Background. Minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is debated. The aim of this study was to execute a comprehensive assessment of principal surgical treatments for resectable distal gastric cancer. Methods. Systematic review and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) network meta-analysis. Open (Op-DG), laparoscopic-assisted (LapAs-DG), totally laparoscopic (Lap-DG), and robotic distal gastrectomy (Rob-DG) were compared. Pooled effect-size measures were the risk ratio (RR), the weighted mean difference (WMD), and the 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Results. Ten RCTs (3823 patients) were included. Overall, 1012 (26.5%) underwent Lap-DG, 902 (23.6%) LapAs-DG, 1768 (46.2%) Op-DG, and 141 (3.7%) Rob-DG. Anastomotic leak, severe complications (Clavien–Dindo > 3), and in-hospital mortality were comparable. No differences were observed for reoperation rate, pulmonary complications, postoperative bleeding requiring transfusion, surgical-site infection, cardiovascular complications, number of harvested lymph nodes, and tumor-free resection margins. Compared to Op-DG, Lap-DG and LapAs-DG showed a significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss with a trend toward shorter time to first flatus and reduced length of stay. Conclusions. LapAs-DG, Lap-DG, and Rob-DG performed in referral centers by dedicated surgeons have comparable short-term outcomes to Op-DG for locally AGC.

Background: Indocyanine Green (ICG) is a promising technique for the assessment of gastric conduit and anastomosis perfusion during esophagectomy. ICG integration may be helpful in minimizing the risk of anastomotic leak (AL). Literature evidence is sparse, while the real effect of ICG assessment on AL minimization remains unsolved. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare short-term outcomes between ICG-guided and non-ICG-guided (nICG) esophagogastric anastomosis during esophagectomy for cancer. Materials and Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were queried up to 25 April 2024. Studies that reported short-term outcomes for ICG versus non-ICG-guided (nICG) anastomosis in patients undergoing esophagectomy were considered. Primary outcome was AL. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were utilized as effect size measures, whereas to assess relative inference we used 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results: Overall, 1399 patients (11 observational studies) were included. Overall, 576 (41.2%) underwent ICG gastric conduit assessment. The patients’ ages ranged from 22 to 91 years, with 73% being male. The cumulative incidence of AL was 10.4% for ICG and 15.4% for nICG. Compared to nICG, ICG utilization was related to a reduced risk for postoperative AL (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.23–0.99; p = 0.05). No differences were found in terms of pulmonary complications (RR 0.83), operative time (SMD −0.47), hospital length of stay (SMD −0.16), or 90-day mortality (RR 1.70). Conclusions: Our study seems to indicate a potential impact of ICG in reducing post-esophagectomy AL. However, because of limitations in the design of the included studies, allocation/reporting bias, variable definitions of AL, and heterogeneity in ICG use, caution is required to avoid potential overestimation of the ICG effect.

Background: Debate exists concerning the impact of D2 vs. D1 lymphadenectomy on long-term oncological outcomes after gastrectomy for cancer. Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) analyzing the effect of D2 vs. D1 on survival were included. Overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed. Restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as effect size measures. Results: Five RCTs (1653 patients) were included. Overall, 805 (48.7%) underwent D2 lymphadenectomy. The RMSTD OS analysis shows that at 60-month follow-up, D2 patients lived 1.8 months (95% CI −4.2, 0.7; p = 0.14) longer on average compared to D1 patients. Similarly, 60-month CSS (1.2 months, 95% CI −3.9, 5.7; p = 0.72) and DFS (0.8 months, 95% CI −1.7, 3.4; p = 0.53) tended to be improved for D2 vs. D1 lymphadenectomy. Conclusions: Compared to D1, D2 lymphadenectomy is associated with a clinical trend toward improved OS, CSS, and DFS at 60-month follow-up.