Laparoscopy-assisted versus open D2 radical gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer without serosal invasion: a case control study
© Chen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012
Received: 14 September 2012
Accepted: 4 November 2012
Published: 16 November 2012
The application of laparoscopic surgery for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains questionable on account of technical difficulty of D2 lymphadenectomy, and there has been few large-scale follow-up results regarding the oncological adequacy of laparoscopic surgery compared with that of open surgeries for AGC. The aim of this study is to evaluate technical feasibility and oncological efficacy of laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for advanced gastric cancer without serosal invasion.
From January 2008 to December 2012, 1114 patients with gastric cancer underwent D2 gastrectomy, including 336 T2 and T3 patients in term of depth of invasion. Of all 336 patients, 224 underwent LAG, while open gastrectomy (OG) performed on the other 112 patients. The comparison was based on the clinicopathologic characteristics, surgical outcome, and follow-up results.
There are not significant differences in clinicopathological characteristics between the two groups (P > 0.05). The operation time and first ambulation time was similar in the two groups. However, estimated blood loss, bowel function recovery time and duration of hospital stay were significantly less in the LAG group. No significant difference in morbidity and mortality was found between the LAG group and OG group (11.1% vs. 15.3%, P = 0.266; 0.9% vs. 1.8%, P = 0.859). The mean number of resected lymph nodes (LNS) between the LAG group and OG group was similar (30.6 ± 10.1 vs. 30.3 ± 8.6, P = 0.786). Furthermore, the mean number of removed LNS in each station was not significantly different in the distal gastrectomy and total gastrectomy (P > 0.05). No statistical difference was seen in 1 year survival rate (91.5% vs. 89.8% P > 0.05) and the survival curve after surgery between the LAG group and OG group.
Laparoscopy-assisted D2 radical gastrectomy is feasible, effective and has comparative oncological efficacy compared with open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer without serosal invasion.
KeywordsStomach neoplasms Gastrectomy Laparoscopy Lymph node D2 dissection
Since laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for early gastric cancer was initially reported in 1994, it has been increasingly used to treat early gastric cancer as it is less invasive than conventional open gastrectomy (OG)[2, 3]. However, its wider acceptance as an alternative to the open approach remains contentious. The reasons for slow acceptance of this procedure include concerns about safety and doubts about the effectiveness of lymphadenectomy compared to conventional open gastrectomy. This study compared the clinical features of 224 patients who underwent LAG with 112 patients who underwent OG with D2 lymph node dissection, for pathologically confirmed stage T2-3 gastric carcinoma. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and short-term outcome of LAG for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) without serosal exposure.
From January 2008 to December 2010, 1,114 patients diagnosed with primary gastric cancer were treated with curative resection (R0) at the department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China. Of these patients, 336 had pathologically confirmed stage T2 (depth of invasion in submucosa) or T3 (depth of invasion in muscularis propria) cancer according to the 7th edition of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC); of the 336 patients, 224 underwent LAG, and 112 patients underwent OG. Selection of laparoscopic versus the open approach for patients diagnosed preoperatively with AGC was by patient choice.
Nodal material was separately dissected from the enbloc specimen at the end of the procedure by the surgeons, and the remaining nodes were identified and retrieved by specialized pathologists from formalin-fixed surgical specimens without using any specific technique to increase nodal retrieval rate. The lymph nodes of the stomach are defined and given station numbers according to the 3rd English edition of Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma. Staging was done according to the 7th edition of the UICC tumor, mode, metastasis (TNM) classification. Postoperative complications have been classified using the therapy-oriented severity grading system (TOSGS) as follows: grade 1, no need for specific intervention; grade 2, need for drug therapy such as antibiotics; grade 3, need for invasive therapy; grade 4, organ dysfunction with ICU stay; grade 5, death. This type of system is applied in medical oncology and has resulted in the National Cancer Institute’s uniform system of complication reporting.
