-
The American surgeon 04/2012; 78(4):E244-5. · 1.28 Impact Factor
-
The American surgeon 02/2012; 78(2):103-5. · 1.28 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There is a consensus on the indication of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for early gastric cancer that needs D1 + alpha or D1 + beta lymph node dissection. However, many gastrointestinal surgeons consider D2 lymph node dissection in LADG to be difficult, therefore, only a few medical institutions have performed D2 lymph node dissection in LADG. We examined the safety and accuracy of D2 dissection in LADG by comparing with open distal gastrectomy (ODG), as the first step to operate on advanced gastric cancer.
The study population comprised 53 and 67 patients who underwent D2 dissection in LADG or ODG, respectively; with the diagnosis of preoperative depth grade SM, between 2004 and 2006. In D2 lymph node dissection, difficult points are dissections of lymph node along the superior mesenteric vein (No. 14v), along the hepatic artery (No. 12a), and along the proximal splenic artery (No. 11p). We performed these lymph nodes dissection in a fixed process, which was achieved through all improvements.
No significant difference was observed in age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification, body mass index (BMI), and operative time between two groups. Bleeding volume was significantly lower in LADG (96.5 +/- 126.3 ml) than in ODG (221.9 +/- 174.8 ml). There was no significant difference in number of dissected lymph nodes between ODG (44.8 +/- 15.6) and LADG (49.2 +/- 16.1), with no significant difference in degree of pathological stage. The postoperative complication rate was 16.4% for ODG and 5.7% for LADG, and postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter for LADG (16.7 +/- 5.6 days) than for ODG (21 +/- 11.4 days).
D2 dissection in LADG can be performed without problems with safety and accuracy, if the surgical team is skilled in the procedures of LADG.
World Journal of Surgery 08/2008; 32(11):2366-70. · 2.36 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Since only a few extensive reports are available on the less invasive nature of laparoscopic gastrectomy, we compared postoperative changes over time in vital signs and hematological parameters between this surgery and laparotomic gastrectomy.
Of 188 patients who underwent distal gastrectomy for preoperatively diagnosed early gastric cancer between January 2004 and September 2006, 87 underwent laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) and 101 underwent laparotomic distal gastrectomy (DG). The invasiveness of the two procedures was evaluated in 164 patients with no postoperative complications (82 cases of LADG and 82 cases of DG by measuing vital signs daily and performing hematological examination on postoperative days (POD) 1, 4, 7, and 10.
For body temperature, heart rate, and blood pressure, significantly lower values were obtained with LADG on 3 and 4 POD, 4 POD, and 3 and 4 POD, respectively. For white blood cell counts (WBC) and C-reactive protein (CRP), significantly lower values were obtained with LADG on 7 and 10 POD, and 10 POD, respectively. For serum protein levels and lymphocyte counts, significantly higher values were obtained with LADG on 1, 4, 7, and 10 POD, and 4 and 10 POD, respectively. Body temperature, WBC, and CRP showed no significant difference immediately after surgery but earlier recovery occurred with LADG. For protein levels and lymphocyte counts, higher values were obtained immediately after surgery. There seemed to be two patterns of less invasiveness in the parameters: the early recovery found for body temperature, WBC and CRP, and the smaller shift immediately after surgery in protein level and lymphocyte count, and probably, heart rate and blood pressure. The complication rate was 18.8% for DG and 5.7% for LADG.
LADG is a less-invasive surgical procedure as it produces early normalization or smaller shifts in various parameters and exhibits a low prevalence of complications.
Surgical Endoscopy 02/2008; 22(1):81-5. · 4.01 Impact Factor
