The aim of this study was to compared laparoscopic (LWR) and open wedge resection (OWR) for the treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). The data of 156 consecutive GISTs patients underwent LWR or OWR between January 2006 and December 2013 were collected retrospectively. The surgical outcomes and the long-term survival rates were compared. Besides, a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Clinicopathological characteristics of the patients were similar between the two groups. The LWR group was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (67.3 vs. 142.7 ml, P < 0.001), earlier postoperative flatus (2.3 vs. 3.2 days, P < 0.001), earlier oral intake (3.2 vs. 4.1 days, P < 0.001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (6.0 vs. 8.0 days, P = 0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications was lower in LWR group but did not reach statistical significance (4/90, 4.4% vs. 8/66, 12.1%, P = 0.12). No significant difference was observed in 3-year relapse-free survival rate between the two groups (98.6% vs. 96.4%, P > 0.05). The meta-analysis revealed similar results except less overall complications in the LWR group (RR = 0.49, 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.95, P = 0.04). And the recurrence risk was similar in two group (RR = 0.80, 95% CI, 0.28 to 2.27, P > 0.05). LWR is a technically and oncologically safe and feasible approach for gastric GISTs compared with OWR. Moreover, LWR appears to be a preferable choice with mini-invasive benefits.

Totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) using intracorporeal anastomosis has gradually developed due to advancements in laparoscopic surgical instruments. However, totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) with intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy (IE) is still uncommon because of technical difficulties. Herein, we evaluated various types of IE after TLTG in terms of the technical aspects. We compared the short-term operative outcomes between TLTG with IE and laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) with extracorporeal esophagojejunostomy (EE). Between March 2006 and December 2014, a total of 213 patients with gastric cancer underwent TLTG and LATG. Overall, 92 patients underwent TLTG with IE, and 121 patients underwent LATG with EE. Generally, there are two methods of IE: mechanical staplers (circular or linear staplers) and hand-sewn sutures. Surgical efficiencies and outcomes were compared between two groups. We also described various types of IE using a subgroup analysis. The mean operation times were similar in the two groups, as was the number of retrieved lymph nodes. However, the mean estimated blood loss of TLTG was statistically lower than LATG. There were no significant differences in time to first flatus, the time to restart oral intake, the length of the hospital stay after operation, and postoperative complications. Four types of IE have been applied after TLTG, including 42 cases of hand-sewn IE. The overall mean operation time and the mean anastomotic time in TLTG were 279.5 ± 38.4 min and 52.6 ± 18.9 min respectively. There was no case of conversion to open procedure. Postoperative complication occurred in 16 patients (17.4 %) and no postoperative mortality occurred. IE is a feasible procedure and can be safely performed for TLTG with the proper laparoscopic expertise. It is technically feasible to perform hand-sewn IE after TLTG, which can reduce the cost of the laparoscopic procedure.

Totally laparoscopic gastrectomy (TLG) using intracorporeal anastomosis has gradually become mature thanks to the advancements of laparoscopic surgical instruments and the accumulation of operative experience. The goal of this study is to review our institution’s experience with TLG for the treatment of gastric cancer. A retrospective study was conducted to examine the short-term outcomes of TLG using intracorporeally stapler or hand-sewn anastomosis performed at Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital between March 2007 and June 2015. The details of intracorporeal anastomosis were described, and the clinicopathological data, surgical outcomes, and postoperative complications were evaluated. Four hundred seventy-eight patients were included in the study. Generally speaking, the patients could be divided into stapler or hand-sewn groups according to whether intracorporeal anastomosis was performed by only hand-sewn technique (n = 97) or only stapling devices (n = 381). For overall patients, the mean operation time and anastomotic time were 225.7 and 30.0 min, respectively. Postoperative complications were observed in 65 patients. All of the patients recovered well without perioperative death by conservative or surgical management. TLG using intracorporeally stapler or hand-sewn anastomosis is a reasonable option for the treatment of gastric cancer, with early data showing acceptable perioperative outcomes.

Obesity is a growing epidemic around the world, and obese patients are generally regarded as high risk for surgery compared with normal weight patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of obesity on the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer. We reviewed data for all patients undergoing LG for gastric cancer at our institute between October 2004 and December 2016. Patients were divided into non-obese and obese groups and the perioperative outcomes were compared. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate which of the two commonly used methods of LG, laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) and totally laparoscopic gastrectomy (TLG), is more suitable for obese patients. A total of 1691 patients, 1255 non-obese and 436 obese or overweight patients, underwent LG during the study period. The mean operation time was significantly longer in the obese group than in the non-obese group (209.9 ± 29.7 vs. 227.2 ± 25.7 min, P < 0.01), and intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the non-obese group (113.4 ± 34.1 vs. 136.9 ± 36.7 ml, P < 0.01). Time to first flatus, time to oral intake, and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the non-obese group than in the obese group (3.3 ± 0.8 vs. 3.6 ± 0.9 days; 4.3 ± 1.0 vs. 4.6 ± 1.0 days; and 9.0 ± 2.2 vs. 9.6 ± 2.2 days, respectively; P < 0.01). 119 (9.5%) of the non-obese patients had postoperative complications as compared to 44 (10.1%) of the obese patients (P = 0.71). In the subgroup analysis of all patients, TLG showed improved results for early surgical outcomes compared to LAG, mainly due to its advantages in obese patients. Obesity is associated with long operation time, increased blood loss, and slow recovery after laparoscopic gastric resection but does not affect intraoperative security or effectiveness. TLG may have less negative results in obese patients than LAG due to a variety of reasons. Our analysis shows that TLG is more advantageous, with regard to early surgical outcomes, for obese patients.

Objectives: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether a lidocaine patch is beneficial for postoperative pain as an option for multimodal analgesia. Methods: Information was obtained from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for clinical randomized controlled trials of lidocaine patches for postoperative pain (as of March 2022). Two researchers independently completed study screening, risk bias assessment, and data extraction. Review Manager (version 5.4, Cochrane Collaboration) was used to conduct the meta-analysis. The evaluation metrics were postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption, and patient satisfaction. Results: Sixteen randomized controlled trials were included, and data from 918 patients were available. Pain scores differed between the 2 groups at 12, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively, and the pain scores of the lidocaine patch group were significantly lower (mean difference [MD]=−1.32 [95% CI, −1.96 to −0.68], P<0.0001; I ²=92%) at 12 hours after the operation; (MD=−1.23 [95% CI, −1.72 to −0.75], P<0.00001; I ²=92%) at 24 hours after the operation; and (MD=−0.25 [95% CI,−0.29 to −0.21], P<0.00001; I ²=98%) at 48 hours after the operation. In addition, the lidocaine patch group had decreased opioid requirements (MD=−3.57 [95% CI, −5.06 to −2.09], P<0.00001; I ²=96%). The lidocaine patch group seemed to be more satisfied, but there was no statistically significant difference (risk ratio, 1.50 [95% CI, 0.74 to 3.05], P=0.26) between the groups. Discussion: Lidocaine patches are beneficial for postoperative pain and can be used in multimodal analgesia to reduce opioid use, but there is no significant increase in patient satisfaction with pain control. More data are needed to support this conclusion due to the large heterogeneity in the present study.