Minimally invasive gastrectomy and the risk of pancreas-related morbidity

Minimally invasive gastrectomy and the risk of pancreas-related morbidity

Clifford Akateh, Jordan M. Cloyd

Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

Correspondence to: Jordan M. Cloyd, MD. Division of Surgical Oncology, The Ohio State Wexner Medical Center, 410 W 10th Ave, N-907, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. Email:

Provenance: This is an invited article commissioned by the Editor-in-Chief Giovanni Battista Levi Sandri (Division of General Surgery, Santa Scolatisca Hospital, Cassino, Lazio, Italy).

Comment on: Guerra F, Giuliani G, Iacobone M, et al. Pancreas-related complications following gastrectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of open versus minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 2017;31:4346-56.

Received: 13 April 2018; Accepted: 23 April 2018; Published: 09 May 2018.

doi: 10.21037/ls.2018.04.10

For most of the last century, open gastrectomy (OG) has been the standard approach for gastric cancer. However, in recent years there has been growing acceptance of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), first performed by Kitano in 1994 (1), as an alternative and equally effective approach. In fact, LG has many advantages over the open approach including less blood loss, shorter time to bowel function, improved pain control, earlier oral intake, shorter length of stay, decreased postoperative morbidity and overall improved quality of life and patient satisfaction. Importantly, it has been shown to have similar oncologic outcomes compared to an open approach (2-4).

Several randomized controlled trials (RCT) have now established the short-term safety and oncologic equivalency of LG compared to OG. One of the first randomized trials comparing LG to OG approach for early gastric cancer (EGC) was conducted by Kitano et al. in 2002 (5). From October 1998 to March 2001, 28 patients (14 in each arm) with EGC were randomized to either laparoscopy or open surgery. All patients underwent a Billroth I reconstruction. They demonstrated earlier recovery, less pain, no reduction in curability with laparoscopy. In 2007, they performed a retrospective analysis of their laparoscopic cases from 1994 to 2013, including the previously randomized patient and again demonstrated good short-term and long-term outcomes (6).

Results from the JCOG0912 trial, a large multi-institutional RCT from Japan evaluating outcomes in patients with clinical stage 1 cancer of the middle or lower third of the stomach was completed between March 2010 and November 2013, enrolling 921 patients (462 LG and 459OG). Although long term outcomes are yet to be analyzed, initial findings demonstrate no differences in short-term outcomes (7). Similarly, the KLASS-1 study randomized 1,416 patients with EGC to either LG versus OG. While no significant differences were observed in major complications or mortality, the overall complication rate was significantly lower in the LG group (8). Additional studies (KLASS-02, KLASS-03, KLASS-04, KLASS-05, KLASS-07 and KLASS-07), which include patients with more advanced disease are underway (9). Similar results have been demonstrated in non-randomized trials, single center studies and retrospective reviews.

Results in the West, though less compelling, have been similar. Huscher et al. randomized 59 patients with distal gastric cancer to either LG or OG. There were no differences postoperative in morbidity rates, 5-year disease free survival and overall 5-year survival. Patients in the laparoscopic arm had reduced blood loss, shorter time to resumption of oral intake, and shorter length of hospital stay (10). Although there have been no randomized trials in the United States, institutional and national database reviews have shown similar findings (11-13). The LOGICA trial, a multi-institutional prospective randomized superiority trial of LG versus OG opened in the Netherlands in 2014, and is currently recruiting with an expected study completion date is January 2023 (14).

Despite the evidence to support the use of LG for gastric cancer and its increasing adoption, some specific concerns remain. For example, there has been some concern that LG may be associated with a higher incidence of post-gastrectomy pancreas-related morbidity, particularly acute pancreatitis (AP) and pancreatic fistula (PF) formation (15-18). Pancreas-related morbidity following gastrectomy is a rare but potentially devastating complication. While there may be several mechanistic explanations for how PF occurs following gastrectomy, the most likely etiology is violation of the pancreatic parenchyma during infrapancreatic dissection of the gastroepiploic lymph node basins or suprapancreatic dissection of the celiac axis branches. Furthermore, AP may occur as a result of ischemic, compressive, thromboembolic, or thermal injury.

Fortunately, the incidence of pancreas-related morbidity following gastric resection is low. Guerra et al. recently performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature and found a pooled incidence of approximately 1%. While the authors conclude that LG is associated with a higher incidence of pancreas-related complications, it is important to note that no statistically significant differences were found between the OG and LG groups. Specifically, using RCT data only, pancreas-related complications occurred in about 1.24% of laparoscopic gastrectomies and about 0.91% of open gastrectomies (P=0.42). Of 11 studies reporting AP, 11 patients in the minimal invasive group developed AP, compared to six patients in the OG group (P=0.03). PF was reported in 35 patients in the minimal invasive group compared to 27 patients in the open group (P=0.44) (16).

Overall, these data are encouraging as some surgeons theorized that LG may lead to a higher rate of pancreas-related complications given the increased use of thermal energy devices. Nevertheless, these data must be interpreted cautiously since the methodological designs in these studies demonstrated significant heterogeneity. How were PF and AP defined and what criteria were used to make these diagnoses? How was perioperative drain placement standardized? What other technical or surgeon differences may have existed between patients who received an open versus minimally invasive approach?

To overcome these limitations, it may be most appropriate to focus attention on prospective RCTs and well-controlled cohort studies. Indeed, the JCOG0912 trial, a multi-institutional RCT of EGC, found similar rates of PF (0.4%) in patients undergoing LG and OG (7). Similar findings were reported in RCTs published by Aoyama et al. (1/13 in OG vs. 0/13 in LG group) (19), Hu et al. (0% OG vs. 0.4% LG, P=0.249) (20). The RCTs reported by Huscher et al. (10) and Kim et al. (8) did not note the occurrence of any PF but each reported 1 case of AP in the LG group.

