Ki Hyun Kim1, Si-Hak Lee2, Cheol Woong Choi3, Su Jin Kim3, Chang In Choi4, Dae-Hwan Kim4, Tae-Yong Jeon4, Sun-Hwi Hwang5. 1. Department of Surgery, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Surgery and Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Gyeongsangnam-do, 50612, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Surgery, Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Surgery and Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Gyeongsangnam-do, 50612, Republic of Korea. sunhwihwang@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Total laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer has been widely accepted; however, reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy has not gained the same popularity because of technical difficulties and oncologic safety issues. This study aimed to analyze the oncologic safety and short-term surgical outcomes of patients who underwent reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RpLDG) for gastric cancer. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent surgical treatment between January 2016 and May 2018 were included in this study. Of the 833 patients enrolled, 158 underwent RpLDG and were propensity-matched with 158 patients who underwent conventional port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (CpLDG). The groups were compared in terms of short-term outcomes and disease-free and overall survival rates. RESULTS: The RpLDG group had shorter operation times (161.8 min vs. 189.0 min, p < 0.00) and shorter postoperative hospital stays (7.6 days vs. 9.1 days, p = 0.04) compared to the CpLDG group. Estimated blood loss was lower in the RpLDG group than in the CpLDG group (52.6 mL vs. 73.7 mL, p < 0.00), while hospital costs incurred by the RpLDG group were lower than those of the CpLDG group (10,033.7 vs. 11,016.8 USD, p < 0.00). No statistical differences were found regarding overall morbidity and occurrence of surgical complications of grade III or higher, as defined by the Clavien-Dindo classification. Furthermore, no significant differences between RpLDG and CpLDG were found in 3-year disease-free (99.4% vs. 98.1%; p = 0.42) and 3-year overall survival rates (98.7% vs. 96.8%; p = 0.25). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent RpLDG had better short-term surgical outcomes than those who underwent CpLDG in terms of operation time, estimated blood loss, duration of hospital stay, and hospital costs. The oncologic safety of RpLDG was satisfactory.
BACKGROUND: Total laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer has been widely accepted; however, reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy has not gained the same popularity because of technical difficulties and oncologic safety issues. This study aimed to analyze the oncologic safety and short-term surgical outcomes of patients who underwent reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RpLDG) for gastric cancer. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent surgical treatment between January 2016 and May 2018 were included in this study. Of the 833 patients enrolled, 158 underwent RpLDG and were propensity-matched with 158 patients who underwent conventional port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (CpLDG). The groups were compared in terms of short-term outcomes and disease-free and overall survival rates. RESULTS: The RpLDG group had shorter operation times (161.8 min vs. 189.0 min, p < 0.00) and shorter postoperative hospital stays (7.6 days vs. 9.1 days, p = 0.04) compared to the CpLDG group. Estimated blood loss was lower in the RpLDG group than in the CpLDG group (52.6 mL vs. 73.7 mL, p < 0.00), while hospital costs incurred by the RpLDG group were lower than those of the CpLDG group (10,033.7 vs. 11,016.8 USD, p < 0.00). No statistical differences were found regarding overall morbidity and occurrence of surgical complications of grade III or higher, as defined by the Clavien-Dindo classification. Furthermore, no significant differences between RpLDG and CpLDG were found in 3-year disease-free (99.4% vs. 98.1%; p = 0.42) and 3-year overall survival rates (98.7% vs. 96.8%; p = 0.25). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent RpLDG had better short-term surgical outcomes than those who underwent CpLDG in terms of operation time, estimated blood loss, duration of hospital stay, and hospital costs. The oncologic safety of RpLDG was satisfactory.