Laparoscopy-Assisted Versus Open Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Meta-analysis

Background: It remains controversial whether laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) is a safe or better alternative to open total gastrectomy (OTG) for the treatment of gastric cancer. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LATG by pooling comparative studies of LATG and OTG in a meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: Original articles comparing LATG and OTG for gastric cancer, published in the English language since 1990, were searched for in PubMed, Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library. The outcome variables analyzed were number of harvested lymph nodes, postoperative complications, postoperative mortality, 5-year survival, operative time, blood loss, time of analgesic use, first flatus day, and postoperative hospital stay. Results: Eight studies were considered suitable for the meta-analysis, for a total of 1161 patients (409 LATG and 752 OTG). Compared with OTG, LATG showed a similar number of lymph nodes harvested, morbidity, and postoperative mortality. There was also no difference in 5-year overall and disease-specific survival between groups, according to two enrolled studies where such data were available. LATG required longer operative times than OTG but also resulted in significantly less blood loss, earlier return of bowel function, less time of analgesics use, and shorter postoperative hospital stay. Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that LATG in the treatment of gastric cancer is similar in safety and efficacy to OTG. LATG has the advantages of less blood loss and faster postoperative recovery, at the expense of a longer operative time.