Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has always been a hot topic in the field of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer. More and more studies have confirmed that short- and long-term outcomes of RG are similar to those of laparoscopic gastrectomy. Robotic surgical systems have more advantages in specific regional lymph node dissection. More delicate operation can reduce intraoperative blood loss and the incidence of postoperative complications. Robotic surgical systems are also more ergonomically designed. However, there are also some problems such as high surgical cost, lack of tactile feedback and prolonged total operation time. In the future, robotic surgical system may be further developed in the direction of miniaturization, intelligence and modularity. At the same time, the robotic surgical system deeply integrated with artificial intelligence technology may realize the automation of some operation steps to some extent.
Humans ; Robotic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects* ; Stomach Neoplasms/pathology* ; Artificial Intelligence ; Treatment Outcome ; Lymph Node Excision/adverse effects* ; Gastrectomy/adverse effects* ; Laparoscopy/adverse effects* ; Postoperative Complications/etiology* ; Retrospective Studies

Gastric cancer is one of the most common gastrointestinal malignancies in China. D2 radical gastrectomy is the main treatment for advanced gastric cancer patients. With the advancement of laparoscopic technology, laparoscopic radical gastrectomy has been gradually developed in the world, and even popularized in China. There have been a lot of literature reports on the indications, the scope of lymph node dissection and the improvement of techniques of laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Relevant guidelines or consensus for radical gastrectomy. The prevention and treatment of complications of gastrointestinal reconstruction for laparoscopic radical gastric cancer surgery is a major concern for gastrointestinal surgeons. Once complications occur in digestive tract reconstruction, it would increase the hospitalization cost, prolong the hospitalization stay of patients, delay follow-up chemotherapy, and even lead to postoperative death or other serious consequences. Therefore, it is of positive and far-reaching clinical significance to pay attention to the techniques of gastrointestinal reconstruction after laparoscopic radical gastric cancer surgery, to reduce the occurrence of gastrointestinal reconstruction complications, and to detect and reasonably manage related complications in a timely manner. The Chinese expert consensus on prevention and treatment of complications related to digestive tract reconstruction after laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer (2022 edition) has significance value for reducing the occurrence of gastrointestinal reconstruction complications. This manuscript mainly serves as the interpretation and supplement of this Consensus.
Humans ; Consensus ; Gastrectomy/methods* ; Laparoscopy/adverse effects* ; Lymph Node Excision ; Retrospective Studies ; Stomach Neoplasms/pathology* ; China

Hilar splenic lymph node metastasis is one of the risk factors for poor prognosis in patients with proximal gastric cancer. Laparoscopic spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymph node dissection (LSPSHLD) can effectively improve the survival benefits of patients at high risk of splenic hilar lymph node metastasis. However, LSPSHLD is still a challenging surgical difficulty in radical resection of proximal gastric cancer. Moreover, improper operation can easily lead to splenic vascular injury, spleen injury and pancreatic injury and other related complications, due to the deep anatomical location of the splenic hilar region and the intricate blood vessels.Therefore, in the prevention and treatment of LSPSHLD-related complications, we should first focus on prevention, clarify the indication of surgery, and select the benefit group of LSPSHLD individually, so as to avoid the risk caused by over-dissection. Meanwhile, during the perioperative period of LSPSHLD, it is necessary to improve the cognition of related risk factors, conduct standardized and accurate operations in good surgical field exposure and correct anatomical level to avoid surrounding tissues and organs injury, and master the surgical skills and effective measures to deal with related complications, so as to improve the surgical safety of LSPSHLD.
Humans ; Spleen/surgery* ; Lymphatic Metastasis/pathology* ; Stomach Neoplasms/pathology* ; Gastrectomy/adverse effects* ; Lymph Node Excision/adverse effects* ; Lymph Nodes/pathology* ; Laparoscopy/adverse effects* ; Retrospective Studies

Radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer results in various post-operative complications, and the influencing factors are complicated. The diagnosis, treatment and prevention of common complications have been reported in many literatures. However, there are few reports on the prevention and treatment of rare complications. Rare complications after radical gastrectomy are often overlooked due to their low incidence. In addition, there are few guidelines and expert consensus regarding to the rare complications. Therefore, clinicians may lack experience in the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of rare complications after radical gastrectomy. Based on the literature review and the author's experience, this article systematically reviews seven rare complications after radical gastrectomy (duodenal stump fistula, pancreatic fistula, chyle leakage, esophagomediastinal fistula, internal hernia, gastroparesis, and intussusception). This article aims to provide a comprehensive reference for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of rare complications after radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients.
Humans ; Stomach Neoplasms/complications* ; Gastrectomy/methods* ; Postoperative Complications/etiology* ; Duodenal Diseases ; Laparoscopy/adverse effects* ; Retrospective Studies

