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.
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.
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 systematically evaluation the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC) and open cholecystectomy(OC) for chronic atrophic cholecystitis. MethodsStandard electronic database such as PubMed, Web of science, Cochrane library, CNKI, VIP, CBM, and Wanfang database were searched to retrieve relevant randomized controlled trials(RCTs) that comparing LC with OC, which were analyzed systematically using RevMan5.2. ResultsSeven RCTs including 758 patients were brought into this Meta analysis. There were significant differences between two groups regarding operative time(MD=-27.70, 95% CI:-44.25--11.16, P=0.001), amount of blood loss during operation(MD=-113.25, 95% CI:-141.68--84.81, P < 0.000 01), the recovery time of gastrointestinal function(MD=-28.49, 95% CI:-29.80--27.18, P < 0.000 01), and length of hospital stay(MD=-3.83, 95% CI:-6.01--1.65, P=0.000 6), There were statistically significant difference in utilization rate of anodynes after operation(MD=0.12, 95% CI:0.06-0.23, P < 0.000 1) and terrible postoperative complications(MD=0.24, 95% CI:0.12-0.47, P < 0.000 01) between LC and OC. ConclusionsIn both efficacy and safety, LC for chronic atrophic cholecystitis are significantly superior than the traditional OC. But now the clinical randomized controlled trials about LC is less and the quality is poor, so that its long-term safety evaluation still needs large sample quality RCTs to be further verified.
ObjectiveTo compare the cost-effectiveness between endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) treatment and laparotomy treatment for simple common bile duct stone or common bile duct stone combined with gallbladder benign lesions. MethodsA total of 596 patients with common bile stone received ERCP (ERCP group) and 173 received open choledocholithotomy (surgical group) in our hospital between January 2009 and December 2012. Their clinical data were retrospectively analyzed. The curing rate, postoperative complications, hospital stay, preoperational preparation and total cost were compared between the two groups of patients. Meanwhile, for common bile stone combined with gallbladder benign lesion, 29 patients received ERCP combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) (ERCP+LC group), 38 received pure laparoscopy treatment (laparoscopy group) and 129 received open choledocholithotomy combined with cholecystectomy (surgery group). ResultsFor simple common bile stone patients, no significant difference was found in cure rate and post-operative complication between endoscopic and surgical treatment groups (P>0.05). However, total hospitalization expenses[(13.1±6.3) thousand yuan, (20.6±7.5) thousand yuan)], hospital stay[(8.91±4.95), (12.14±5.15) days] and preoperative preparation time[(3.77±3.09), (5.13±3.99) days] were significantly different between the two groups (P<0.05). For patients with common bile stone combined with gallbladder benign lesion, no significant discrepancy was detected among the three groups in curing rate and post-operative complications (P>0.05). Significant differences were detected between ERCP+LC group and surgical group in terms of total hospitalization expense[(18.9±4.6) thousand yuan, (23.2±8.9) thousand yuan] hospital stay[(9.00±3.74), (12.47±4.50) days] and preoperative preparation time[(3.24±1.83), (5.15±2.98) days]. No significant difference was found in total hospitalization expense and hospital stay, while significant difference was detected in preoperative preparation time between ERCP+LC group and simple LC group. ConclusionFor patients with simple common bile stone, ERCP is equivalent to surgery in the curing rate, and has more advantages such as less cost, shorter length of hospital stay, and lower preoperative preparation time. For the treatment of common bile duct stone with gallbladder benign disease, ERCP combined with LC also has more advantages than traditional surgery.
ObjectiveTo assess the outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted surgery for treatment of advanced gastric cancer.MethodsA total of 115 patients with advanced gastric cancer were included between January 2014 and December 2018 were analyzed retroprospectively, the patients were divided into two groups: open surgery group (OS group, n=63) and laparoscopy-assisted surgery group (LAS group, n=52). Baseline characteristics, intraoperative parameters and postoperative items, and long-term efficacy were compared between the two groups.ResultsThere was no significant difference in preoperative baseline data including gender, age and preoperative serum parameters between the two groups (P>0.05). Intraoperative blood loss in the LAS group was significantly less than that in the OS group (P<0.05). In addition, the first feeding time after operation and postoperative hospital stay in the LAS group were significantly shorter than the OS group (P<0.05). Furthermore, numbers of white blood cells and neutrophils in the LAS group were fewer than that in the OS group at postoperative 2 days (P<0.05); the level of serum albumin in the LAS group was higher than that OS group (P<0.05). The number of lymph nodes detected during operation in the LAS group was more than that in the OS group (P<0.05). Operative time and occurrence of postoperative complications were not statistically significant between the two groups (P>0.05). One hundred and ten of 115 patients were followed- up, the follow-up rate was 95.7%. The follow-up time ranged from 6 to 48 months, with a median follow-up time of 12.4 months. The disease-free survival time of the OS group was 12.2±6.5 months, while that of the LAS group was 13.5±7.4 months. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionsLaparoscopic technique in treatment of advanced gastric cancer has the minimally invasive advantage, less intraoperative blood loss, less surgical trauma, and faster postoperative recovery in comparing to the traditional open surgery. Also the lymph node dissection is superior to open surgery. The curative effect is comparable to that of open surgery.
