• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
    • Why Should You Support SAGES?
    • SAGES Swag
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Annual Meeting
      • 2027 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2027 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Lead Up Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • Innovative Surgical Trends
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Advanced Laparoscopy and Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
    • Foregut Video Atlas
  • Opportunities
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs
  • Learning Hub
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Comparison of Open and Laparoscopic Gastrectomy With Lymph Node Dissection for Gastric Cancer

Comparison of Open and Laparoscopic Gastrectomy With Lymph Node Dissection for Gastric Cancer

Bac Nguyen Hoang, Prof PhD, Long Vo Duy, Ms, Long Tran Cong Duy, Ms, Thuan Nguyen Duc, MD. University Medical Center, Hochiminh city, Vietnam

 

Background: Laparoscopic gastrectomy with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer has been performed in Vietnam as a technique that may offer benefits for patients. However, many controversies exist due to no evidence and no long-term results. There was no prospective multi-center large-scale randomized controlled trial in the world on the long-term outcome of laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery. The aim of this study was to compare technical feasibility, morbidity, mortality and 3-year survival of open and laparoscopic gastrectomy with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer.
Method: This study was designed as a prospective, non-randomized clinical trial with a total of 212 patients affected gastric adenocarcinoma between March 2007 and August 2011, at University Medical Center, Hochiminh city, Vietnam. Of these, 130 (61.3%) patients were underwent open gastrectomy (OG), while 82 (38.7%) patients were to the laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) group. Demographics, ASA status, pTNM stage, histologic type of the tumor, number of resected lymph nodes, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complications, and 3-year overall survival rates were studied to assess outcome differences between the groups.
Results: In all patients, the procedures were completed with D2 resection. For total gastrectomy, a Roux-en-Y reconstruction was performed, and a Billroth II reconstruction was used in subtotal gastrectomy. There was no conversion to laparotomy in the laparoscopic group. The demographics, preoperative data, and characteristics of the tumor were similar in the two groups. There was no significant differences in the mean operative time (176 vs. 182 min.), and the estimated intraoperative blood loss (120±20 vs. 102±16 ml), (OG vs. LG, respectively). No transfusion was required in the two groups. The mean number of resected lymph nodes was 31.4 ± 15.3 in the OG group and 29.3±12.4 in the LG (P>0.5). All resected margin was negative and no patients occurred postoperative leakage and mortality in the 2 groups. A significant differences were found in the median hospital length of stay (8,2±2,1 vs. 6±1,5 days; p=0.03), and the overall postoperative complications (13.8% vs. 7,2%; p=0.025), (OG vs. LP, respectively). The postoperative complications include the wound infections (10 vs. 3 patients), intra-abdominal abscesses (2 vs. 1 patients), deep wound dehiscence (1 vs. 0 patient), and minor medical disorders (5 vs. 2 patients), (OG vs. LG, respectively). One patients with wound dehiscence in the OG group was required reoperation to close the abdominal wall but no reoperation was required in LG group. Three-year overall survival rates were 72.4% and 75.8% in the OG and LG groups, respectively (P>0.5).
Conclusions: Laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma is comparable to the open approach with regard to oncologic principles of resection, with equivalent margin status and adequate lymph node retrieval, demonstrating technically feasibility and equivalent 3-years survival. Additional benefits of decreased postoperative complications, decreased length of hospital stay make this a preferable approach for selected patients.


Session Number: SS18 – Foregut
Program Number: S100

Related



Hours & Info

15821 Ventura Blvd Ste 400
Encino, CA 91436

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals

Refine Search