All procedures were performed after obtaining informed consent following the explanation of the surgical and oncologic risks. Inclusion criteria were as follows: histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the stomach; pathologically confirmed stage T2-T3; no evidence of distant metastasis by means of abdominal computed tomography(CT) and/or abdominal ultrasound and posteroanteriorchest radiograph; D2 lymphadenectomy with curative R0 according to pathological diagnosis after the operation. Exclusion criteria were as follows: intraoperative evidence of peritoneal disseminated or distant metastasis; incomplete of pathological data; diagnosis of positive serosal invasion during the operation. Follow-up was carried out by trained investigators through mailings, telephone calls, visits to patients or recording of the patients’ consultations at the outpatient service every 6 months. The survival time was the time from the surgical intervention until the last contact, the date of death, or the date that the survival information was collected.
The D2 lymphadenectomy was always performed according to the lymph node classification of the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. All operations were performed under general anesthesia. Patients were placed in the supine position, with legs apart and 20 to 30° head-up tilt. The surgeon stood on the left of the patient, the assistant surgeon stood on patient’s right, and the videolaparoscope operator stood between the patient’s legs. Five trocars were used; one 10-mm trocar for the laparoscope was inserted below the umbilicus. One 12-mm trocar was inserted in the left pre-axillary line 2 cm below the costal margin as a major hand port. A 5-mm trocar was placed at the contralateral site for traction and exposure of the liver. A 5-mm trocar was inserted as an accessory port in the left and right mid clavicular line 2 cm above the level of the umbilicus.
Laparoscopic total gastrectomy
Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy
All steps were performed as in the total gastrectomy procedure but without the mobilization of the distal esophagus, gastric fundus and Group10, 11d and some Group 4sa lymph nodes. The stomach proximal transection site was selected according to the location of the tumor and the procedure was performed with a linear stapler.
After the laparoscopic operation, a small laparotomy incision was made under the xyphoid (5 to 7 cm). Distal gastrectomy with Billroth I, Billroth II or total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis were extra corporeally performed using the hand-sewn method. The specimen was pulled out of the peritoneal cavity through the small laparotomy incision. OG was performed using the same methods as LAG. The region of lymphadenectomy in OG was mostly the same as that for LAG.
All statistical analyses were conducted using the statistical program SPSS 18.0. The data were collected and expressed as mean ± SD. A statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square test, or the unpaired Student’s t-test as appropriate. Survival was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method, including the log-rank test for model. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Patient clinicopathologic characteristics
Patient clinicopathological characteristics
LAG(n = 224)
OG(n) = 112
Age(years, mean ± SD)
61.6 ± 10.6
60.8 ± 10.2
Tumor size(cm, mean ± SD)
4.7 ± 2.0
4.4 ± 2.0
Body mass index (kg/m2)
Tumor location (n):
Gross type (n):
ASA score (n):
Presence of one or more comorbidities
Tumor depth (n):
N stage (n):
TNM stage (n):
Resection extent (n):
Intraoperative and postoperative characteristics
Intraoperative and postoperative characteristics
LAG(n = 224)
OG(n = 112)
207.2 ± 137.3
213.0 ± 54.7
82.7 ± 101.3
201.7 ± 235.3
Transfused patients (n)
Time to first ambulation (days1)
2.7 ± 1.2
2.9 ± 1.2
Time to first flatus (days1)
2.6 ± 1.1
3.2 ± 1.1
Time to fluid diet (days1)
4.7 ± 1.5
5.1 ± 1.8
Time to soft diet (days1)
8.7 ± 1.6
10.3 ± 1.6
Hospital stay (days1)
13.3 ± 5.7
17.4 ± 5.0
Morbidity and mortality
Morbidity and mortality
LAG(n = 224)
OG(n = 112)
Duodenal stump fistula
Surgical complication grade
Medical complication grade
Dissection of lymph nodes
LAG shares obvious advantages of being minimally invasive and has the same short- and long-term efficacy compared with traditional open surgery in the treatment of early gastric cancer[6–9].Therefore, it has gradually become acknowledged by counterpart clinicians. Since 2002, the Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines have recommended laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy as the standard procedure for early gastric carcinoma.