Objective To evaluate short-term effect of laparoscopic and open Miles operations for lower rectal carcinoma. Methods A total of 119 patients with lower rectal carcinoma were retrospectively collected from March 2012 to March 2017 in this hospital, among which 65 were in the laparoscopic operation group and 54 in the open operation group. The perioperative data, pathological results, recovery courses, and complications were compared between the two groups. Results Compared with the open operation group, the laparoscopic group showed a longer operation time (t=6.035, P=0.002), quicker bowel function recovery (t=4.919, P<0.001), faster off-bed activity (t=2.221, P<0.001), and shorter hospital stay time (t=3.795, P=0.025). The intraoperative blood loss (t=0.154, P=0.698) and the number of harvested lymph nodes (t=0.532, P=0.595) were similar between the two groups. The laparoscopic operation group showed a significant lower total complication rate (χ2=7.174, P=0.009) as compared with the open operation group, but the incision infection, urinary tract injury, lung infection, thrombosis of lower extremities, etc. had no significant differences between the two groups (P>0.050). Conclusion Laparoscopic Miles operation improves postoperative recovery and reduces postoperative complications as compared with open approach in treatment of lower rectal cancer, with similar oncological and short-term results.
ObjectiveTo analyze the therapeutic effects of open surgery and endovascular treatment for mesenteric venous thrombosis.MethodsThe clinical data of 22 patients with mesenteric venous thrombosis from March 2005 to January 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. One patient underwent open surgery including removal of necrotic small intestine and thrombectomy of superior mesenteric vein immediately admission to the hospital. Five cases were treated with simple anticoagulation and cured. Sixteen cases received thrombolytic therapy after primary anticoagulant therapy.ResultsOne case who underwent open surgery died of multiple organ failure at 72 h after the surgery. Five cases who received simple anticoagulant reached clinical relief finally. Sixteen patients who received thrombolytic therapy achieved recanalization totally or partially. Three cases died during follow-up (3 months to 7 years, average) of which 1 died of recurrence of acute superior mesenteric venous thrombosis, 1 died of myocardial infarction, and 1 died of stroke.ConclusionsFor patients with symptomatic mesenteric venous thrombosis, if there is no intestinal necrosis, there will be encouraging results by interventional thrombolytic therapy. And the treatment effect needs further experience accumulation in more cases.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the effect of laparoscopy versus laparotomy for borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) on postoperative recurrence. MethodsWe searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 11, 2015), EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data and CBM databases from inception to Nov. 2015, to collect relevant clinical studies comparing laparoscopy and laparotomy for BOTs. Two reviewer independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of include studies by using NOS scale. Then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsNineteen cohort studies were included. The scores of NOS scale showed that 10 studies were < 7 points, while the other 9 studies were≥7 points. The results of meta-analysis showed that: the recurrence rate of tumor (OR=1.75, 95%CI 1.05 to 2.91, P=0.03) in the laparoscopy group was higher than that in the laparotomy group, but no significant differences were found in further subgroup analysis according to type of operations (conservative surgery: OR=1.22, 95%CI 0.71 to 2.08, P=0.47; non-conservative surgery: OR=4.38, 95% CI 0.85 to 22.68, P=0.08). The diameter of tumor in the laparoscopy group was significant smaller than that in the laparotomy group (MD=-6.88, 95% CI-8.15 to-5.61, P < 0.000 01), and the rate of rupture of tumor in the laparoscopy group was significant higher than that in the laparotomy group (OR=3.99, 95% CI 2.54 to 6.26, P < 0.000 01). ConclusionCurrent evidence shows, compared with laparotomy, laparoscopy has similar effect on postoperative recurrence and smaller diameter of tumor, but laparoscopy could increase the rate of rupture of tumor. Due to the limited quality and sample size of included studies, more high quality and large sample size studies are need to prove the above conclusion.