TLDG can be performed safely after appropriate experience with LADG. Our results imply that TLDG may lead to faster recovery, better cosmesis, and improved quality of life in the short-term compared with LADG. Because of the limitations of a retrospective analysis on the study and a patient selection bias, a prospective randomized study should be conducted to reach definitive conclusions.

With the described method, esophagojejunostomy can be performed as in conventional open surgery. Hand-sewn purse-string suturing is demanding technically, but it can be performed safely by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. This technique is feasible and can lower the cost of the laparoscopic procedure. It may be considered in countries with limited access to other special devices.

The risk of a residual tumor can, therefore, be estimated based on the histopathology of endoscopic submucosal dissection samples. Lymphovascular invasion appears to be a pivotal predictor of lymph node metastasis.

The most important risk factor for POPF after DP was suggested to be the thickness of the pancreatic stump, reflecting the volume of remnant pancreas. A triple-row stapler seemed to be superior to a double-row stapler in preventing POPF. However, triple-row stapler use in a thick pancreas is considered to be a future problem to be solved.

Objective This study aimed to clarify the oncological safety of pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) compared with conventional distal gastrectomy (DG). Methods From three institutions specializing in cancer, the medical records for a cohort of 2898 consecutive patients who had undergone DG (n = 2208) or PPG (n = 690) for clinical stage I gastric cancer between January 2006 and December 2012 were analyzed. A propensity score for each patient was estimated on the basis of 38 preoperative clinical and tumor-related factors. After propensity score matching had been done, 1004 patients (502 DG patients, 502 PPG patients) were included in the analysis. The overall survival, relapse-free survival, and occurrence of secondary gastric cancer were then compared. The median observation period was 48.6 months (range 1-109.8 months). Results The 5-year overall survival rate was 98.4 % for the PPG group and 96.6 % for the DG group (hazard ratio 0.48, 95 % confidence interval 0.21-1.09, P = 0.07). The 3-year relapse-free survival rate was 99.5 % for the PPG group and 98.0 % for the DG group (hazard ratio 0.39, 95 % confidence interval 0.12-1.33, P = 0.12). Postoperative secondary gastric cancer was encountered in eight patients (1.6 %) in the PPG group and four patients (0.8 %) in the DG group. No significant differences in either overall survival, relapse-free survival, or the occurrence of secondary gastric cancer were observed between the two groups. Conclusions Given the adequate estimation of the clinical tumor stage, the oncological safety of PPG for clinical T1N0 gastric cancer in the middle portion of the stomach was comparable to that of DG.