ObjectiveTo summary the standard treatment for early gastric cancer. MethodsThe current early gastric cancer treatment guidelines around the world were analyzed and the standardized treatment patterns for early gastric cancer were concluded. ResultsThe accurate preoperative evaluation for early gastric cancer is the basis of standardized treatment which can be divided into staging evaluation and histological evaluation.The staging evaluation is focused on the gastric wall invasion and lymph node involvement of the tumor while the histologic evaluation emphasize the histological type and grading of the tumor.According to the precise evaluation for early gastric cancer, endoscopic surgery, laparoscopic surgery, open surgery, and multimodal therapy can be applied individually to the patients.Different treatment methods have their indications, but the indications of the therapies in different guidelines are suggested with slight differences. ConclusionIn clinical practice, the choice of treatment should be made with comprehensive consideration of diagnosis and individual characteristics of patients to achieve the most benefit on prognosis.
Objective To review the latest comparative research of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and traditional open approach. Methods The domestic and foreign literature concerning the comparative research of minimally invasive TLIF and traditional open TLIF was reviewed, then intraoperative indicators, length of hospitalization, effectiveness, complication, fusion rate, and the effect on paraspinal muscles were analyzed respectively. Results Minimally invasive TLIF has less blood loss and shorter length of hospitalization, but with longer operation and fluoroscopic time. Minimally invasive surgery has the same high fusion rate as open surgery, however, its effectiveness is not superior to open surgery, and complication rate is relatively higher. In the aspect of the effect on paraspinal muscles, in creatine kinase, multifidus cross-sectional area, and atrophy grading, minimally invasive surgery has no significant reduced damage on paraspinal muscles. Conclusion Minimally invasive TLIF is not significantly superior to open TLIF, and it does not reduce the paraspinal muscles injury. But prospective double-blind randomized control trials are still needed for further study.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and changes of sagittal spino-pelvic parameters between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion in treatment of the low-degree isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis. MethodsBetween May 2012 and May 2013, 86 patients with single segmental isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis (Meyerding degree Ⅰ or Ⅱ) were treated by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (minimally invasive group) in 39 cases, and by open posterior lumbar interbody fusion in 47 cases (open group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, degree of lumbar spondylolisthesis, preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between 2 groups (P>0.05). The following sagittal spino-pelvic parameters were compared between 2 groups before and after operation: the percentage of slipping (PS), intervertebral height, angle of slip (AS), thoracolumbar junction (TLJ), thoracic kyphosis (TK), lumbar lordosis (LL), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), spino-sacral angle (SSA), sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), and pelvic incidence (PI). Pearson correlation analysis of the changes between pre- and post-operation was done. ResultsPrimary healing of incision was obtained in all patients of 2 groups. The postoperative hospital stay of minimally invasive group [(5.1±1.6) days] was significantly shorter than that of open group [(7.2±2.1) days] (t=2.593, P=0.017). The patients were followed up 11-20 months (mean, 15 months). The reduction rate was 68.53%±20.52% in minimally invasive group, and was 64.21%±30.21% in open group, showing no significant difference (t=0.725, P=0.093). The back and leg pain VAS scores, and ODI at 3 months after operation were significantly reduced when compared with preoperative ones (P<0.05), but no significant difference was found between 2 groups (P>0.05). The postoperative other sagittal spino-pelvic parameters were significantly improved (P<0.05) except PI (P>0.05), but there was no significant difference between 2 groups (P>0.05). The correlation analysis showed that ODI value was related to the SVA, SSA, PT, and LL (P<0.05). ConclusionBoth minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion can significantly improve the sagittal spino-pelvic parameters in the treatment of low-degree isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis. The reconstruction of SVA, SSA, PT, and LL are related to the quality of life.
Objective To compare the difference of traumatic related index in serum and its significance between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and open TLIF. Methods Sixty patients were enrolled by the entry criteria between May and November 2012, and were divided into MIS-TLIF group (n=30) and open TLIF group (n=30). There was no significant difference in gender, age, type of lesions, disease segment, and disease duration between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospitalization time were recorded, and the pain severity of incision was evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS). The serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and creatine kinase (CK) were measured at preoperation and at 24 hours postoperatively. The levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6), IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) in serum were measured at preoperation and at 2, 4, 8, and 24 hours after operation. Results The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospitalization time of MIS-TLIF group were significantly smaller than those of open TLIF group (P lt; 0.05), and the VAS score for incision pain in MIS-TLIF group was significantly lower than that of open TLIF group at 1, 2, and 3 days after operation (P lt; 0.05). The levels of CRP, CK, IL-6, and IL-10 in MIS-TLIF group were significantly lower than those in open TLIF group at 24 hours after operation (P lt; 0.05), but there was no significant difference between 2 groups before operation (P gt; 0.05). No significant difference was found in TNF-α level between 2 groups at pre- and post-operation (P gt; 0.05). Conclusion Compared with the open-TLIF, MIS-TLIF may significantly reduce tissue injury and systemic inflammatory reactions during the early postoperative period.
