Lu YY, Li YX, He M, Wang YL. Laparoscopic vs open surgery for gastric cancer: Assessing time, recovery, complications, and markers. World J Gastrointest Surg 2024; 16(1): 40-48 [PMID: 38328321 DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v16.i1.40]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Ya-Li Wang, MBBS, Technician, Chongqing Key Laboratory of Translational Research for Cancer Metastasis and Individualized Treatment, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, No. 181 Hanyu Road, Shapingba District, Chongqing 400030, China. wangyali19850810@163.com
Research Domain of This Article
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Article-Type of This Article
Retrospective Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Gastrointest Surg. Jan 27, 2024; 16(1): 40-48 Published online Jan 27, 2024. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v16.i1.40
Laparoscopic vs open surgery for gastric cancer: Assessing time, recovery, complications, and markers
Yun-Yao Lu, Yun-Xiao Li, Meng He, Ya-Li Wang
Yun-Yao Lu, Yun-Xiao Li, Meng He, Ya-Li Wang, Chongqing Key Laboratory of Translational Research for Cancer Metastasis and Individualized Treatment, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing 400030, China
Co-first authors: Yun-Yao Lu and Yun-Xiao Li.
Co-corresponding authors: Ya-Li Wang and Meng He.
Author contributions: Lu YY designed and performed the research and wrote the manuscript; Wang YL designed the study and supervised the report; Li YX designed the study and participated in the analysis; He M provided clinical advice and supervised the report; All authors were involved in the critical review of the results and have contributed to, read, and approved the final manuscript. Lu YY and Li YX contributed equally to this work and are the first co-authors. Wang YL and He M contributed equally to this study and are co-corresponding authors. There are two reasons for designating Lu YY and Li YX as co-first authors, and Wang YL and He M as co-corresponding authors. First, the research was performed as a collaborative effort, and the designation of co-first authors and co-corresponding authors accurately reflects the distribution of responsibilities and burdens associated with the time and effort required to complete the study and the resultant paper. This also ensures effective communication and management of post-submission matters, ultimately enhancing the paper's quality and reliability. Second, they contributed efforts of equal substance throughout the research process. The choice of these researchers as co-first authors and co-corresponding authors acknowledges and respects this equal contribution, while recognizing the spirit of teamwork and collaboration of this study. In summary, we believe that designating Lu YY and Li YX as co-first authors, and Wang YL and He M as co-corresponding authors is fitting for our manuscript as it accurately reflects our team's collaborative spirit and equal contributions.
Institutional review board statement: The study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Chongqing University Cancer Hospital (Approval No. CZLS2023170-A).
Informed consent statement: The authors have applied for exemption from obtaining patients’ informed consent.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Data sharing statement: The statistical data used in this study can be obtained from the corresponding author upon request.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Ya-Li Wang, MBBS, Technician, Chongqing Key Laboratory of Translational Research for Cancer Metastasis and Individualized Treatment, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, No. 181 Hanyu Road, Shapingba District, Chongqing 400030, China. wangyali19850810@163.com
Received: September 5, 2023 Peer-review started: September 5, 2023 First decision: September 14, 2023 Revised: September 22, 2023 Accepted: November 8, 2023 Article in press: November 8, 2023 Published online: January 27, 2024 Processing time: 141 Days and 22.6 Hours
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS
Research background
Gastric cancer (GC) is a common malignancy with increasing incidence owing to lifestyle changes. This study compared the outcomes of open surgery and laparoscopic radical surgery (LRS), two different surgical techniques used to treat early-stage GC.
Research motivation
The need to find an effective and less invasive surgical method with less trauma, quick recovery, and minimal impact on immunity motivated this study.
Research objectives
The primary objectives of this study were to compare the effects of open surgery and LRS on operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, length of hospital stay, complications, and tumor marker levels in patients with GC.
Research methods
A comparative study was conducted on two groups of patients: one group underwent open surgery and the other, LRS. Surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative eating time, length of hospital stays, overall response rate, incidence of complications, tumor marker levels (carbohydrate antigen 19-9, cancer antigen 72-4, carcinoembryonic antigen, and cancer antigen 125), and survival and recurrence rates were compared.
Research results
Patients in the LRS group experienced shorter operation times, less intraoperative blood loss, earlier postoperative eating times, and shorter hospital stays, with a higher overall response rate, lower incidence of complications, and significantly decreased tumor marker levels compared with those in the open surgery group. However, no notable differences in three-year survival and recurrence rates were observed between the two groups.
Research conclusions
LRS is an effective treatment for early-stage GC. It offers several advantages over open surgery, including reduced intraoperative bleeding, shorter hospital stays, fewer complications, and lower levels of tumor markers. Even in advanced GC, LRS can reduce postoperative complications and contribute to a favorable long-term prognosis.
Research perspectives
Despite the promising results, the study has limitations, such as a reduced number of samples and a lack of long-term follow-up due to its retrospective nature. Future studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are warranted to validate these findings.
