Comparison of laparoscopic and open total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matched study.

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Deniz Kütük, Mehmet Ali Koç, Atıl Çakmak, Akın Fırat Kocaay
{"title":"Comparison of laparoscopic and open total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matched study.","authors":"Deniz Kütük, Mehmet Ali Koç, Atıl Çakmak, Akın Fırat Kocaay","doi":"10.1186/s12893-025-03044-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) is increasingly performed for gastric cancer, yet concerns remain regarding its oncologic adequacy compared to open total gastrectomy (OTG), especially outside of randomized clinical trials. Real-world data comparing both techniques are still limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer between January 2016 and December 2021 at a single tertiary center. Patients were grouped as LTG or OTG. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to adjust for baseline variables. Long-term clinical outcomes and survival data were compared. Complications were graded using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After propensity score matching (24 LTG vs. 24 OTG), the LTG group demonstrated a significantly shorter hospital stay (6.79 ± 0.66 vs. 7.33 ± 0.64 days; p = 0.006), with comparable operative times (3.5 ± 0.42 vs. 3.5 ± 0.49 h; p = 1.000) and complication rates (16.7% vs. 20.8%; p = 0.71), all classified as Clavien-Dindo Grade I-II. Oncologic outcomes showed equivalent lymph node yield. Oncologic outcomes were equivalent, including lymph node yield (35.12 ± 9.32 vs. 36.46 ± 10.19; p = 0.639). Survival analysis revealed no significant differences: median overall survival was 6 years (95% CI: 3.87-8.12) for LTG vs. 4 years (2.16-5.83) for OTG (p = 0.541), and disease-free survival was 6 years (4.53-7.46) vs. 4 years (1.72-6.27) (p = 0.443), with a median follow-up of 28.4 months.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Laparoscopic total gastrectomy is a safe and effective alternative to open surgery when performed by experienced surgeons. These findings support the feasibility of LTG in real-life clinical settings and complement existing evidence from randomized trials.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>retrospectively registered.</p>","PeriodicalId":49229,"journal":{"name":"BMC Surgery","volume":"25 1","pages":"298"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-025-03044-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) is increasingly performed for gastric cancer, yet concerns remain regarding its oncologic adequacy compared to open total gastrectomy (OTG), especially outside of randomized clinical trials. Real-world data comparing both techniques are still limited.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer between January 2016 and December 2021 at a single tertiary center. Patients were grouped as LTG or OTG. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to adjust for baseline variables. Long-term clinical outcomes and survival data were compared. Complications were graded using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results: After propensity score matching (24 LTG vs. 24 OTG), the LTG group demonstrated a significantly shorter hospital stay (6.79 ± 0.66 vs. 7.33 ± 0.64 days; p = 0.006), with comparable operative times (3.5 ± 0.42 vs. 3.5 ± 0.49 h; p = 1.000) and complication rates (16.7% vs. 20.8%; p = 0.71), all classified as Clavien-Dindo Grade I-II. Oncologic outcomes showed equivalent lymph node yield. Oncologic outcomes were equivalent, including lymph node yield (35.12 ± 9.32 vs. 36.46 ± 10.19; p = 0.639). Survival analysis revealed no significant differences: median overall survival was 6 years (95% CI: 3.87-8.12) for LTG vs. 4 years (2.16-5.83) for OTG (p = 0.541), and disease-free survival was 6 years (4.53-7.46) vs. 4 years (1.72-6.27) (p = 0.443), with a median follow-up of 28.4 months.

Conclusion: Laparoscopic total gastrectomy is a safe and effective alternative to open surgery when performed by experienced surgeons. These findings support the feasibility of LTG in real-life clinical settings and complement existing evidence from randomized trials.

Trial registration: retrospectively registered.

胃癌腹腔镜、开放式全胃切除术与D2淋巴结切除术的比较:倾向评分匹配研究。
背景:腹腔镜全胃切除术(LTG)越来越多地用于胃癌,但与开放式全胃切除术(OTG)相比,其肿瘤学上的充分性仍然值得关注,特别是在随机临床试验之外。比较这两种技术的真实数据仍然有限。方法:这项回顾性队列研究纳入了2016年1月至2021年12月在单一三级中心接受胃癌全胃切除术并D2淋巴结切除术的患者。将患者分为LTG组和OTG组。倾向评分匹配(1:1)用于调整基线变量。比较长期临床结果和生存数据。采用Clavien-Dindo分级对并发症进行分级。采用Kaplan-Meier分析评估无病生存期(DFS)和总生存期(OS)。结果:倾向评分匹配(24 LTG vs 24 OTG)后,LTG组的住院时间显著缩短(6.79±0.66 vs 7.33±0.64天;P = 0.006),手术时间比较(3.5±0.42∶3.5±0.49 h;P = 1.000)和并发症发生率(16.7% vs. 20.8%;p = 0.71),均为Clavien-Dindo I-II级。肿瘤结果显示相同的淋巴结产量。肿瘤预后相同,包括淋巴结清扫率(35.12±9.32 vs 36.46±10.19);p = 0.639)。生存分析显示无显著差异:LTG的中位总生存期为6年(95% CI: 3.87-8.12), OTG的中位总生存期为4年(2.16-5.83)(p = 0.541),无病生存期为6年(4.53-7.46)比4年(1.72-6.27)(p = 0.443),中位随访时间为28.4个月。结论:在经验丰富的外科医生的指导下,腹腔镜全胃切除术是一种安全有效的手术选择。这些发现支持LTG在现实临床环境中的可行性,并补充了随机试验的现有证据。试验注册:回顾性注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Surgery
BMC Surgery SURGERY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.30%
发文量
391
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: BMC Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on surgical research, training, and practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信