Laparoscopy Assisted Distal Gastrectomy Versus Open Distal Gastrectomy for Patients with Gastric Cancer in A Middle Resources Country

Background: Laparoscopic surgery with a small laparotomy has several advantages over conventional open surgery, including less invasiveness, less pain, earlier recovery, and better cosmoses. The aim of this study was to compare technical feasibility and early clinical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy in comparison with open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer in a developing country. Patients and methods: In this retrospective study, patients with distal gastric cancer were divided into two groups (a) patients underwent laparoscopy assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) (21 patients) and (b) open distal gastrectomy (ODG) (21 patients). For the postoperative pathologic results, the tumor-nodal-metastasis (TNM) stage, grade of tumor differentiation, distal and proximal margins, the number of harvested lymph nodes were evaluated. Staging was done according to the 7th edition of the UICC tumor, node, and metastasis (TNM) classification. D1/D2 lymphadenectomy with curative R0 intention was attempted in all cases. Perioperative mortality and morbidity were assessed. Results: The time to initiate oral intake, and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the LADG group than in the ODG group (P < 0.001). The operative time in the LADG group was significantly less than that of the ODG group (P = 0.05). Blood loss and blood transfusion frequency were significantly lower (P < 0.0001) in the LADG group in comparison to ODG group. Conclusion: Laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy for distal gastric cancer could be safe and feasible technique alternative to open gastrectomy in a middle income country, with at least similar short term surgical and oncological results. However, laparoscopic gastric surgery is in need to adequate training and technical support especially in D2 lymphadenectomy