BACKGROUND: Single-port laparoscopic surgery maximizes the advantages of laparoscopic surgery by reducing damage of the abdominal wall. However, no comparative studies have addressed its application to gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). We therefore aimed to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of single-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (SLG) for the treatment of AGC by comparing it with conventional multi-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (MLG). METHODS: We searched the prospective gastric cancer database of our institute for patients with AGC who underwent SLG or MLG between October 2007 and December 2013. Cases of R2 resection with distant metastasis or concurrent surgery for comorbid malignant lesions were excluded. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to reduce bias from confounding patient-related variables, and the short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: We identified 216 patients who underwent SLG (n = 100) or MLG (n = 116). After propensity score matching, we selected 73 pairs of patients who underwent SLG (distal gastrectomy, 49; total gastrectomy, 24) or MLG (distal gastrectomy, 45; total gastrectomy, 28). While the mean operative times were comparable between the groups, the SLG group had less blood loss, a lower postoperative morbidity, and shorter postoperative hospital stays. The 5-year survival rates were 74.2% in the SLG group and 60.2% in the MLG group (P = 0.081 by log-rank test). CONCLUSIONS: SLG is shown to be safe and feasible for the treatment of AGC, with better short-term results and acceptable oncologic outcomes and may be applicable for AGC treatment.
BACKGROUND: Single-port laparoscopic surgery maximizes the advantages of laparoscopic surgery by reducing damage of the abdominal wall. However, no comparative studies have addressed its application to gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). We therefore aimed to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of single-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (SLG) for the treatment of AGC by comparing it with conventional multi-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (MLG). METHODS: We searched the prospective gastric cancer database of our institute for patients with AGC who underwent SLG or MLG between October 2007 and December 2013. Cases of R2 resection with distant metastasis or concurrent surgery for comorbid malignant lesions were excluded. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to reduce bias from confounding patient-related variables, and the short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: We identified 216 patients who underwent SLG (n = 100) or MLG (n = 116). After propensity score matching, we selected 73 pairs of patients who underwent SLG (distal gastrectomy, 49; total gastrectomy, 24) or MLG (distal gastrectomy, 45; total gastrectomy, 28). While the mean operative times were comparable between the groups, the SLG group had less blood loss, a lower postoperative morbidity, and shorter postoperative hospital stays. The 5-year survival rates were 74.2% in the SLG group and 60.2% in the MLG group (P = 0.081 by log-rank test). CONCLUSIONS: SLG is shown to be safe and feasible for the treatment of AGC, with better short-term results and acceptable oncologic outcomes and may be applicable for AGC treatment.
Authors: Cristiano G S Huscher; Andrea Mingoli; Giovanna Sgarzini; Andrea Sansonetti; Massimiliano Di Paola; Achille Recher; Cecilia Ponzano Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Young-Woo Kim; Yong Hae Baik; Young Ho Yun; Byung Ho Nam; Dae Hyun Kim; Il Ju Choi; Jae-Moon Bae Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 12.969