Evaluation Of Early Surgical Outcomes, Acute Inflammatory Response And Oncological Outcomes In Patients Undergo Totally Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy: A Prospective Comparision With Open Distal Gastrectomy

Qilong Chen,Ke Chen,Yu Pan,Xueyong Zheng,Jiafei Yan
2018-01-01
Abstract:Background and aim: Totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) is gradually prevailing in recent years. Improved clinical outcomes have been reported in previous studies. However, the advantages and disadvantages of TLDG in acute inflammatory response, pulmonary function and long-term oncological outcomes remain unclear. This study was conducted to clarify these issues. Methods: From March 2010 to September 2011, a total of 74 patients with gastric cancer were perspectively assigned to either TLDG or open distal gastrectomy (ODG). Clinicopathologic features, operative details, perioperative inflammatory factors, postoperative recovery, and oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: There were 35 patients (25 males and 10 females) received TLDG and 39 patients (29 males and 10 females) received ODG. The two groups were comparable in the clinicopathological characteristics. TLDG had similar operative time, less blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay and equivalent postoperative morbidity as compared to ODG. The reduction of body temperature in TLDG group was larger than ODG group. No significant difference was found between TLDG and ODG in the changes of blood pH value, PaCO2 and WBC count. Elevation of CRP was lower in TLDG than ODG at postoperative 6 h and 24 h. Levels of IL-6 and IL-10 were higher in ODG at postoperative 0 h, 2 h, 6 h and 24 h. During a median follow-up period of 68 months, the overall survival rates and disease-free survival rates had no difference between TLDG and ODG. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that TLDG can be safely applied for gastric cancer as well as ODG. TLDG has minimal surgical trauma, milder acute inflammatory response and quicker function recovery. Pneumoperitoneum doesn't adversely affect pulmonary function and oncological outcomes.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?