Published in:
01-01-2013
Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with jejunal interposition for gastric cancer in the proximal third of the stomach: a retrospective comparison with open surgery
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 1/2013
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
The incidence of cancer in the proximal third of the stomach is increasing. Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) seems an attractive option for the treatment of early-stage proximal gastric cancer but has not gained wide acceptance because of technical difficulties, including the prevention of severe reflux. In this study, we describe our technique for LPG with jejunal interposition (LPG-IP) and evaluate its safety and feasibility.
Methods
In this retrospective analysis, we reviewed the data of patients with proximal gastric cancer who underwent LPG-IP (n = 22) or the same procedure with open surgery (OPG-IP; n = 68) between January 2008 and September 2011. Short-term surgical variables and outcomes were compared between the groups. The reconstruction method was the same in both groups, with creation of a 15 cm, single-loop, jejunal interposition for anastomosis.
Results
There were no differences in patient or tumor characteristics between the groups. Operation time was longer in the LGP-IP group (233 vs. 201 min, p = 0.0002) and estimated blood loss was significantly less (20 vs. 242 g, p < 0.0001). The average number of harvested lymph nodes did not differ between the two groups (17 vs. 20). There also were no differences in the incidence of leakage at the esophagojejunostomy anastomosis (9.1 vs. 7.4 %) or other postoperative complications (27 vs. 32 %). The number of times additional postoperative analgesia was required was significantly less in the LPG-IP group compared with the OPG-IP group (2 vs. 4, p < 0.0001).
Conclusions
LPG-IP has equivalent safety and curability compared with OPG-IP. Our results imply that LPG-IP may lead to faster recovery, better cosmesis, and improved quality of life in the short-term compared with OPG-IP. Because of the limitations of retrospective analysis, a further study should be conducted to obtain definitive conclusions.