Surgical resection plays pivotal role in the treatment of gastric cancer. Adequate preoperative evaluation, precise intraoperative maneuver and delicate postoperative management lay the foundation for successful gastrectomy. The aim of preoperative evaluation is to stage tumor and identify potential risk factors (including preoperative factors like age, ASA status, body mass index, comorbidity, hypoalbuminemia, and intraoperative factors like blood loss and combined resection) which could lead to postoperative complication. With the management of prehabilitation, adequate medical decision could be made and patient's fast recovery could be ensured. With the rapid adoption of ERAS concept, there is increasing attention to prehabilitation which focus on optimization of cardio-pulmonary capacity and muscular-skeletal capacity. Despite of the efficacy of prehabilitation demonstrated by randomized controlled trials, consensus has yet to be reached on the following items: specific intervention, optimal measurement, candidate population and optimal timing for intervention. Balancing the efficiency and safety, preoperative evaluation could be put into clinical practice smoothly.
Humans ; Stomach Neoplasms/complications* ; Preoperative Care/adverse effects* ; Postoperative Complications/etiology* ; Gastrectomy/adverse effects* ; Risk Factors

Objective: To assess the effect of jejunal feeding tube placement on early complications of laparoscopic radical gastrectomy in patients with incomplete pyloric obstruction by gastric cancer. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study. Perioperative clinical data of 151 patients with gastric antrum cancer complicated by incomplete pyloric obstruction who had undergone laparoscopic distal radical gastrectomy from May 2020 to May 2022 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University were collected. Intraoperative jejunal feeding tubes had been inserted in 69 patients (nutrition tube group) and not in the remaining 82 patients (conventional group). There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups (all P>0.05). The operating time, intraoperative bleeding, time to first intake of solid food, time to passing first flatus, time to drainage tube removal, and postoperative hospital stay, and early postoperative complications (occurded within 30 days after surgery) were compared between the two groups. Results: Patients in both groups completed the surgery successfully and there were no deaths in the perioperative period. The operative time was longer in the nutritional tube group than in the conventional group [(209.2±4.7) minutes vs. (188.5±5.7) minutes, t=2.737, P=0.007], whereas the time to first postoperative intake of food [(2.7±0.1) days vs. (4.1±0.4) days, t=3.535, P<0.001], time to passing first flatus [(2.3±0.1) days vs. (2.8±0.1) days, t=3.999, P<0.001], time to drainage tube removal [(6.3±0.2) days vs. (6.9±0.2) days, t=2.123, P=0.035], and postoperative hospital stay [(7.8±0.2) days vs. (9.7±0.5) days, t=3.282, P=0.001] were shorter in the nutritional tube group than in the conventional group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in intraoperative bleeding [(101.1±9.0) mL vs. (111.4±8.7) mL, t=0.826, P=0.410]. The overall incidence of short-term postoperative complications was 16.6% (25/151). Postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the two groups (all P>0.05). Conclusion: It is safe and feasible to insert a jejunal feeding tube in patients with incomplete outlet obstruction by gastric antrum cancer during laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. Such tubes confer some advantages in postoperative recovery.
Humans ; Stomach Neoplasms/etiology* ; Pyloric Antrum ; Retrospective Studies ; Flatulence/surgery* ; Treatment Outcome ; Postoperative Complications/etiology* ; Laparoscopy ; Gastrectomy/adverse effects* ; Length of Stay ; Pyloric Stenosis/surgery*

Objective: To analyze the factors associated with readmission within three months of surgery for gastric cancer and the impact of readmission on patients' long-term nutritional status and quality of life. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study comprising patients who underwent radical gastrectomy in the Department of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgery, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences from October 2018 to August 2019. Patients who failed to complete postoperative follow-up, whose body mass index (BMI) could not be accurately estimated, or who were unable to complete a quality-of-life questionnaire were excluded. The patients were followed up for 12 months. Time to, cause(s) of, and outcomes of readmission were followed up 1, 2 and 3 months postoperatively. BMI was followed up 1, 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Results of blood tests were collected and patients' nutritional status and quality of life were assessed 12 months postoperatively. Nutritional status was evaluated by BMI, hemoglobin, albumin, and total lymphocyte count. Quality of life was evaluated using the European Organization for Research in the Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life scale. The higher the scores for global health and functional domains, the better the quality of life, whereas the higher the score in the symptom domain, the worse the quality of life. Results: The study cohort comprised 259 patients with gastric cancer, all of whom were followed up for 3 months and 236 of whom were followed up for 12 months. Forty-four (17.0%) patients were readmitted within 3 months. The commonest reasons for readmission were gastrointestinal dysfunction (16 cases, 36.3%), intestinal obstruction (8 cases, 18.2%), and anastomotic stenosis (8 cases, 18.2%). Logistic regression analysis showed that preoperative Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment score ≥ 4 points (OR=1.481, 95% CI: 1.028‒2.132), postoperative complications (OR=3.298, 95%CI:1.416‒7.684) and resection range (OR=1.582, 95% CI:1.057‒2.369) were risk factors for readmission within 3 months of surgery. Compared with patients who had not been readmitted 12 months after surgery, patients who were readmitted within 3 months of surgery tended to have greater decreases in their BMI [-2.36 (-5.13,-0.42) kg/m² vs. -1.73 (-3.33,-0.33) kg/m², Z=1.850, P=0.065), significantly lower hemoglobin and albumin concentrations [(122.1±16.6) g/L vs. (129.8±18.4) g/L, t=2.400, P=0.017]; [(40.9±5.0) g/L vs. (43.4±3.3) g/L, t=3.950, P<0.001], and significantly decreased global health scores in the quality of life assessment [83 (67, 100) vs. 100 (83, 100), Z=2.890,P=0.004]. Conclusion: Preoperative nutritional risk, total or proximal radical gastrectomy, and complications during hospitalization are risk factors for readmission within 3 months of surgery for gastric cancer. Perioperative management and postoperative follow-up should be more rigorous. Readmission within 3 months after surgery may be associated with a decline in long-term nutritional status and quality of life. Achieving improvement in long-term nutritional status and quality of life requires tracking of nutritional status, timely evaluation, and appropriate interventions in patients who need readmission.
Humans ; Nutritional Status ; Quality of Life ; Patient Readmission ; Stomach Neoplasms/complications* ; Prospective Studies ; Postoperative Complications/etiology* ; Gastrectomy/adverse effects* ; Retrospective Studies

