Introducing laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer in general practice: a retrospective cohort study based on a nationwide registry database in Japan.
Gastric cancer
Laparoscopic surgery
National Clinical Database
Open gastrectomy
Propensity score matching
Journal
Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association
ISSN: 1436-3305
Titre abrégé: Gastric Cancer
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 100886238
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2019
01 2019
Historique:
received:
17
12
2017
accepted:
14
01
2018
pubmed:
11
2
2018
medline:
16
4
2019
entrez:
11
2
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Although laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) is considered a technically demanding procedure with safety issues, it has been performed in several hospitals in Japan. Data from a nationwide web-based data entry system for surgical procedures (NCD) that started enrollment in 2011 are now available for analysis. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from 32,144 patients who underwent total gastrectomy and were registered in the NCD database between January 2012 and December 2013. Mortality and morbidities were compared between patients who received LTG and those who underwent open total gastrectomy (OTG) in the propensity score-matched Stage I cohort and Stage II-IV cohort. There was no significant difference in mortality rate between LTG and OTG in both cohorts. Operating time was significantly longer in LTG while the blood loss was smaller. In the Stage I cohort, LTG, performed in 33.6% of the patients, was associated with significantly shorter hospital stay but significantly higher incidence of readmission, reoperation, and anastomotic leakage (5.4% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.01). In the Stage II-IV cohort, LTG was performed in only 8.8% of the patients and was associated with significantly higher incidence of leakage (5.7% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.02) although the hospital stay was shorter (15 days vs. 17 days, p < 0.001). LTG was more discreetly introduced than distal gastrectomy, but remained a technically demanding procedure as of 2013. This procedure should be performed only among the well-trained and informed laparoscopic team.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Although laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) is considered a technically demanding procedure with safety issues, it has been performed in several hospitals in Japan. Data from a nationwide web-based data entry system for surgical procedures (NCD) that started enrollment in 2011 are now available for analysis.
METHODS
A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from 32,144 patients who underwent total gastrectomy and were registered in the NCD database between January 2012 and December 2013. Mortality and morbidities were compared between patients who received LTG and those who underwent open total gastrectomy (OTG) in the propensity score-matched Stage I cohort and Stage II-IV cohort.
RESULTS
There was no significant difference in mortality rate between LTG and OTG in both cohorts. Operating time was significantly longer in LTG while the blood loss was smaller. In the Stage I cohort, LTG, performed in 33.6% of the patients, was associated with significantly shorter hospital stay but significantly higher incidence of readmission, reoperation, and anastomotic leakage (5.4% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.01). In the Stage II-IV cohort, LTG was performed in only 8.8% of the patients and was associated with significantly higher incidence of leakage (5.7% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.02) although the hospital stay was shorter (15 days vs. 17 days, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
LTG was more discreetly introduced than distal gastrectomy, but remained a technically demanding procedure as of 2013. This procedure should be performed only among the well-trained and informed laparoscopic team.
Identifiants
pubmed: 29427039
doi: 10.1007/s10120-018-0795-0
pii: 10.1007/s10120-018-0795-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
202-213Références
Gastric Cancer. 2000 Sep 29;3(2):97-101
pubmed: 11984718
Surg Endosc. 2009 Nov;23(11):2624-30
pubmed: 19343421
J Am Coll Surg. 2009 Jun;208(6):1009-16
pubmed: 19476884
Ann Surg. 2009 Aug;250(2):187-96
pubmed: 19638912
J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Nov;211(5):677-86
pubmed: 20869270
Cancer Sci. 2011 Jan;102(1):226-30
pubmed: 20961361
J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Dec;211(6):e25-9
pubmed: 21036074
Surgery. 2013 May;153(5):732-8
pubmed: 23305598
Gastric Cancer. 2014 Jan;17(1):137-40
pubmed: 23430265
Gastric Cancer. 2014 Jan;17(1):146-51
pubmed: 23558458
Surg Today. 2015 May;45(5):549-58
pubmed: 24792009
Ann Surg. 2014 Dec;260(6):1034-9
pubmed: 25072429
Gastric Cancer. 2016 Jan;19(1):264-72
pubmed: 25481705
Surg Endosc. 2015 Nov;29(11):3386-91
pubmed: 25631108
Gastric Cancer. 2015 Apr;18(2):218-26
pubmed: 25666184
Surg Today. 2016 Jan;46(1):38-47
pubmed: 25797948
BMC Cancer. 2015 May 05;15:355
pubmed: 25939684
World J Surg. 2015 Nov;39(11):2734-41
pubmed: 26170158
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Apr 20;34(12):1350-7
pubmed: 26903580
Gastric Cancer. 2017 Jan;20(1):1-19
pubmed: 27342689
J Gastric Cancer. 2016 Jun;16(2):93-7
pubmed: 27433394
Gastric Cancer. 2017 Jul;20(4):699-708
pubmed: 27718137
Surg Endosc. 2018 Jun;32(6):2766-2773
pubmed: 29218676
Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2017 Dec 22;2(1):55-64
pubmed: 29863131