ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (SIDG) requires experienced camera operators for a stable image. Since it is difficult for skilled camera operators to participate in all SIDG, we began performing solo surgery using mechanical camera holders. We aimed to compare the short-term outcomes and cost between solo SIDG and conventional multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) for early gastric cancer (EGC). METHODS: From January 2014 to December 2016, a total of 938 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy for EGC. Solo SIDG (n = 99) and MLDG patients (n = 198) were selected and 1:2 propensity score matching was done to compare the quality of operation and cost-effectiveness. All solo SIDG was performed by a surgeon using a camera holder, without any assistant. RESULTS: Mean operation time (120 ± 35.3 vs. 178 ± 53.4 minutes, P = 0.001) and estimated blood loss (24.6 ± 47.4 vs. 46.7 ± 66.5 mL, P = 0.001) were significantly lower in the solo SIDG group. Hospital stay, use of analgesics, and postoperative inflammatory markers (WBC, CRP) were similar between the 2 groups. The early (<30 days) complication rate in solo SIDG and MLDG groups was 21.2% and 23.7%, respectively (P = 0.240); the late (≥30 days) complication rate was 7.1% and 11.1%, respectively (P = 0.672). The manpower cost of solo SIDG was significantly lower than that of MLDG (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that solo SIDG performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons is safe and feasible for EGC. Solo SIDG is expected to be a promising potential treatment for EGC.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The curative surgical treatment of gastric cancer in the current laparoscopic surgical era relies on the surgeon's preference, technical difficulties, and concerns regarding outcome have led to the availability of totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) and laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG). A consensus on which of the two procedures is preferable is necessary. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the differences between LADG and TLDG in terms of surgical outcomes, postoperative recovery, pain, and complications. METHODS: PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were explored up to 2017 to evaluate TLDG and LADG. Parameters including surgical outcomes, postoperative recovery, and postoperative complications were subjected to meta-analysis to calculate the odds ratio and weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (c.i.). RESULTS: Twenty-five studies (24 non-RCT and 1 RCT) with a total of 4562 gastric cancer patients were included in the meta-analysis. Under reconstruction-matched analysis, overall complications and anastomotic complications were similar for TLDG and LADG. Nevertheless, short-term outcomes such as blood loss, time to first soft diet, hospital stay, analgesic use, and CRP level were favourable for TLDG, while all other surgical outcomes showed no difference. CONCLUSIONS: TLDG and LADG did not show significant differences in surgical outcomes and postoperative complications, including anastomotic-related morbidity. Therefore, decisive factors in selecting surgical procedures, which previously consisted of surgical outcomes, have been superseded by extra-surgical values such as cosmesis, economics, and patient's quality of life. These factors will be explored in a future multicentre prospective study (KLASS07 trial).
Subject(s)
Gastrectomy/methods , Laparoscopy/methods , Stomach Neoplasms/surgery , Humans , Pain Measurement , Pain, Postoperative , Postoperative ComplicationsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Despite the fact that there are several reports of single-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (SPDG), no analysis of its learning curve has been described in the literature. The aim of this study was to investigate the favorable factors for SPDG and to analyze the learning curve of SPDG. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 125 cases of SPDG performed from November 2011 to December 2015 were enrolled. All operations were performed by 2 surgeons (surgeon A and surgeon B). The moving average method was used for defining the learning curve. All cases were divided into 10 cases in a sequence, and the mean operative time and estimated blood loss data were extracted from each group. RESULTS: Surgeon A performed 68 cases (female-to-male sex ratio, 91.1%:8.82%), and surgeon B performed 57 cases (female-to-male sex ratio, 61.4%:38.5%). The operative time of surgeon B significantly decreased after 30 cases (157.8±38.4 minutes vs. 118.1±34.5 minutes, P=0.003); that of surgeon A did not significantly decrease before and after around 30 cases (160.8±51.6 minutes vs. 173.3±35.2 minutes, P=0.6). The subgroup analysis showed that the operative time significantly decreased in the patients with body mass index (BMI) of <25 kg/m2 (<25 kg/m2:≥25 kg/m2, 159.3±41.7 minutes: 194.25±81.1 minutes; P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no significant decrease in the operative time for surgeon A, surgeon B reached the learning curve upon conducting 30 cases of SPDG. BMI of <25 kg/m2 was found to be a favorable factor for SPDG.
