated with less estimated blood loss (MD = - 65.15; P < 0.0001), faster time to flatus (MD = - 0.56; P < 0.0001) and liquid intake (MD = - 0.42; P = 0.02), reduced hospital stay (MD = - 2.26; P < 0.0001), lower overall complication rate (OR = 0.70; P = 0.002) and lower minor complication rate (OR = 0.69; P = 0.006), while longer operative time (MD = 25.98; P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of proximal margin, distal margin, R1/R2 resection rate, retrieved lymph nodes, time to remove gastric tube and drainage tube, major complications and other specific complications. In survival outcomes, LG and OG were not significantly different in overall survival, disease-free survival and recurrence-free survival.

Conclusion: LG can be a safe and feasible technique for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy. However, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are still needed to further validate the results of our study.

Keywords: Gastric cancer; Laparoscopic gastrectomy; Meta-analysis; Neoadjuvant therapy; Open gastrectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The PRISMA Flowchart of study selection
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Bias risk summary of each element in the included randomized controlled trials (A) and cohort studies (B)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plot assessing intraoperative and recovery outcomes between the LG and OG groups. A Operative time; B estimated blood loss; C proximal margin; D distal margin; E R1/R2 resection rate; F number of retrieved lymph nodes; G. time to first flatus; H time to first liquid intake; I time to remove gastric tube; J time to remove drainage tube and K postoperative hospital stay
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plot assessing postoperative complications between the LG and OG groups. A Overall complications; B minor complications; C major complications; D anastomotic leakage; E pancreatic complications; F intra-abdominal hemorrhage; G intra-abdominal abscess; H surgical site infection; I lymphatic leakage; J pulmonary infection; and K Ileus
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Forest plot assessing long-term survival outcomes between the LG and OG groups. A OS; B DFS; C RFS; D 1-year OS rate; E 3-year OS rate; F 5-year OS rate; G 1-year DFS rate; H 3-year DFS rate; and I 5-year DFS rate

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pang H, Zhang W, Liang X, et al. Prognostic Score System using preoperative inflammatory, nutritional and tumor markers to predict prognosis for gastric cancer: a two-center cohort study. Adv Ther. 2021;38(9):4917–4934. doi: 10.1007/s12325-021-01870-z. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Marano L, D’Ignazio A, Cammillini F, et al. Comparison between 7th and 8th edition of AJCC TNM staging system for gastric cancer: old problems and new perspectives. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4:22. doi: 10.21037/tgh.2019.03.09. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Li CC, Yeh YS, Chen YC, et al. Surgical efficacy and safety of patients with locally advanced gastric cancer following neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy. J Oncol. 2022;2022:3719241. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cunningham D, Allum WH, Stenning SP, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:11–20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa055531. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types