Laparoscopy-Assisted Gastrectomy for Early Gastric Cancer Is Safe and Effective in Elderly Patients

K, Ng

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2009.04.009

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During surgery, the tracheal cannula was used in patients under general and epidural anesthesia who lay in the supine position in a herringbone fashion. Perigastric lymph node dissection was performed in all patients according to the 13th Japanese edition of the D2 radical surgery standard for gastric cancer, and laparoscopic surgery was performed as described in the literature Ng, 2010). ORG was performed in the conventional way, and the D2 lymph nodes were removed according to 13th Japanese edition of general rules for gastric cancer study (Tokyo: Kanehara & Co., Ltd., 1998).…”

Section: Methods Of Operationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At present, the techniques of performing LARG for early gastric cancer have gradually improved and its apparent advantage -minimal invasion -has been increasingly identified. LARG has good outcomes and is defined as one of the standard therapies for stage I gastric cancer in the general rules for gastric cancer study (Japan) (Usui et al, 2003;An et al, 2010;Lee et al, 2010;Ng, 2010). However, the test for early gastric cancer is not performed as frequently in most countries as it is in Japan.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative study of clinical efficacy of laparoscopy-assisted radical gastrectomy versus open radical gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer

Jiang

Lin

et al. 2015

Genet. Mol. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of laparoscopy-assisted radical gastrectomy (LARG) versus that of open radical gastrectomy (ORG). Clinical data of 355 patients who underwent radical gastrectomy (160 in the LARG group and 195 in the ORG group) were analyzed retrospectively. Efficacy indices were compared and analyzed between the two groups. The operating time of LARG was longer than that of ORG (228.43 ± 34.77 versus 207.59 ± 28.39 min). However, patients in the LARG group lost less blood than did those in the ORG group (169.46 ± 82.92 versus 193.86 ± 82.09 mL), and more lymph nodes were removed in the LARG group (19.84 ± 4.7 versus 18.04 ± 4.14 per case). The recovery of intestinal function was faster (3.72 ± 1.03 versus 4.41 ± 1.30 days) in the LARG group. Patients in the LARG group were administered a semi-fluid diet earlier (5.66 ± 2.27 versus 7.09 ± 2.33 days) and had a shorter hospital stay (9.44 ± 3.06 versus 11.07 ± 7.91 days) than did those in the ORG group, and these differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). No significant differences were found in the length of proximal and distal resection margin and the incidence of complications (P > 0.05) between the two groups. Thus, LARG is safe, feasible, and effective for treating advanced gastric cancer.

show abstract

Section: Methods Of Operationmentioning

confidence: 99%