BACKGROUND/AIMS: Single-port and reduced-port laparoscopic surgeries are performed as a less invasive form of surgery than conventional laparoscopy. In this study, short-term patient outcomes were compared between reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RPLDG) and conventional laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) to evaluate the feasibility of RPLDG for gastric cancer. METHODS:Between August 2010 and July 2011, 38 patients underwent LADGs that were performed by a single surgeon. Of these, 20 patients underwent RPLDG, and 18 patients underwentconventional LADG. Short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Surgical procedures, total operation time (278.8 versus 228.7 min, p = 0.0002) and time for lymph node dissection (181.3 versus 136.3 min, p = 0.0001) were significantly longer in the RPLDG group compared with the LADG group, while the volume of blood loss during reconstruction was reduced (17.5 versus 49.6 ml, p = 0.0019). Cosmetic satisfaction in the RPLDG group showed significant superiority over that in the conventional LADG group (p = 0.0252). CONCLUSION:RPLDG was shown to be an acceptable and satisfactory procedure for the treatment of gastric cancer. To confirm the feasibility of this surgical procedure, it is necessary to conduct a well-designed randomized controlled study comparing RPLDG and conventional LADG in many patients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Single-port and reduced-port laparoscopic surgeries are performed as a less invasive form of surgery than conventional laparoscopy. In this study, short-term patient outcomes were compared between reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RPLDG) and conventional laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) to evaluate the feasibility of RPLDG for gastric cancer. METHODS: Between August 2010 and July 2011, 38 patients underwent LADGs that were performed by a single surgeon. Of these, 20 patients underwent RPLDG, and 18 patients underwent conventional LADG. Short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Surgical procedures, total operation time (278.8 versus 228.7 min, p = 0.0002) and time for lymph node dissection (181.3 versus 136.3 min, p = 0.0001) were significantly longer in the RPLDG group compared with the LADG group, while the volume of blood loss during reconstruction was reduced (17.5 versus 49.6 ml, p = 0.0019). Cosmetic satisfaction in the RPLDG group showed significant superiority over that in the conventional LADG group (p = 0.0252). CONCLUSION: RPLDG was shown to be an acceptable and satisfactory procedure for the treatment of gastric cancer. To confirm the feasibility of this surgical procedure, it is necessary to conduct a well-designed randomized controlled study comparing RPLDG and conventional LADG in many patients.