ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) and open hepatectomy (OH) on the hepatocellular carcinoma patients with cirrhosis.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were searched online to collect the cohort studies of LHvs.OH on hepatocellular carcinoma patients with cirrhosis from inception to November 31st, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 15 cohort studies involving 1 720 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: compared with OH, LH had less blood loss (MD=–226.94, 95%CI –339.87 to –114.01, P<0.000 1), lower transfusion rate (OR=0.48, 95%CI 0.27 to 0.83,P=0.009), less occurrence of complications (OR=0.32, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.45, P<0.000 01), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD=–3.66, 95%CI –5.19 to –2.14,P<0.000 01), lower mortality rate (OR=0.47, 95%CI 0.24 to 0.92,P=0.03), wider surgical margin (OR=0.78, 95%CI 0.20 to 1.36, P=0.009), higher 1, 3 and 5-year survival rate (OR=2.47, 95%CI 1.35 to 4.51, P=0.003; OR=1.62, 95%CI 1.11 to 2.36, P=0.01; OR=1.58, 95%CI 1.19 to 2.10, P=0.002, respectively) and 1-year disease free survival rate (OR=1.69, 95%CI=1.20 to 2.39, P=0.003). There were no significant differences in operation time (MD=28.64, 95%CI –7.53 to 64.82, P=0.12), tumor size (MD=–0.37, 95%CI –0.75 to 0.02, P=0.06), 3-year disease free survival rate (OR=1.14, 95%CI 0.86 to 1.51, P=0.36) and 5-year disease free survival rate (OR=0.99, 95%CI 0.77 to 1.28, P=0.97) between the two groups.ConclusionsThe perioperation and short-term postoperative outcomes of LH are significant in HCC patients with cirrhosis, and which have good long-term prognosis. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.
Objective To investigate the clinical effects and safety differences of open surgery and laparoscopy primary lesion resection combined with D2 lymph node dissection in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer. Methods One hundred and forty elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer were chosen and randomly divided into two group including open operative group (70 patients) with primary lesion resection combined with D2 lymph node dissection by open operation and laparoscopic surgery group (70 patients) with primary lesion resection combined with D2 lymph node dissection by laparoscopy; and the operative time, intraoperative bleeding amount, the levels of PaCO2 in operation, liquid diet eating time, postoperative anal exhaust time, postoperative gastric tube indwelling time, postoperative ambulation time, the level of haemoglobin (Hb) after operation, the hospitalization time, the number of lymph node dissection, the survival rate with followed-up and postoperative complication incidence of both groups were compared. Results There was no significant difference in the operative time between 2 groups (P>0.05). The intraoperative bleeding amount, the level of PaCO2 in operation, liquid diet eating time, postoperative anal exhaust time, postoperative gastric tube indwelling time, postoperative ambulation time, the level of Hb after operation and the hospitalization time of laparoscopic surgery group were significantly better than open operative group (P<0.05). The level of PaCO2 in operation of laparoscopic surgery group was significantly higher than open operative group (P<0.05). There were no significant difference in the gastric lymph node dissection number and the peripheral lymph node dissection number of gastric artery between 2 groups (P>0.05). There were no significant difference in the survival rates between the 2 groups after 3-year followed-up (P>0.05). The complication incidence after operation of laparoscopic surgery group was significantly lower than open operative group (P<0.05). The quality of life scores of patients in laparoscopic surgery group were significantly higher than those in open operative group on 7 days and in 3 months after operation, and the difference were statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with open operation, primary lesion resection combined with D2 lymph node dissection by laparoscopy in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer can efficiently possess the advantages including minimally invasive, shorter recovery time and less postoperative complications.
ObjectiveTo evaluate whether laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer o ers elderly patients an improved outcome compared with conventional open surgery. MethodsFrom May 2008 to December 2013, clinical data of 163 elderly patients ( ≥ 60 years) who underwent laparoscopic or open repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease were analyzed retrospectively in our hospital. Ninety-one patients received laparoscopic repair and 72 received conventional open repair. The primary end points that were evaluated were total operative time, searching time, nasogastric tube utilization, intravenous fluid requirement, total time of abdominal drainage and urinary catheter usage, time taken to return to normal gastrointestinal motility, percentage of intravenous/intramuscular opiate use, off-bed time, and total in-patient hospital stay. The second end points were morbidity. ResultsThere was a significant diTherence in total operative time in patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair and open repair [(67.9±3.6) minutes vs. (97.8±5.2) minutes]. There was a significant decrease in the time that the nasogastric tube (2.1 days vs. 3.1 days), urinary catheter (2.3 days vs. 3.7 days) and abdominal drain (2.2 days vs. 3.8 days) were required during the postoperative period. Patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair also required less intravenous fluids (2.4 days vs. 4.1 days) and returned to normal gastrointestinal motility [(32.1±1.5) hours vs. (58.4±4.8) hours] and off-bed time significantly earlier than those who had undergone open repair (2.1 days vs. 3.5 days). There was significantly less requirement for intravenous/intramuscular opiate analgesia in patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair (4.7% vs. 45.6%). In addition, patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair required a shorter in-patient hospital stay (4.1 days vs. 5.3 days). Moreover, morbidity of laparoscopic repair was much lower than open repair (3.3% vs. 16.7%). ConclusionLaparoscopic repair is a viable and safe surgical option for elderly patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease and should be considered for all patients.