LG remains a technically challenging procedure, whose success is largely driven by the experience of the surgeon. Some have estimated a learning curve that includes at minimum 40 cases (21), and possibly up to 100 cases (22), to achieve optimal success. It is, therefore, not surprising that some of the studies with smaller case numbers had a trend towards increased pancreas-related complications in the laparoscopic group. It is, however, worth noting in a majority of the cases, these differences did not reach statistical significance. Regardless of surgical approach, AP and PF lead to significant morbidity and therefore the identification of risk factors and effective mitigation strategies are strongly justified. Jiang et al. reviewed some of the risk factors associated with PF formation including higher mean body mass index and longer operation time (15). Yu et al. equally identified D2 lymphadenectomy, total gastrectomy, splenectomy or distal pancreatectomy as being associated with higher PF rates (17). Future studies should attempt to identify comprehensive risk scores and prevention strategies as has recently been done for PF following pancreatectomy (23,24).

In summary, pancreas-related morbidity, including PF and AP, remain important considerations for surgeons performing LG or OG. Fortunately, the incidence of these events is rare and does not appear to be influenced by the use of minimally invasive approaches. Future studies should work to more accurately identify risk factors so that effective prevention strategies can be developed. In the meantime, meticulous surgical technique and rigorous attention to postoperative care will hopefully minimize the occurrence and impact of this dreaded complication.




Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


  1. Kitano S, Iso Y, Sugimachi K. Laparoscopy-assisted billroth I gastrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1994;4:146-8. [PubMed]
  2. Jiang L, Yang KH, Guan QL, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for resectable gastric cancer: an update meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc 2013;27:2466-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. Lu W, Gao J, Yang J, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy versus open distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e3986. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. Kim YW, Baik YH, Yun YH, et al. Improved quality of life outcomes after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 2008;248:721-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. Kitano S, Shiraishi N, Fujii K, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing open vs laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for the treatment of early gastric cancer: An interim report. Surgery 2002;131:S306-11. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. Kitano S, Shiraishi N, Uyama I, et al. A multicenter study on oncologic outcome of laparoscopic gastrectomy for early cancer in Japan. Ann Surg 2007;245:68-72. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  7. Katai H, Mizusawa J, Katayama H, et al. Short-term surgical outcomes from a phase III study of laparoscopy-assisted versus open distal gastrectomy with nodal dissection for clinical stage IA/IB gastric cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG0912. Gastric Cancer 2017;20:699-708. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Kim W, Kim HH, Han SU, et al. Decreased morbidity of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy compared with open distal gastrectomy for stage i gastric cancer: short-term outcomes from a multicenter randomized controlled trial (KLASS-01). Ann Surg 2016;263:28-35. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. Zhu C, Zhao G, Cao H. Clinical trials of laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery in South Korea: review and prospect. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi 2018;21:154-9. [PubMed]
  10. Huscher CGS, Mingoli A, Sgarzini G, et al. Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for distal gastric cancer: five-year results of a randomized prospective trial. Ann Surg 2005;241:232-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  11. Reyes CD, Weber KJ, Gagner M, et al. Laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy. Surg Endosc 2001;15:928-31. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  12. Greenleaf EK, Sun SX, Hollenbeak CS, et al. Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: the American experience. Gastric Cancer 2017;20:368-78. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. Kelly KJ, Selby L, Chou JF, et al. Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in the west: a case–control study. Ann Surg Oncol 2015;22:3590-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. Haverkamp L, Brenkman HJF, Seesing MFJ, et al. Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer, a multicenter prospectively randomized controlled trial (LOGICA-trial). BMC Cancer 2015;15:556. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. Jiang X, Hiki N, Nunobe S, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula and the risk factors of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2012;19:115-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  16. Guerra F, Giuliani G, Iacobone M, et al. Pancreas-related complications following gastrectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of open versus minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 2017;31:4346-56. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  17. Yu HW, Jung DH, Son SY, et al. Risk factors of postoperative pancreatic fistula in curative gastric cancer surgery. J Gastric Cancer 2013;13:179-84. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  18. Obama K, Okabe H, Hosogi H, et al. Feasibility of laparoscopic gastrectomy with radical lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: From a viewpoint of pancreas-related complications. Surgery 2011;149:15-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  19. Aoyama T, Yoshikawa T, Hayashi T, et al. Randomized comparison of surgical stress and the nutritional status between laparoscopy-assisted and open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2014;21:1983-90. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  20. Hu Y, Huang C, Sun Y, et al. Morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic versus open D2 distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:1350-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  21. Kim HG, Park JH, Jeong SH, et al. Totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy after learning curve completion: comparison with laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy. J Gastric Cancer 2013;13:26-33. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  22. Jung DH, Son SY, Park YS, et al. The learning curve associated with laparoscopic total gastrectomy. Gastric Cancer 2016;19:264-72. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  23. Grendar J, Jutric Z, Leal JN, et al. Validation of Fistula Risk Score calculator in diverse North American HPB practices. HPB 2017;19:508-14. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  24. Kantor O, Talamonti MS, Pitt HA, et al. Using the NSQIP pancreatic demonstration project to derive a modified fistula risk score for preoperative risk stratification in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2017;224:816-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
doi: 10.21037/ls.2018.04.10
Cite this article as: Akateh C, Cloyd JM. Minimally invasive gastrectomy and the risk of pancreas-related morbidity. Laparosc Surg 2018;2:25.