No abstract

BackgroundRecently, laparoscopic resection for relatively small sized gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) has been widely accepted as minimally invasive surgery. However, no report on the long-term safety and efficacy of this surgery for large sized gastric GISTs has been published to date.MethodsBetween July 1998 and January 2011, 104 consecutive patients who underwent resection for gastric GISTs were enrolled in this retrospective study. We assessed the clinicopathological characteristics, postoperative outcomes, patient survival, and tumor recurrence.ResultsOf the 104 patients with gastric GISTs who were included in the study, there were 47 males and 57 females whose mean age was 59.8 years. Sixty-four patients (61.5%) had symptoms associated with tumor. Ten patients included in the group 1, 49 in the group 2, 15 in the group 3a, 9 in the group 5, 14 in the group 6a, and 7 in the group 6b. There was one minor complication and no mortalities. Recurrence was noted in 5 patients, with a median follow-up period of 49.3 months (range, 8.4 to 164.4). The 5-year overall and disease free survival rates of 104 patients were 98.6% and 94.8%, respectively. When comparing large tumor (5–10 cm) between laparoscopic and open surgery, there were statistically differences in age, tumor size, tumor location, and length of hospitalization. There were no statistical differences in the 5-year survival rate between laparoscopic and open surgery for large tumor (5-10cm).ConclusionLaparoscopic surgery is feasible and effective as an oncologic treatment of gastric GISTs. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery can be an acceptable alternative to open methods for gastric GISTs of size bigger than 5 cm.

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the surgical and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) and open gastrectomy (OG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) using the case-control method with a sufficient follow-up period. Patients and Methods: The authors retrospectively analyzed 89 patients who underwent LAG and 345 patients who underwent OG for AGC between August 1999 and June 2007. A total of 176 matched cases were included in the final analysis. Results: Except for tumor size and reconstruction, there were no statistically significant differences in the clinicopathological parameters between the two groups. Although operation time was significantly longer for LAG than OG (228.3 vs. 183.6 min, p < 0.0001), first flatus time and postoperative hospital stay without complications were significantly shorter in the LAG group (3.2 vs. 3.7 days, p < 0.0001; 7.0 vs. 10.4 days, p < 0.0001, respectively). Operation-related complications occurred in 7 cases (8.0%) in both groups. 13 patients (14.8%) in the LAG group and 15 patients (17.1%) in the OG group had recurrence. There was no statistically significant difference in the 5-year and disease-free survival rates between LAG and OG. Conclusions: LAG for AGC might be considered to be a minimally invasive surgery in some selected cases, although a well-designed prospective study comparing LAG with OG for AGC is needed.

No abstract

Chemical structure of PI-GO, schematic structure of the ITO/PI-GO/Al device and its memory characteristics.