Objective To systematically review the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) and open hepatectomy (OH) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect the case-control studies about LH vs. OH for patients with HCC from inception to December, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of 28 studies involving 1 908 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: the LH group was superior to OH group on complications (OR=0.35, 95%CI 0.26 to 0.48, P<0.000 01), hospital stay (MD=–4.18, 95%CI (–5.08, –3.29),P<0.000 01), and five years overall survival rate (OR=1.65, 95%CI 1.23 to 2.19,P=0.000 7) and disease-free survival rate (OR=1.51, 95%CI 1.12 to 2.03, P=0.006). However, no significant differences were found in one year and three years overall survival rate, disease-free survival rate, and postoperative recurrence rate. Conclusion Current evidence shows that the LH is superior to OH for the treatment of HCC, and may be amenable to surgery because of its safety and longtime efficacy. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify above conclusion.
【摘要】 目的 研究腹腔镜行进展期胃癌根治术较传统开腹手术在围手术期临床和生化指标的变化，进一步探讨其临床应用的优越性。 方法 采用统一入组标准、同期临床对比研究方法，对2010年1-12月腹腔镜手术组和开腹手术组完成的112例进展期胃癌根治术患者在围手术期临床指标和生化指标的比较分析，其中腹腔镜手术组59例，开腹手术组53例。 结果 腹腔镜组手术切口长度为（5.77±0.74） cm，开腹手术组为（12.05±1.30） cm，组间差异有统计学意义（t=-30.921，P=0.000）；腹腔镜组术中失血量为（107.20±27.23） mL，开腹手术组为（168.87±96.76） mL，组间差异有统计学意义（t=-4.483，P=0.000）；腹腔镜组术后住院时间为（7.19±0.97） d，开腹手术组为（8.32±1.16） d，组间差异有统计学意义（t=-5.634，P=0.000）；腹腔镜组手术时间为（202.12±15.71） min，开腹手术组为（196.32±16.73） min，组间差异无统计学意义（t=1.891，P=0.061）；腹腔镜组清扫淋巴结枚数（14.15±4.51）枚，开腹手术组（15.25±5.17）枚，组间差异无统计学意义（t=0.736，P=0.471）；腹腔镜组肠功能恢复时间为（57.88±9.70） h，开腹手术组为（59.16±10.82） h，组间差异无统计学意义（t=-0.655，P=0.514）。两组前白蛋白和血红蛋白水平差异无统计学意义（Pgt;0.05）。 结论 进展期胃癌行腹腔镜手术与传统开腹手术比较，并不加重患者创伤反应，也不增加手术并发症，具有手术切口小、术中出血少、术后恢复快等优点。【Abstract】 Objective To evaluate the differences between laparoscopy and open surgery for treating advanced gastric cancer in peri-operative clinical and biochemical indexes, in order to investigate the superiority of laparoscopy in treating the disease. Methods The same including standards and double-blind randomized control study were carried out to compare the peri-operative clinical and biochemical indexes of 112 patients who underwent radical treatment for advanced gastric cancer from January to December 2010. Among them, 59 patients were included in the laparoscopic group, and 53 in the traditional open operation group. Results Compared with the open surgery group, the incision length [(5.77±0.74) cm vs. (12.05±1.30) cm; t=-30.921, P=0.000], intraoperational blood loss [(107.20±27.23) mL vs. (168.87±96.76) mL; t=-4.483, P=0.000] and hospital stay time [(7.19±0.97) days vs. (8.32±1.16) days; t=-5.634, P=0.000] were significantly shorter or lower in the laparoscopic group. However, the operation time [(202.12±15.71) minutes vs. (196.32±16.73) minutes; t=1.891, P=0.061], number of lymph nodes removed (14.15±4.51 vs. 15.25±5.17; t=0.736, P=0.471), and intestinal functioning time [(57.88±9.70) hours vs. (59.16±10.82) hours; t=-0.655, P=0.514] were not significantly different between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the level of prealbumin and hemoglobin. Conclusion Compared with the traditional open operation, laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer has obvious advantages including smaller incision, lower blood loss during the operation, and fast recovery, without aggravating patients′ traumatic response or increasing the incidence of operational complications.