ObjectiveTo explore feasibility and advantages of hand-assisted laparoscopic radical resection for remnant gastric cancer. MethodsThe clinical data of 26 patients with remnant gastric cancer who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic (hand-assisted group, n=13) or open (open group, n=13) radical resection from December 2007 to May 2016 in this hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The perioperative outcomes were compared between these two groups. ResultsThere was no conversion to open surgery in the hand-assisted group. Compared with the open group, the incision length was significantly reduced (P=0.000), the intraoperative blood loss was significantly decreased (P=0.038), postoperative the first anal exhaust time was significantly shortened (P=0.025) in the hand-assisted group. The operation time, the number of lymph nodes dissection, and the incidence of postoperative complications had no statistically significant differences between these two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionThe preliminary results of limited cases in this study show that hand-assisted laparoscopic radical resection for remnant gastric cancer is safe and feasible, it has several advantages including small incisions, mild intraoperative hemorrhage, rapid postoperative recovery, better recent clinical therapeutic outcome and so on as compared with open surgery.
ObjectiveTo compare the results of laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative resection and open surgery for gasric stromal tumor. MethodsFrom January 2010 to March 2015, the clinical data of 56 cases undergoing laparoscopic resection for gasric stromal tumor and 53 cases of traditional operation selected during the same period were retrospectively compared. ResultsThere was no significant difference between two groups in patient's gender, age, body weight, size of tumor, tumor staging, method of operation, intraoperative conditions, postoperative overall complications, local recurrence, and distant metastasis. There were 1 case with the rupture of tumor and 1 case of open surgery transforming in laparoscopic group. In another group, there was the absence of the rupture of tumors. There was no mortality, stomach bleeding, stenosis or leakage occurred between two groups. In laparoscopic group, there were less operative blood loss and abdominal drainage, shorter time of postoperative anal exhaust time, fewer anodyne, a reduction of hospital stay than in convention operation group.However, laparoscopic resection required greater hospital costs and longer operative time. There were significant differences between two groups (P < 0.05). Conciusions With advantages of less blood loss and quicker recovery as compared to conventional operation. Laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative resection for gasric stromal tumor has similar effect when it is performed by well selection of cases, skilled surgeon with experience on open resection for surgical treatment of gastric stromal tumor.
ObjectiveTo compare effectiveness and safety of video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) and thoracotomy in lymph node (LN) dissection for lung cancer. MethodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Ovid Medline, EMbase, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, Scopus and Google Scholar was performed to identify studies (from January 1990 to July 2015) comparing VATS with thoracotomy in LN dissection. The data were analyzed by RevMan 5.3 software. Quality of literature was evaluated by Newcastle-Ottawa scale or Jadad scale. ResultsFifty-one articles met the inclusion criteria involved 7 127 patients in the VATS group and 9 217 patients in the thoracotomy group. Thirty-eight articles were of good quality and the remaining thirteen were medium. Meta-analysis showed that fewer N1 LN stations in the VATS group (95% CI -0.23 to -0.04, P=0.005), although VATS harvested more left-side LNs (95% CI 0.51 to 3.22, P=0.007). The number of total LNs (95% CI -1.81 to 0.28, P=0.15), total LN stations (95% CI -0.34 to 0.15, P=0.44), N2 LNs (95%CI -1.77 to 0.79, P=0.45), N2 LN stations (95% CI -0.22 to 0.16, P=0.78), N1 LNs (95% CI -0.95 to 0.11, P=0.12), and right-side LNs (95% CI -1.52 to 2.23, P=0.71) harvested in the two groups were not significantly different. ConclusionIn the surgical treatment of lung cancer, VATS can achieve the same efficacy of LN dissection as thoracotomy. This conclusion still needs to be further proved by more high-quality and large-scale RCTs.
