Skip to main content
Download PDF

Short-and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

World Journal of Surgical Oncology volume 20, Article number: 405 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer has rapidly developed and become more popular in recent decades. Additional high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies comparing LG versus open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer (GC) have been published in recent years. An updated systematic review is warranted. The aim of our meta-analysis was to comprehensively evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of LG versus OG for GC.

Materials and methods

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials databases were comprehensively searched to identify RCTs comparing LG versus OG for GC published between January 1994 and December 7, 2021. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane Collaboration and the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUORUM) guidelines. All RCTs comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of LG with those of OG were included. A random effects model was adopted with significant heterogeneity (I2 > 50%), while a fixed effects model was employed in all other cases (I2 ≤ 50%).

Results

A total of 26 RCTs with 8301 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that the intraoperative complication rate was comparable between the LG group and the OG group (OR=1.14, 95% CI [0.76, 1.70], I2=0%, p=0.53). The LG group had fewer postoperative complications than the OG group (OR=0.65, 95% CI [0.57, 0.74], I2=26%, p<0.00001). However, the severe postoperative complication rate and perioperative mortality were comparable between the two groups (OR=0.83, 95% CI [0.67, 1.04], I2=10%, p=0.10; OR=1.11, 95% CI [0.59, 2.09], I2=0%, p=0.74, respectively). The number of lymph nodes retrieved by the LG group was less than that of the OG group (MD=−1.51, 95% CI [−2.29, −0.74], I2=0%, p<0.0001). The proximal resection margin distance in the LG group was shorter than that in the OG group (MD=−0.34, 95% CI [−0.57, −0.12], I2=23%, p=0.003), but the distal resection margin distance in the two groups was comparable (MD=−0.21, 95% CI [−0.47, 0.04], I2=0%, p=0.10). The time to first ambulation was shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=−0.14, 95% CI [−.26, −0.01], I2=40%, p=0.03). The time to first flatus was also shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=−0.15, 95% CI [−0.23, −0.07], I2=4%, p=0.0001). However, the first time on a liquid diet was comparable between the two groups (MD=−0.30, 95% CI [−0.64, 0.04], I2=88%, p=0.09). Furthermore, the postoperative length of stay was shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=−1.26, 95% CI [−1.99, −0.53], I2=90%, p=0.0007). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was comparable between the two groups (HR=0.97, 95% CI [0.80, 1.17], I2=0%, p=0.73), and the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was also similar between the LG group and OG group (HR=1.08, 95% CI [0.77, 1.52], I2=0%, p=0.64).

Conclusion

LG is a technically safe and feasible alternative to OG with the advantages of a fewer postoperative complication rate, faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, and greater cosmetic benefit for patients with GC. Meanwhile, LG has comparable long-term outcomes to OG for GC.

Introduction

Gastric cancer (GC) is one of the most common digestive malignant tumors worldwide, and it had the fifth-highest morbidity rate and the fourth-highest mortality rate in 2020 [1]. Surgery is still the most effective treatment for GC [2]. Since Kitano et al. reported the first laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer (EGC) in 1994 [3], this procedure has gained popularity globally [4,5,6]. Although several relevant meta-analyses have been conducted regarding short- and long-term outcomes of LG versus OG so far [7,8,9,10,11], most of these meta-analyses only included a few small RCTs or included non-RCTs. All these certain limitations lead to undermine the credibility of definitive conclusions. Besides, some important RCTs comparing LG to OG for GC have been published in the past several years, such as the CLASS-02 study, the largest-scale multicenter RCT focused on LTG versus OTG in China [12]; the STOMACH study, the largest-scale multicenter RCT regarding LTG compared to OTG after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in European countries [13]; and the first RCT of LDG versus ODG after NACT in China [14]. Thus, it is necessary to conduct an updated and comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LG versus OG among patients with GC. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we just included high-quality RCTs, which made our conclusions more credible. Additionally, this meta-analysis contained more comprehensive outcome measures, such as intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, postoperative recovery, and long-term survival outcomes, making the study more complete. Moreover, we also focused on reducing the bias and identifying sources of significant heterogeneity to make the results more stable and reliable.

