Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer in middle–low-volume centers in Western countries: a propensity score matching analysis

Background Gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard treatment for patients with resectable gastric cancer. Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) is routinely performed for early gastric cancer, and its indications are increasing even for locally advanced gastric cancer. The aim of this st...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Langenbeck's archives of surgery 2020-09, Vol.405 (6), p.797-807
Main Authors: Garbarino, Giovanni Maria, Costa, Gianluca, Laracca, Giovanni Guglielmo, Castagnola, Giorgio, Mercantini, Paolo, Di Paola, Massimiliano, Vita, Simone, Masoni, Luigi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Abdominal Surgery
Cardiac Surgery
General Surgery
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Original
Original Article
Thoracic Surgery
Traumatic Surgery
Vascular Surgery
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard treatment for patients with resectable gastric cancer. Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) is routinely performed for early gastric cancer, and its indications are increasing even for locally advanced gastric cancer. The aim of this study is to compare two middle–low-volume centers in Western countries experience on LDG versus open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for locally advanced gastric cancer in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes. Methods We reviewed the data of 123 consecutive patients that underwent LDG and ODG with D2 lymphadenectomy between 2009 and 2014. Among them, 91 were eligible for inclusion (46 LDG and 45 ODG). After propensity score matching analysis, using a 1:1 case-control match, 34 patients were stratified for each group. Results The mean operative time was significantly longer in the LDG group (257.2 vs. 197.2, p  
ISSN:1435-2443
1435-2451
DOI:10.1007/s00423-020-01951-7