Liao Gang, Wang Ziwei, Zhang Wei, Qian Kun, Mariella Mac Sandrie, Li Hui, Huang Zhen
Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Feb;99(7):e19225. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019225.
Totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) are two common surgical approaches for upper and middle gastric cancer. Which surgical approach offers more advantages is still controversial due to a lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the short-term outcomes between the two surgical approaches.
A systematic literature search was performed to evaluate short-term outcomes between TLTG and LATG, including overall postoperative complications, anastomosis-related complications, time for anastomosis, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, proximal margin, distal margin, time to first flatus, time to first diet, and postoperative hospital stay. Short-term outcomes were pooled and compared by meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3. Mean differences (MDs) or risk ratios (RRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). P < .05 was considered statistically significant.
A total of 9 cohort studies fulfilled the selection criteria. The total sample included 1671 cases. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the two surgical approaches in overall postoperative complications (RR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.82 to 1.26, P = .87),anastomosis-related complications (RR = 0.64, 95%CI = 0.39 to 1.03, P = .06),time for anastomosis (MD = -5.13, 95% CI = -10.54 to 0.27, P = .06),operation time (MD = -10.68, 95% CI = -23.62 to 2.26, P = .11), intraoperative blood loss (MD = -25.58, 95% CI = -61.71 to 10.54, P = .17), harvested lymph nodes (MD = 1.61, 95% CI = -2.09 to 5.31, P = .39), proximal margin (MD = -0.37, 95% CI = -0.78 to 0.05, P = .09), distal margin (MD = 0.79, 95% CI = -0.57 to 2.14, P = .25), time to first flatus (MD = 0.01, 95% CI = -0.13 to 0.15, P = .87), time to first diet (MD = -0.22, 95% CI = -0.45 to 0.02, P = .07), and postoperative hospital stay (MD = -0.51, 95% CI = -1.10 to 0.07, P = .09).
TLTG is a safe and feasible surgical approach for upper and middle gastric cancer, with short-term outcomes that are similar to LATG. Nevertheless, high-quality, large-sample and multicenter RCTs are still required to further verify our conclusions.
全腹腔镜全胃切除术(TLTG)和腹腔镜辅助全胃切除术(LATG)是治疗中上段胃癌的两种常见手术方式。由于缺乏随机对照试验(RCT)的证据,哪种手术方式更具优势仍存在争议。本荟萃分析旨在比较这两种手术方式的短期疗效。
进行系统的文献检索,以评估TLTG和LATG之间的短期疗效,包括术后总体并发症、吻合口相关并发症、吻合时间、手术时间、术中出血量、获取的淋巴结数量、近端切缘、远端切缘、首次排气时间、首次进食时间和术后住院时间。通过使用RevMan 5.3进行荟萃分析,汇总并比较短期疗效。计算平均差异(MDs)或风险比(RRs)及95%置信区间(CIs)。P<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
共有9项队列研究符合纳入标准。总样本包括1671例病例。荟萃分析显示,两种手术方式在术后总体并发症(RR = 1.02,95%CI = 0.82至1.26,P = 0.87)、吻合口相关并发症(RR = 0.64,95%CI = 0.39至1.03,P = 0.06)、吻合时间(MD = -5.13,95%CI = -10.54至0.27,P = 0.06)、手术时间(MD = -10.6 eight,95%CI = -23.62至2.26,P = 0.11)、术中出血量(MD = -25.58,95%CI = -61.71至10.54,P = 0.17)、获取的淋巴结数量(MD = 1.61,95%CI = -2.09至5.31,P = 0.39)、近端切缘(MD = -0.37,95%CI = -0.78至0.05,P = 0.09)、远端切缘(MD = 0.79,95%CI = -0.57至2.14,P = 0.25)、首次排气时间(MD = 0.01,95%CI = -0.13至0.15,P = 0.87)、首次进食时间(MD = -0.22,95%CI = -0.45至0.02,P = 0.07)和术后住院时间(MD = -a0.51,95%CI = -1.10至0.07,P = 0.09)方面均无显著差异。
TLTG是一种治疗中上段胃癌安全可行的手术方式,其短期疗效与LATG相似。然而,仍需要高质量、大样本和多中心的RCT来进一步验证我们的结论。