Materials and methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for PRISMA guidelines [15]. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO website with the registration number CRD42022296300. The Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design (PICOS) criteria are provided in Additional file 1.

Search strategy

Two authors independently performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify relevant RCTs published in English between January 1994 and December 7th, 2021 (search date: December 7th, 2021). The keywords used were “gastric cancer,” “laparoscopic gastrectomy,” and “open gastrectomy.” Then, we combined these keywords and their mesh terms to form the search strategies. The search strategies are listed in Additional file 2. Moreover, the reference lists of included articles and previously published reviews were also screened. The search results were imported into EndNote (EndNote version X9 Clarivate Analytics). If there were two or more references regarding the short-term and long-term outcomes from the same authors or institutions, all references were included, and these references were regarded as the same study.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were screened in accordance with inclusion and exclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients diagnosed with GC by gastroscopic biopsy pathology or endoscopy; (2) patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy, laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy, or open gastrectomy; and (3) RCTs.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients were diagnosed with a digestive system tumor other than GC, including gastrointestinal stromal tumors, neuroendocrine tumors, or benign lesions; (2) conference abstracts; (3) studies of hand-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy or robotic gastrectomy; and (4) studies that did not provide adequate data.

Literature screening and study selection

After identifying potentially relevant RCTs, we first removed duplicates using Endnote’s duplication filters. Subsequently, two researchers independently reviewed the titles and abstracts. Then, two authors (Xiaokang Lei and Yinkui Wang) independently read the full texts of the potentially relevant articles. Disagreements between the reviewers were resolved by consulting a third author (Fei Shan).

Outcome definition

The intraoperative complications, overall postoperative complications, the rate of each type of postoperative complication, severe postoperative complications, and perioperative mortality were collected. Severe postoperative complications were defined as those with a Clavien–Dindo grade of III or greater or those defined as severe in the original articles. The surgical indicators were also recorded for analysis, including operation time and estimated blood loss (EBL). In addition, the surgical radicalness indices were collected, including the number of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs), proximal resected margin, and distal resected margin. Postoperative recovery indices were also recorded, including time to the first ambulation, time to first flatus, first time on a liquid diet, and length of hospital stay. Furthermore, survival outcomes, including the 5-year OS and 5-year DFS rates, were collected and analyzed.

Quality and risk of bias assessment

Two reviewers (Xiaokang Lei and Yinkui, Wang) independently assessed the quality of the included trials, and disagreements were resolved through discussion. We evaluated the risk of bias for each study according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [16]. It contains the risk of selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel), detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), reporting bias (selective reporting), and other bias. Each item was judged as “Low risk,” “High risk,” or “Unclear risk.”

Data extraction

An electronic case-report form was used to collect data from each article. The following data were extracted: (1) study characteristics, including title, authors, country, publishing time, study design, method of randomization, blinding method, the surgical approach of each arm, and sample size in each arm; (2) patient characteristics, including age, sex, BMI, ASA scores, long tumor diameter, short tumor diameter, and tumor location; (3) primary outcomes, including the number of overall postoperative complications in each arm, classifications of postoperative complications, and the number of postoperative complications in each classification; (4) secondary outcomes, including the number of severe postoperative complications, the number of perioperative deaths, operation time, EBL, the number of retrieved lymph nodes, proximal resected margin, distal resected margin, time to first ambulation, time to first flatus, the first time on a liquid diet, and length of hospital stay; and (5) survival outcomes, including hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence interval (CI), p value of 5-year OS and 5-year DFS, and survival curves. These data were extracted into Excel spreadsheets (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA). The data were checked by two authors (Xiaokang Lei and Yinkui Wang).