As experience with LAG for early gastric cancer has substantially increased, some surgeons have become concerned about laparoscopic surgery for AGC[10–14]. Ninety percent of patients diagnosed with gastric carcinoma in China have advanced-stage disease. The study of laparoscopic techniques in AGC would seem sensible Current evidence is compatible with D2 lymph node dissection as the preferred treatment for fit patients with AGC, in centers that can demonstrate low operative mortality[15, 16]. Furthermore, the Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines have adopted D2 lymph node dissection as the standard technique for AGC. However, the application of laparoscopic surgery for AGC remains questionable on account of the technical difficulty of D2 lymphadenectomy, and there has been few large-scale follow-up data on the oncologic adequacy of laparoscopic surgery compared with that of open surgery for AGC. Nevertheless, some small case-studies also showed that laparoscopic D2 lymphadenectomy is a safe procedure for AGC if the surgery is performed by experienced surgeons[13, 17, 18]. The Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines regard LAG as an investigational treatment. Some scholars[20–22] studying the laparoscopic learning curve have found that once surgeons span the learning curve reaching a plateau phase, the superiority of laparoscopic gastric carcinoma surgery will gradually appear more often compared with open surgery.
We have been performing LAG for gastric cancer since 2007. In the present study, we selected patients treated after January 2008, by which time we had overcome the learning curve having performed approximately 300 laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy procedures for gastric cancer, to reduce the influence of lack of surgical experience on the results. In this study, we compared 224 patients who underwent LAG with 112 who underwent OG for AGC without serosal exposure, in the same period. The data show that the LAG and OG groups shared similar operating times and first ambulation times, while the LAG group had less intraoperative blood loss, earlier recovery time for bowel movement, and a shorter postoperative stay in hospital. LAG was also shown to have obvious advantages of being minimally invasive for treatment of AGC without invasion of serosa.
The incidence of postoperative morbidity and mortality in the LAG group in the present study was similar to that of other reports. Although no significant difference in postoperative morbidity or mortality was observed between the LAG and OG groups (11.1% vs. 15.3%, and 0.9% vs. 1.8%, respectively, P > 0.05),our results show that LAG for AGC has similar intraoperative and postoperative complications to open surgery, and may even be better than OG. LAG D2 radical lymphadenectomy is a safe technique with fast postoperative recovery in the treatment of AGC without invasion of serosa. Therefore, LAG for AGC may be acceptable from this viewpoint.
The advantages of minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery have gradually been recognized, but laparoscopic D2 lymph node dissection is difficult to handle due to the complicated vessels, numerous anatomical layers and the complex lymph node metastasis pathway around the stomach. Therefore, many scholars still doubt whether LAG can achieve as considerable a radical effect as open surgery. Sato compared 36 cases of laparoscopy-assisted D2 lymph node dissection and 130 cases of open surgery for AGC. The average number of retrieved lymph node in the laparoscopic and open surgery group was (32 ± 12) and (35 ± 1) respectively, with no statistically significance difference. Martínez-Ramos presented a meta-analysis comparing laparoscopy to open surgery, predominantly in AGC. The study demonstrated no significant differences between the two groups in the number of dissected lymph nodes (weighted mean difference, WMD −1.57, 95% confidence interval −3.41 to 0.26, I-squared = 8.3). There studies suggested that LAG D2 radical surgery for AGC is feasible and safe and the number of harvested lymph nodes is the same as in open surgery. We found that skilled laparoscopic surgical technology and thorough palpation of anatomical layers under laparoscopy is the key to lymph node dissection. The laparoscopic amplification elaborately shows the finer structure of the vasculature, nerves and fascia, which helps surgeons to seek a specific fascia space and facilitates lymph nodes dissection in the vascular sheath. Furthermore, the ultrasonic scalpel is effective for cutting, for hemostasis and for minimizing damage to the surrounding tissues, which is suitable for vascular separation and lymph node dissection. The number of resected lymph nodes in our study was enough for curability and to determine lymph node metastasis. Our data show that the mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was not different between the LAG and OG group. Furthermore, the mean number of removed lymph nodes in each station was not significantly different with distal or total gastrectomy. For AGC without invasion of serosa, laparoscopy-assisted D2 lymphadenetomy is able to achieve the same effect on lymph node dissection as open surgery, regardless of the extent of the gastrectomy. The surgical approach (laparoscopy or open) did not appear to influence the lymph node yield.