Objective: To evaluate the influence of duodenal stump reinforcing on the short-term complications after laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. Methods: A retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted. Clinical data of 1204 patients with gastric cancer who underwent laparoscopic radical gastrectomy at the First Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University from April 2009 to December 2018 were collected. The digestive tract reconstruction methods included Billroth II anastomosis, Roux-en-Y anastomosis and un-cut-Roux- en-Y anastomosis. A linear stapler was used to transected the stomach and the duodenum. Among 1204 patients, 838 were males and 366 were females with mean age of (57.0±16.0) years. Duodenal stump was reinforced in 792 cases (reinforcement group) and unreinforced in 412 cases (non-reinforcement group). There were significant differences in resection range and anastomotic methods between the two groups (both P<0.001). The two groups were matched by propensity score according to the ratio of 1∶1, and the reinforcement group was further divided into purse string group and non-purse string group. The primary outcome was short-term postoperative complications (within one month after operation). Complications with Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III a were defined as severe complications, and the morbidity of complication between the reinforcement group and the non-reinforcement group, as well as between the purse string group and the non-purse string group was compared. Results: After PSM, 411 pairs were included in the reinforcement group and the non-reinforcement group, and there were no significant differences in baseline data between the two groups (all P>0.05). No perioperative death occurred in any patient.The short-term morbidity of postoperative complication was 7.4% (61/822), including 14 cases of anastomotic leakage (23.0%), 11 cases of abdominal hemorrhage (18.0%), 8 cases of duodenal stump leakage (13.1%), 2 cases of incision dehiscence (3.3%), 6 cases of incision infection (9.8%) and 20 cases of abdominal infection (32.8%). Short-term postoperative complications were found in 25 patients (6.1%) and 36 patients (8.8%) in the reinforcement group and the non-reinforcement group, respectively, without significant difference (χ²=2.142, P=0.143). Nineteen patients (2.3%) developed short-term severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa), while no significant difference in severe complications was found between the two groups (1.7% vs. 2.9%, χ²=1.347, P=0.246). Sub-group analysis showed that the morbidity of short-term postoperative complication of the purse string group was 2.6% (9/345), which was lower than 24.2% (16/66) of the non-purse string group (χ²=45.388, P<0.001). Conclusion: Conventional reinforcement of duodenal stump does not significantly reduce the incidence of duodenal stump leakage, so it is necessary to choose whether to reinforce the duodenal stump individually, and purse string suture should be the first choice when decided to reinforce.
Adult ; Aged ; Anastomosis, Roux-en-Y/adverse effects* ; Anastomosis, Surgical/adverse effects* ; Duodenum/surgery* ; Female ; Gastrectomy/methods* ; Humans ; Laparoscopy/adverse effects* ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Postoperative Complications/etiology* ; Retrospective Studies ; Stomach Neoplasms/surgery*

Anastomosis, Surgical ; Gastrectomy/adverse effects* ; Humans ; Jejunum/surgery* ; Laparoscopy ; Retrospective Studies ; Stomach Neoplasms/surgery*

Surgery is the main curative treatment for gastric cancer. As surgical techniques continue to improve, the scope of radical resection and lymph node dissection has formed consensus and guidelines, so people's attention has gradually shifted to the quality of life (QOL) of patients after surgery. Postgastrectomy syndrome is a series of symptoms and signs caused by complications after gastrectomy, which can affect the quality of life of patients with gastric cancer after surgery. Gastrectomy and anastomosis are closely related to postgastrectomy syndrome. The selection of appropriate surgical methods is very important to the quality of life of patients after surgery. This article reviews the effects of gastrectomy procedures on postoperative quality of life of patients with gastric cancer and its evaluation methods.
Gastrectomy/methods* ; Humans ; Lymph Node Excision/adverse effects* ; Postgastrectomy Syndromes ; Quality of Life ; Stomach Neoplasms/complications*