Statistical analysis

We conducted this meta-analysis following the QUORUM guidelines [17, 18]. Review Manager Version 5.3 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Software Update, Oxford, UK) was used for statistical analyses. The mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs were used to analyze data for continuous variables. For dichotomous data, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were calculated for survival data. For survival data reported as survival curves without HRs, HRs were calculated with 95% CIs by the software Engauge Digitizer 11.1 through the methods described by Tierney in 2007 [19]. Heterogeneity was measured by I2 and Q statistics, and an I2 value greater than 50% indicated considerable heterogeneity. A random effects model was adopted when significant heterogeneity was observed (I2 > 50%), while a fixed effects model was employed in all other cases (I2 ≤ 50%). Sensitivity analysis was performed to identify sources of significant heterogeneity by removing each study from the meta-analysis one at a time. A funnel plot was used to evaluate the publication bias. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on country, type of gastrectomy, and tumor stage. Countries consisted of China, Japan, Republic of Korea (ROK), and Western countries. Types of gastrectomy included distal gastrectomy, total gastrectomy, and undifferentiated, which indicated that there was an undifferentiated type of gastrectomy in the original articles. Tumor stages included EGC or stage I gastric cancer, AGC, and mixture, which represented EGC or stage I gastric cancer plus AGC.

Results

After the comprehensive search, 3874 articles were initially identified. A total of 351 publications remained after removing duplicates and excluding the non-RCTs through the filtering function of the databases. Among these remaining articles, 181 publications were excluded after reviewing the title and abstract. Then, 170 articles remained for further assessment through full-text review, and 144 studies were excluded. Finally, 26 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The literature selection process is presented as the PRISMA flow diagram in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study flow diagram showing selection of articles for analysis

Full size image

Characteristics of included studies

]The 26 enrolled studies involved 8301 patients, of whom 4211 underwent LG and 4090 underwent OG. These studies were published from 2002 to 2021 and included 15 single-center studies [5, 12, 14, 20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33] and 11 multicenter RCTs [6, 13, 34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. The detailed characteristics of the included studies are provided in Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies
Full size table

Intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and perioperative mortality

Among all the enrolled articles, seven studies reported intraoperative complications. The analysis showed that the intraoperative complication rate was comparable between the LG and OG groups (OR=1.14, 95% CI [0.76, 1.70], I2=0%, p=0.53; Fig. 2a). The overall postoperative complications in the LG group were less than those in the OG group (OR=0.65, 95% CI [0.57, 0.74], I2=26%, p<0.00001; Fig. 2b). There were no differences in the rate of severe postoperative complications between the OG and LG groups (OR=0.83, 95% CI [0.67, 1.04], I2=10%, p=0.10; Fig. 2c). The perioperative mortality was also similar between the two groups (OR=1.11, 95% CI [0.59, 2.09], I2=0%, p=0.74; Fig. 2d). Compared to the OG group, surgical site complications, such as wound infection and wound dehiscence, were less common in the LG group (OR=0.56, 95% CI [0.35, 0.89], I2=0%, p=0.02; Fig. 2e). Moreover, the LG group had fewer cases of intra-abdominal bleeding than the OG group (OR=0.56, 95% CI [0.35, 0.89], I2=18%, p=0.01; Fig. 2f). In addition, the LG group showed lower rates of intestinal obstruction and ileus than the OG group (OR=0.60, 95% CI [0.44, 0.84], I2=0%, p=0.002; Fig. 2g). The LG group also experienced less intra-abdominal fluid collection than the OG group (OR=0.48, 95% CI [0.32, 0.73], I2=0%, p=0.0006; Fig. 2h). Other complications, including anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis, chyle leakage, pulmonary complications, delayed gastric emptying, abdominal infections/abscesses, pancreatic leakage, urinary tract infection, cardiac complications, and renal complications, were not significantly different between the two groups (p>0.05). The detailed results are provided in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot between laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and open gastrectomy (G) group on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and perioperative mortality. a Intraoperative complication. b Overall postoperative complications. c Severe postoperative complications. d Perioperative mortality. e Surgical site complications. f Intra-abdominal bleeding. g Intestinal obstruction and ileus. h Intra-abdominal fluid collection. i Anastomotic leakage. j Anastomotic stenosis. k Chyle leak. l Pulmonary complications. m Delayed gastric emptying. n Abdominal infections/abscess. o Pancreatic leakage. p Urinary tract infection. q Cardiac complications. r Renal complications. s Wound dehiscence/hernia

