Guang-Sheng Du1, En-Lai Jiang1, Yuan Qiu1, Wen-Sheng Wang1, Jiu-Heng Yin1, Shuai Wang1, Yun-Bo Li1, Yi-Hui Chen1, Hua Yang1, Wei-Dong Xiao2. 1. Department of General Surgery, Xinqiao Hospital, Army Medical University, Xinqiaozhengjie 183, Shapingba District, Chongqing, 400037, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of General Surgery, Xinqiao Hospital, Army Medical University, Xinqiaozhengjie 183, Shapingba District, Chongqing, 400037, People's Republic of China. Weidong.xiao@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We compared short-term perioperative outcomes after single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (SILG+1) and conventional multi-port laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (C-LAG) for gastric cancer. METHODS: The work was conducted between August 2017 and October 2019. A total of 90 patients with early or advanced gastric cancer were retrospectively analyzed: 43 patients of which underwent SILG+1, and 47 of which underwent C-LAG, respectively. These were divided into two groups: the total gastrectomy group (SILT+1 and C-LATG) and the distal gastrectomy group (SILD + 1 and C-LADG). The demographics, tumor characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and short-term complications of all enrolled patients were summarized and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The mean incision length in SILT+1 group was 5.40 cm shorter than that in C-LATG group (3.15 ± 0.43 vs. 8.55 ± 2.72, P < 0.001). This comparison between the SILD + 1 and the C-LADG group produced comparable results. The SILT+1 group underwent a 56.32 min longer operation than the C-LATG group (273.03 ± 66.80 vs. 216.71 ± 82.61, P = 0.0205). SILG+1 group had better postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) and cosmetic score than those of the C-LATG group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in preoperative demographics or 30-day postoperative complication rates between the SILG+1 and C-LAG groups. Tumor-related index, including mass size, histological type, number of retrieved lymph nodes, pathological tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage, and proximal and distal edges were all equivalent between the SILG+1 and the C-LAG group. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of SILG+1 with D1+ or D2 lymphadenectomy for the treatment of early and advanced gastric cancers, compared with C-LAG.
BACKGROUND: We compared short-term perioperative outcomes after single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (SILG+1) and conventional multi-port laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (C-LAG) for gastric cancer. METHODS: The work was conducted between August 2017 and October 2019. A total of 90 patients with early or advanced gastric cancer were retrospectively analyzed: 43 patients of which underwent SILG+1, and 47 of which underwent C-LAG, respectively. These were divided into two groups: the total gastrectomy group (SILT+1 and C-LATG) and the distal gastrectomy group (SILD + 1 and C-LADG). The demographics, tumor characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and short-term complications of all enrolled patients were summarized and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The mean incision length in SILT+1 group was 5.40 cm shorter than that in C-LATG group (3.15 ± 0.43 vs. 8.55 ± 2.72, P < 0.001). This comparison between the SILD + 1 and the C-LADG group produced comparable results. The SILT+1 group underwent a 56.32 min longer operation than the C-LATG group (273.03 ± 66.80 vs. 216.71 ± 82.61, P = 0.0205). SILG+1 group had better postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) and cosmetic score than those of the C-LATG group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in preoperative demographics or 30-day postoperative complication rates between the SILG+1 and C-LAG groups. Tumor-related index, including mass size, histological type, number of retrieved lymph nodes, pathological tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage, and proximal and distal edges were all equivalent between the SILG+1 and the C-LAG group. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of SILG+1 with D1+ or D2 lymphadenectomy for the treatment of early and advanced gastric cancers, compared with C-LAG.