To date, laparoscopic surgery for early gastric carcinoma has achieved favorable short- and long-term efficacy[6–8, 24, 25]. Although the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery for AGC is rarely reported, the results also show it can achieve almost the same short- and long-term efficacy as open surgery. Hur compared 26 cases of laparoscopic surgery and 25 cases of open surgery for treatment of AGC. The 3-year survival rate in the laparoscopy and open surgery groups was 88.2% and 77.2%respectively, with no statistical difference. A case–control study reported by Shuang demonstrated the same survival curve for laparoscopy versus open surgery during the same period and showed that laparoscopic surgery has similar long-term efficacy for treatment of AGC. Our study also showed that the survival curves for the LAG and OG groups were not significantly different (P > 0.05). LAG and OG have similar short survival times, but the long-term effect needs to be followed-up.
In summary, if surgeons are proficient in laparoscopic surgical techniques and comply with the principles of surgery, LAG D2 radical surgery can achieve similar, or even better effects compared to open surgery, and can achieve a comparative short-term clinical efficacy for treatment of AGC without serosal invasion. To establish laparoscopic surgery as a standard treatment for AGC, multicenter randomized controlled trials comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery are necessary.
Our study confirms laparoscopy-assisted D2 radical gastrectomy is feasible, effective and has comparative oncological efficacy compared with open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer without serosal invasion.
Advanced gastric cancer
American Society of Anesthesiologists
Tumor node, metastasis staging
Therapy-oriented severity grading system
Weighted mean difference
Union for International Cancer Control.
- Kitano S, Iso Y, Moriyama M, Sugimachi K: Laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1994, 4: 146-148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lee JH, Han HS: A prospective randomized study comparing open vs laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy in early gastric cancer: early results. Surg Endosc. 2005, 19: 168-173. 10.1007/s00464-004-8808-y.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dulucq JL, Wintringer P, Stabilini C, Solinas L, Perissat J, Mahajna A: Laparoscopic and open gastric resections for malignant lesions: a prospective comparative study. Surg Endosc. 2005, 19: 933-938. 10.1007/s00464-004-2172-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C: TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. 2009, Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Japanese Gastric Cancer Association: Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 3rd English edition. Gastric Cancer. 2011, 14: 101-112.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kitano S, Shiraishi N, Fujii K, Yasuda K, Inomata M, Adachi Y: A randomized controlled trial comparing open vs laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for the treatment of early gastric cancer: an interim report. Surgery. 2002, 131: S306-311. 10.1067/msy.2002.120115.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Han HS, Kim YW, Yi NJ, Fleischer GD: Laparoscopy-assisted D2 subtotal gastrectomy in early gastric cancer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2003, 13: 361-365. 10.1097/00129689-200312000-00002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kitano S, Shiraishi N, Uyama I, Sugihara K, Tanigawa N: A multicenter study on oncologic outcome of laparoscopic gastrectomy for early cancer in Japan. Ann Surg. 2007, 245: 68-72. 10.1097/01.sla.0000225364.03133.f8.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lee JH, Yom CK, Han HS: Comparison of long-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted and open distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2009, 23: 1759-1763. 10.1007/s00464-008-0198-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Uyama I, Sugioka A, Fujita J, Komori Y, Matsui H, Hasumi A: Laparoscopic total gastrectomy with distal pancreatosplenectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 1999, 2: 230-234. 10.1007/s101200050069.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Uyama I, Sugioka A, Matsui H, Fujita J, Komori Y, Hasumi A: Laparoscopic D2 lymph node dissection for advanced gastric cancer located in the middle or lower third portion of the stomach. Gastric Cancer. 2000, 3: 50-55. 10.1007/PL00011690.