Full size image

Surgical indicators

The operation time was significantly longer in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=62.59, 95% CI [51.33, 73.85], I2=94%, p<0.00001; Fig. 3a). However, EBL was significantly lower in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=−64.64, 95% CI [−85.55, −43.74], I2=91%, p<0.00001; Fig. 3b). Additionally, the LG group had significantly shorter incisions than the OG group (MD=−12.82, 95% CI [−13.13, −12.51], I2=0%, p<0.00001; Fig. 3c). These results are shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot between laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and open gastrectomy (OG) group on surgical indicators. a Operative time. b Estimated blood loss. c Length of incision

Full size image

Surgical radicalness

The number of lymph nodes retrieved from the LG group was less than that from the OG group (MD=−1.51, 95% CI [−2.29, −0.74], I2=0%, p=0.0001; Fig. 4a). The proximal resection margin distance in the LG group was shorter than that in the OG group (MD=−0.34, 95% CI [−0.57, −0.12], I2=23%, p=0.003, Fig. 4b), but the distal resection margin distance in the two groups was comparable (MD=−0.21, 95% CI [−0.47, 0.04], I2=0%, p=0.10, Fig. 4c). The detailed results are provided in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot between laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and open gastrectomy (OG) group on surgical radicalness. a The number of lymph nodes retrieved. b The proximal resection margin distance. c The distal resection margin distance

Full size image

Postoperative recovery

The time to first ambulation was shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=−0.14, 95% CI [−0.26, −0.01], I2=40%, p=0.03, Fig. 5a). The time to first flatus was also shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=−0.15, 95% CI [−0.23, −0.07], I2=4%, p=0.0001, Fig. 5b). However, the first time on a liquid diet was comparable between the two groups (MD=−0.30, 95% CI [−0.64, 0.04], I2=88%, p=0.09, Fig. 5c). Furthermore, the postoperative length of stay was shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=−1.26, 95% CI [−1.99, −0.53], I2=90%, p=0.0007, Fig. 5d). The number of postoperative analgesics used in the LG group was similar to that in the OG group (MD=−2.41, 95% CI [−4.95, 0.14], I2=21%, p=0.06, Fig. 5e).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot between laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and open gastrectomy (OG) group on postoperative recovery. a The time to first ambulation. b The time to first flatus. c The first time on a liquid diet. d The postoperative length of stay. e The postoperative analgesic

Full size image

Survival outcomes

The study showed that the 5-year OS was similar between the two groups (HR=0.97, 95% CI [0.80, 1.17], I2=0%, p=0.73, Fig. 6a). The 5-year DFS was also comparable between the two groups (HR=1.08, 95% CI [0.77, 1.52], I2=0%, p=0.64, Fig. 6b).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Forest plot between laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and open gastrectomy (OG) group on survival outcomes. a 5-year OS. b 5-year DFS

Full size image

Quality and risk of bias assessment

The results of the risk of bias, risk of bias summary, and risk of graph of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions are provided in Fig. 7. Publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot, and the results are shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Risk of bias. a Risk of bias graph. b Risk of bias summary. c Funnel plot of sensitivity analysis

Full size image

Subgroup analysis

Subgroup analysis showed that the operation time was also significantly longer in the LG group than in the OG group for each group. In addition, subgroup analysis showed that EBL was also significantly lower in the LG group than in the OG group in all subgroups. For the first time on a liquid diet, subgroup analysis suggested that the first time on a liquid diet was shorter in the LG group than in the OG group in the ROK (MD=−0.32, 95% CI [−0.47, −0.17], I2=35%, p<0.0001, Table 4). However, no differences in the first time on a liquid diet were observed between the LG group and the OG group in other subgroups. For postoperative length of stay, subgroup analysis showed that postoperative length of stay was shorter in the LG group than in the OG group in China and the ROK (China: MD=−1.42, 95% CI [−2.79, −0.06], I2=94%, p=0.04; ROK: MD=−1.06, 95% CI [−1.34, −0.78], I2=94%, p=0.04, Table 5). Similarly, subgroup analysis showed that postoperative length of stay was shorter in the LG group than in the OG group in subgroups of distal gastrectomy, no mention, EGC or stage I, and AGC (p<0.05, Table 5). The postoperative length of stay was comparable between the two groups in other subgroups (Table 5). Detailed results are provided in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Table 2 Subgroup analysis of operation time
Full size table
Table 3 Subgroup analysis of EBL
Full size table
Table 4 Subgroup analysis of the first time on a liquid diet
Full size table
Table 5 Subgroup analysis of postoperative length of stay
Full size table