ObjectiveTo summarized the clinical experience on laparoscopic radical surgery in patients with advanced distal gastric cancer. MethodsThe clinical data of 26 patients with advanced distant gastric cancer undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy were retrospectively analyzed. ResultsLaparoscopic distal gastrectomy was performed successfully in all patients. The operation time was (283.2±27.6) min (270-450 min) and the blood loss was (178.4±67.4) ml (80-350 ml). The time of gastrointestinal function recovery was (2.8±1.2) d (2-4 d), out of bed activity time was (1.5±0.4) d (1-3 d) and liquid diet feeding was (3.5±1.4) d (3-4 d). The hospital stay was (10.0±2.6) d (7-13 d). The number of harvested lymph nodes was 11 to 34 (17.8±7.3). The distance from proximal surgical margin to tumor was (7.0±2.1) cm (5-12 cm) and the distance from distal surgical margin to tumor was (5.5±1.8) cm (4-8 cm), thus surgical margins were negative in all samples. All patients were followed up for 3-48 months (mean 18.5 months), two patients with poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma died of extensive metastasis in 13 and 18 months, respectively, and other patients survived well. ConclusionsLaparoscopic radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer is safe and feasible. However, the advantage of laparoscopic technique over the conventional open surgery requires further study.
Objective To systematically review the efficacy of robotic, laparoscopic-assisted, and open total mesorectal excision (TME) for the treatment of rectal cancer. Methods The PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were electronically searched to identify cohort studies on robotic, laparoscopic-assisted, and open TME for rectal cancer published from January 2016 to January 2022. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias of the included studies. Subsequently, network meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software and R software. Results A total of 24 studies involving 12 348 patients were included. The results indicated that among the three types of surgical procedures, robotic TME showed the best outcomes by shortening the length of hospital stay, reducing the incidence of postoperative anastomotic fistula and intestinal obstruction, and lowering the overall postoperative complication rate. However, differences in the number of dissected peritumoural lymph nodes were not statistically significant. Conclusion Robotic TME shows better outcomes in terms of the radicality of excision and postoperative short-term outcomes in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, clinicians should consider the patients’ actual condition for the selection of surgical methods to achieve individualised treatment for patients with rectal cancer.
Objective To compare the short-term effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) versus open-TLIF in treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative disease. Methods Between February 2010 and February 2011, 147 patients with single-level lumbar degenerative diseases underwent open-TLIF in 104 cases (open-TLIF group) and MIS-TLIF in 43 cases (MIS-TLIF group), and the clinical data were analyzed retrospectively. There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease type, lesion level, disease duration, preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS), and preoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI) between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The operation time, intraoperative radiological exposure time, intra- and post-operative blood loss, postoperative hospitalization time, and postoperative complications were compared between 2 groups. The VAS score and ODI were observed during follow-up. The imaging examination was done to observe the bone graft fusion and the locations of internal fixator and Cage. Results There was no significant difference in operation time between 2 groups (t=0.402, P=0.688); MIS-TLIF group had a decreased intra- and post-operative blood loss, shortened postoperative hospitalization time, and increased intraoperative radiological exposure time, showing significant differences when compared with open-TLIF group (P lt; 0.05). Cerebrospinal fluid leakage (2 cases) and superficial infection of incision (2 cases) occurred after operation in open-TLIF group, with a complication incidence of 3.8% (4/104); dorsal root ganglion stimulation symptom (3 cases) occurred in MIS-TLIF group, with a complication incidence of 7.0% (3/43); there was no significant difference in the complication incidence between 2 groups (χ2=0.657, P=0.417). The patients were followed up 18-26 months (mean, 21 months) in MIS-TLIF group, and 18-28 months (mean, 23 months) in open-TLIF group. The VAS scores and ODI of 2 groups at each time point after operation were significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P lt; 0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS score between 2 groups at discharge and 3 months after operation (P gt; 0.05); VAS score of MIS-TLIF group was significantly lower than that of open-TLIF group at last follow-up (t= — 2.022, P=0.047). At 3 months and last follow-up, no significant difference was found in the ODI between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The imaging examination showed good positions of Cage and internal fixator, and bone graft fusion in 2 groups. Conclusion The short-term effectiveness of MIS-TLIF and open-TLIF for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases was similar. MIS-TLIF has the advantages of less invasion and quick recovery, but the long-term effectiveness needs more observation.