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Scatizzi M, Kroning KC, Lenzi E, Moraldi L, Cantafio S, Feroci F: Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a case–control study. Updates Surg. 2011, 63: 17-23. 10.1007/s13304-011-0043-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Martinez-Ramos D, Miralles-Tena JM, Cuesta MA, Escrig-Sos J, Van der Peet D, Hoashi JS, Salvador-Sanchis JL: Laparoscopy versus open surgery for advanced and resectable gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2011, 103: 133-141.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yoshimura F, Inaba K, Kawamura Y, Ishida Y, Taniguchi K, Isogaki J, Satoh S, Kanaya S, Sakurai Y, Uyama I: Clinical outcome and clinicopathological characteristics of recurrence after laparoscopic gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer. Digestion. 2011, 83: 184-190. 10.1159/000322032.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Roukos DH, Lorenz M, Encke A: Evidence of survival benefit of extended (D2) lymphadenectomy in western patients with gastric cancer based on a new concept: a prospective long-term follow-up study. Surgery. 1998, 123: 573-578. 10.1067/msy.1998.88094.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Di Martino N, Izzo G, Cosenza A, Vicenzo L, Monaco L, Torelli F, Basciotti A, Brillantino A, Marra A: Total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: can the type of lymphadenectomy condition the long-term results?. Suppl Tumori. 2005, 4: S84-S85. Article in ItalianPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Du XH, Li R, Chen L, Shen D, Li SY, Guo Q: Laparoscopy-assisted D2 radical distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: initial experience. Chin Med J (Engl). 2009, 122: 1404-1407.Google Scholar
- Tokunaga M, Hiki N, Fukunaga T, Nohara K, Katayama H, Akashi Y, Ohyama S, Yamaguchi T: Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection following standardization–a preliminary study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009, 13: 1058-1063. 10.1007/s11605-009-0840-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Japanese Gastric Cancer Association: Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer. 2011, 14: 113-123.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kunisaki C, Makino H, Yamamoto N, Sato T, Oshima T, Nagano Y, Fujii S, Akiyama H, Otsuka Y, Ono HA, Kosaka T, Takagawa R, Shimada H: Learning curve for laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with regional lymph node dissection for early gastric cancer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2008, 18: 236-241. 10.1097/SLE.0b013e31816aa13f.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yoo CH, Kim HO, Hwang SI, Son BH, Shin JH, Kim H: Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer during a surgeon's learning curve period. Surg Endosc. 2009, 23: 2250-2257. 10.1007/s00464-008-0315-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Zhang X, Tanigawa N: Learning curve of laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer, a laparoscopic distal gastrectomy-based analysis. Surg Endosc. 2009, 23: 1259-1264. 10.1007/s00464-008-0142-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sato H, Shimada M, Kurita N, Iwata T, Nishioka M, Morimoto S, Yoshikawa K, Miyatani T, Goto M, Kashihara H, Takasu C: Comparison of long-term prognosis of laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy and conventional open gastrectomy with special reference to D2 lymph node dissection. Surg Endosc. 2012, 26: 2240-2246. 10.1007/s00464-012-2167-x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yasuda K, Shiraishi N, Etoh T, Shiromizu A, Inomata M, Kitano S: Long-term quality of life after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2007, 21: 2150-2153. 10.1007/s00464-007-9322-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Liang Y, Li G, Chen P, Yu J, Zhang C: Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for early distal gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg. 2011, 81: 673-680. 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2010.05599.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hur H, Jeon HM, Kim W: Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for T2b advanced gastric cancers: three years' experience. J Surg Oncol. 2008, 98: 515-519. 10.1002/jso.21155.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Shuang J, Qi S, Zheng J, Zhao Q, Li J, Kang Z, Hua J, Du J: A case–control study of laparoscopy-assisted and open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011, 15: 57-62. 10.1007/s11605-010-1361-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.