Discussion

LG has been thriving for nearly two decades since the first LDG was reported in 1994 [3]. Several RCTs comparing LG with OG for GC have been published in the past several years. This meta-analysis included patients who had distal gastrectomy or total gastrectomy for early gastric cancer (EGC) and advanced gastric cancer (AGC) with or without NACT treatment. A total of 26 RCTs were identified and included in this analysis. The present study is an updated meta-analysis with a larger sample size to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes between LTG and OTG in patients with GC. In addition, this meta-analysis included several latest and important RCTs [12,13,14]. Furthermore, several famous RCTs, including CLASS-01, KLASS-01, and KLASS-02, have reported long-term survival outcomes in the past several years [34, 37, 38, 41]. The current meta-analysis also included these studies. Long-term outcomes are crucial for patients with GC and play a key role in selecting surgical approaches [48]. This present meta-analysis showed that 5-year OS and 5-year DFS were comparable between the LG group and OG group, which indicated that LG had comparable long-term safety versus OG for patients with GC. This study is also the first systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating long-term outcomes of LG versus OG in patients with GC.

This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that LG had advantages in significantly reducing surgical site complications, intra-abdominal bleeding, and intestinal obstruction or ileus, with no significant differences in anastomotic stenosis, anastomotic leakage, abdominal infection or abscess, chyle leak, pulmonary complications, or pancreatic leakage between the two groups. The present study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis reporting the intraoperative complications of LG versus OG among patients with GC. A previous meta-analysis reported that the rate of intra-abdominal bleeding in the LG group was comparable with that in the OG group (p>0.05) [49]. This result of our study is different from the previous meta-analysis. We found that the rate of intra-abdominal bleeding in the LG group was lower than that in the OG group (p=0.01). Compared with previous studies [49, 50], the present meta-analysis included a larger sample size of RCTs and provided more solid evidence. In addition, we first found that LG could decrease the intra-abdominal fluid collection rate compared to OG in a meta-analysis. In comparison with OG, LG could provide a magnified view for operation, which made the blood vessel and tissue clearer so that unnecessary damage can be avoided. To sum up, the present meta-analysis indicated that LG had same or better safety than OG in terms of intraoperative complications and overall postoperative complications.

The present meta-analysis showed that LG led to benefits regarding cosmetic appearance and led to less blood loss than OG, but it required a longer operation time. Notably, the number of lymph nodes retrieved from the LG group was less than that from the OG group, and the proximal resection margin distance in the LG group was shorter than that in the OG group. The number of lymph nodes retrieved is correlated with the prognosis of patients. However, the present meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in long-term outcomes between the LG group and OG group. Additionally, the study revealed that LG had notable benefits in less analgesic use, shorter time to the first ambulation, shorter time to first flatus, and shorter postoperative length of stay compared to OG. However, there was no significant difference in the first time on a liquid diet between the two groups, which was different from the previous meta-analysis. The study further supported that LG had advantages in quicker postoperative recovery than OG.

Sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the stability of the results and identify sources of significant heterogeneity. In addition, fixed and random effects models were also used to test the stability of the results for each comparison. The results suggested that the results of the present meta-analysis were stable. However, there were significant heterogeneities in the following four analyses, including operation time (I2=94%), EBL (I2=91%), the first time on a liquid diet (I2=88%), and the postoperative length of stay (I2=90%). Therefore, random effects models were selected. Additionally, we performed subgroup analysis based on country, type of gastrectomy, and tumor stage. The subgroup analysis results of operation time and EBL were in accordance with the overall analysis. Notably, the heterogeneity of EBL was decreased in the Japanese subgroup. Interestingly, some subgroup analysis results of the first time on a liquid diet and the postoperative length of stay were different from the results of the overall analysis. Subgroup analysis showed that the first time on a liquid diet was significantly shorter in the LG group than in the OG group among ROK patients with low heterogeneity (I2=35%). In addition, subgroup analysis indicated that the postoperative length of stay in the LG group was comparable to that in the OG group in Japan and Western countries, which was also different from the overall analysis result. These results indicated that there was heterogeneity among different countries. This could be due to different tumor features, such as the stage or grade, among different countries. Additionally, the meta-analysis enrolled studies regarding EGC or stage I and AGC, and the results were similar among each subgroup. The LDG has been recommended as a treatment option for clinical stage I distal GC by the guidelines, which indicated that the LG for other stages GC was also worth considering to be recommended as a treatment option by the guidelines.

Limitations

Although this meta-analysis was conducted based on RCTs, there were several limitations. First, some data in some of these RCTs were missing due to the lack of data in the original studies. Second, most of these RCTs had a high risk of bias or unclear risk of bias in blinding and other bias because of the loss of detailed description in the original articles. Third, although we conducted sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis, several results were still highly heterogeneous. Fourth, for survival analysis, some data were extracted through survival curves. Although two authors independently calculated the survival data according to the software Engauge Digitizer 11.1 followed by the standard methods of Tierney reported in 2007 [19], there would still exist bias. Last, some important parameters for cancer patients, such as health-related quality of life, were not included for analysis in this study.

Conclusions

LG is a technically safe and feasible alternative to OG with the advantages of a fewer postoperative complication rate, faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, and greater cosmetic benefit for patients with GC. Meanwhile, LG has comparable long-term outcomes to OG for GC.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are publicly available. If you need relevant data after the article is published, you can contact the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

LG:

Laparoscopic gastrectomy

OG:

Open gastrectomy

RCTs:

Randomized controlled trials

OS:

Overall survival

DFS:

Disease-free survival

GC:

Gastric cancer

LAGC:

Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy

EGC:

Early gastric cancer

AGC:

Advanced gastric cancer

NACT:

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PICOS:

Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design

EBL:

Estimated blood loss

LNs:

Lymph nodes

QUORUM:

Cochrane Collaboration and the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses

MDs:

Mean differences

ORs:

Odds ratios

HR:

Hazard ratio

ROK:

Republic of Korea

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith JK, McPhee JT, Hill JS, et al. National outcomes after gastric resection for neoplasm. Arch Surg. 2007;142(4):387–93. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.142.4.387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kitano S, Iso Y, Moriyama M, Sugimachi K. Laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1994;4(2):146–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Japanese Gastric Cancer A. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2018 (5th edition). Gastric Cancer. 2021;24(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-020-01042-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Huscher CG, Mingoli A, Sgarzini G, et al. Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for distal gastric cancer: five-year results of a randomized prospective trial. Ann Surg. 2005;241(2):232–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000151892.35922.f2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Adachi Y, Suematsu T, Shiraishi N, et al. Quality of life after laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy. Ann Surg. 1999;229(1):49–54. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199901000-00006.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wei Y, Yu D, Li Y, Fan C, Li G. Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A meta-analysis based on high-quality retrospective studies and clinical randomized trials. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2018;42(6):577–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinre.2018.04.005.

  8. Zhang CD, Chen SC, Feng ZF, Zhao ZM, Wang JN, Dai DQ. Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for early gastric cancer in Asia: a meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2013;23(4):365–77. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0b013e31828e3e6e.

  9. Best LM, Mughal M, Gurusamy KS. Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;3(3):CD011389. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011389.pub2.

  10. Lou S, Yin X, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Xue Y. Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg. 2022;102:106678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106678.