ObjectiveTo systemically evaluate safety and effectiveness of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) and conventional open distal gastrostomy(CODG) with D2 lymph node dissection for Chinese patients with distal gastric cancer. MethodsLiterature were searched in PubMed database, the Cochrane Library, China science citation database (CSCD), Wanfang database, China science and technology journal database (CSTJ), China biomedical literature database (CBM), and China academic journal network publishing database (CAJD) to identify clinical random controlled trials, comparing safety and effectiveness of LADG and CODG with D2 lymph node dissection for Chinese patients with distal gastric cancer. The retrieval time was from the inception to Jun. 2013. Meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager 5.2 software. ResultsA total of 7 clinical random controlled trials including 548 patients were analyzed. Compared with CODG group, LADG group had less blood loss (MD=-94.02, 95% CI:-140.96--47.07), shorter postoperative hospital stay(MD=-3.66, 95% CI:-5.76--1.57), earlier postoperative ambulation time(MD=-1.95, 95% CI:-2.74--1.17), earlier postoperative exhaust time (MD=-1.67, 95% CI:-2.05--1.30), lower incidence of complications(OR=0.26, 95% CI:0.14-0.51), P<0.050. But the operation time was longer in LADG group (MD=35.01, 95% CI:10.41-59.61, P=0.005). There was no significant difference between LADG group and CODG group on number of lymph node which were dissected during the operation (MD=-0.24, 95% CI:-0.99-0.51, P=0.530). ConclusionThe short-term outcome and safety of LADG for Chinese patients with distal gastric cancer is superior to CODG, but LADG prolongs the operation time and its long-term outcome should be proved by further outcomes of clinical controlled trials.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic operation versus laparotomy for stage I-IIa cervical cancer. MethodDatabases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Knowledge, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI were searched to collect controlled trials and cohort studies about laparoscopic operation versus laparotomy for stage I-IIa cervical cancer from inception to July 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of 3 RCTs, 4 non-randomized controlled trials and 11 cohort studies involving 2 020 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with laparotomy, laparoscopy operation could reduce intraoperative blood loss (MD=-247.99, 95%CI -408.90 to -87.07, P=0.003) , the incidence of perioperative blood transfusion (OR=0.33, 95%CI 0.21 to 0.52, P<0.000 01) , haemoglobin level before and after surgery (MD=-0.98, 95%CI -0.13 to -0.93, P<0.000 01) , postoperative complication (OR=0.61, 95%CI 0.40 to 0.93, P=0.02) , and shorten postoperative exhaust time (MD=-17.41, 95%CI -32.79 to -2.03, P=0.03) and postoperative hospitalization days (MD=-2.51, 95%CI -3.25 to -1.78, P<0.000 01) . There were no significant differences between two groups in the number of pelvic lymph nodes removed, operative complications, as well as the recurrence rate, mortality and non-recurrence survivals after 2 to 5 years of follow-up. But the operation time of the laparoscopy operation group was longer than that of the laparotomy group. ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that compared with laparotomy, laparoscopic operation for early stage cervical cancer has less trauma, less blood loss, shorter hospitalization days and less postoperative complications. Due to the limited quantity of the included studies, more studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
ObjectiveTo compare the results of laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative resection and open surgery for gasric stromal tumor. MethodsFrom January 2010 to March 2015, the clinical data of 56 cases undergoing laparoscopic resection for gasric stromal tumor and 53 cases of traditional operation selected during the same period were retrospectively compared. ResultsThere was no significant difference between two groups in patient's gender, age, body weight, size of tumor, tumor staging, method of operation, intraoperative conditions, postoperative overall complications, local recurrence, and distant metastasis. There were 1 case with the rupture of tumor and 1 case of open surgery transforming in laparoscopic group. In another group, there was the absence of the rupture of tumors. There was no mortality, stomach bleeding, stenosis or leakage occurred between two groups. In laparoscopic group, there were less operative blood loss and abdominal drainage, shorter time of postoperative anal exhaust time, fewer anodyne, a reduction of hospital stay than in convention operation group.However, laparoscopic resection required greater hospital costs and longer operative time. There were significant differences between two groups (P < 0.05). Conciusions With advantages of less blood loss and quicker recovery as compared to conventional operation. Laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative resection for gasric stromal tumor has similar effect when it is performed by well selection of cases, skilled surgeon with experience on open resection for surgical treatment of gastric stromal tumor.