  11. Garbarino GA-O, Laracca GA-O, Lucarini AA-OX, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for gastric cancer in Western countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short- and long-term outcomes. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11133590. (2077-0383 (Print)).

  12. Liu F, Huang C, Xu Z, et al. Morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic vs open total gastrectomy for clinical stage I gastric cancer: the CLASS02 Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(10):1590–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.3152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. van der Wielen N, Straatman J, Daams F, et al. Open versus minimally invasive total gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results of a European randomized trial. Gastric Cancer. 2021;24(1):258–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-020-01109-w.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Li Z, Shan F, Ying X, et al. Assessment of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(12):1093–101. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.3473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10:ED000142. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Clarke M, Horton R. Bringing it all together: Lancet-Cochrane collaborate on systematic reviews. Lancet. 2001;357(9270):1728. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04934-5.

  18. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.15.2008.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007;8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-8-16.

  20. Cui M, Li Z, Xing J, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing D2 dissection in laparoscopic and open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Med Oncol. 2015;32(10):241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-015-0680-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cai J, Wei D, Gao CF, Zhang CS, Zhang H, Zhao T. A prospective randomized study comparing open versus laparoscopy-assisted D2 radical gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer. Dig Surg. 2011;28(5-6):331–7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000330782.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sayed MM, Taher MG, Mohamed SI, Hamad MA. Short-term outcome of laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial. World J Laparoscopic Surg. 2021;14(2):106–10. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1451.

  23. Shi Y, Xu X, Zhao Y, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes of a randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for advanced gastric cancer. Surgery. 2019;165(6):1211–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Shi Y, Xu X, Zhao Y, et al. Short-term surgical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for advanced gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(5):2427–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5942-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lei Zhou G, Liu J, Liu H, Li C. Comparison among the early gastric cancer patients receiving laparoscopy radical gastrectomy and those receiving open radical gast. Biomed Res. 2017;28(22):10092–5.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Yamashita K, Sakuramoto S, Kikuchi S, et al. Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer in Japan: long-term clinical outcomes of a randomized clinical trial. Surg Today. 2016;46(6):741–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-015-1221-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Takiguchi S, Fujiwara Y, Yamasaki M, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy versus open distal gastrectomy. A prospective randomized single-blind study. World J Surg. 2013;37(10):2379–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2121-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sakuramoto S, Yamashita K, Kikuchi S, et al. Laparoscopy versus open distal gastrectomy by expert surgeons for early gastric cancer in Japanese patients: short-term clinical outcomes of a randomized clinical trial. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(5):1695–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2658-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim YW, Yoon HM, Yun YH, et al. Long-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: result of a randomized controlled trial (COACT 0301). Surg Endosc. 2013;27(11):4267–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3037-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim YW, Baik YH, Yun YH, et al. Improved quality of life outcomes after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2008;248(5):721–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318185e62e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee JH, Han HS, Lee JH. A prospective randomized study comparing open vs laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy in early gastric cancer: early results. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(2):168–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-8808-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hayashi H, Ochiai T, Shimada H, Gunji Y. Prospective randomized study of open versus laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with extraperigastric lymph node dissection for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(9):1172–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-8207-4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 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(1 Suppl):S306–11. https://doi.org/10.1067/msy.2002.120115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Huang C, Liu H, Hu Y, et al. Laparoscopic vs open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: five-year outcomes from the CLASS-01 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2022;157(1):9–17. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2021.5104.

  35. van der Veen A, Brenkman HJF, Seesing MFJ, et al. Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer (LOGICA): a multicenter randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(9):978–89. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.01540.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Katai H, Mizusawa J, Katayama H, et al. Survival outcomes after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy versus open distal gastrectomy with nodal dissection for clinical stage IA or IB gastric cancer (JCOG0912): a multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5(2):142–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30332-2.

  37. Hyung WJ, Yang HK, Park YK, et al. Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: the KLASS-02-RCT Randomized Clinical Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(28):3304–13. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.01210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Yu J, Huang C, Sun Y, et al. Effect of laparoscopic vs open distal gastrectomy on 3-year disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer: the CLASS-01 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019;321(20):1983–92. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.5359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wang Z, Xing J, Cai J, et al. Short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted versus open D2 distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer in North China: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(1):33–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6391-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lee HJ, Hyung WJ, Yang HK, et al. Short-term outcomes of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy to open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer (KLASS-02-RCT). Ann Surg. 2019;270(6):983–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kim H-H, Han S-U, Kim M-C, et al. Effect of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy vs open distal gastrectomy on long-term survival among patients with stage I gastric cancer: the KLASS-01 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(4):506–13. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.6727.

  42. Park YK, Yoon HM, Kim YW, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted versus open D2 distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: results from a randomized phase II multicenter clinical trial (COACT 1001). Ann Surg. 2018;267(4):638–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Katai H, Mizusawa J, Katayama H, et al. Short-term surgical outcomes from a phase III study of laparoscopy-assisted versus open distal gastrectomy with nodal dissection for clinical stage IA/IB gastric cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG0912. Gastric Cancer. 2017;20(4):699–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-016-0646-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kim W, Kim HH, Han SU, et al. Decreased morbidity of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy compared with open distal gastrectomy for stage I gastric cancer: short-term outcomes from a multicenter randomized controlled trial (KLASS-01). Ann Surg. 2016;263(1):28–35. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hu Y, Huang C, Sun Y, et al. Morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic versus open D2 distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(12):1350–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.7215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Chen HJ, Xin Jiang L, Cai L, et al. Preliminary experience of fast-track surgery combined with laparoscopy-assisted radical distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16(10):1830–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-012-1969-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kim HH, Hyung WJ, Cho GS, et al. Morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an interim report--a phase III multicenter, prospective, randomized Trial (KLASS Trial). Ann Surg. 2010;251(3):417–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181cc8f6b.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Alkhaffaf BA-O, Metryka A, Blazeby JA-O, et al. Core outcome set for surgical trials in gastric cancer (GASTROS study): international patient and healthcare professional consensus. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znab192 (1365-2168 (Electronic)).

  49. Zhu Z, Li L, Xu J, et al. Laparoscopic versus open approach in gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review. World J Surg Oncol. 2020;18(1):126. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-020-01888-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Zeng F, Chen L, Liao M, et al. Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2020;18(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-020-1795-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Beijing Municipal Health Commission (DFL20181103, ZYLX201701) and Beijing Hospitals Authority Innovation Studio of Young Staff Funding Support (202123) are kindly acknowledged for their support of this work.

Funding

This work was funded by Beijing Municipal Health Commission (DFL20181103, ZYLX201701) and Beijing Hospitals Authority Innovation Studio of Young Staff Funding Support (202123).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Xiaokang Lei and Yinkui Wang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, 52 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China

    Xiaokang Lei, Yinkui Wang, Fei Shan, Shuangxi Li, Yongning Jia, Rulin Miao, Kan Xue, Zhemin Li, Jiafu Ji & Ziyu Li

Authors
  1. Xiaokang Lei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yinkui Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fei Shan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shuangxi Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yongning Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rulin Miao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kan Xue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Zhemin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jiafu Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ziyu Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

(I) Conception and design: YW, ZL; (II) Administrative support: ZL, JJ; (III) Provision of study materials or patients: XL, YW; (IV) Collection and assembly of data: XL, YW; (V) Data analysis and interpretation: XL, YW; (VI) Manuscript writing: All authors; (VII) Final approval of manuscript: All authors. XL and YW contributed equally to this work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ziyu Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was not ethically reviewed, and there were no participants involved in the present study.

Consent for publication

There were no participants involved in the present study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

PICOS criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies.

Additional file 2.

Search strategies.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lei, X., Wang, Y., Shan, F. et al. Short-and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg Onc 20, 405 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-022-02818-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-022-02818-5

Keywords

  • Short-term outcomes
  • Long-term outcomes
  • Laparoscopic gastrectomy
  • Open gastrectomy
  • Meta-analysis
  • Randomized controlled trials

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

ISSN: 1477-7819

Contact us