Surgical Outcomes of Reduced-Port Laparoscopic Gastrectomy Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study
- 170 Downloads
The technical feasibility and oncologic efficacy of reduced-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (RPG) for gastric cancer remain unclear.
A series of 767 patients with gastric cancer who underwent R0 laparoscopic gastrectomy were retrospectively matched for age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiology score, body mass index, surgeon, lymph node dissection, and pathologic stages by propensity scoring. Finally, data from 274 patients (74 conventional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy [CLDG] cases, 74 reduced-port distal gastrectomy [RPDG] cases, 63 conventional laparoscopic total gastrectomy [CLTG] cases, and 63, reduced-port total gastrectomy [RPTG] cases) were selected for analysis.
Compared with the conventional group, the reduced-port group had significantly longer operation times (RPDG 265 min vs CLDG 239 min; p = 0.001 and RPTG 305 min vs CLTG 285 min; p = 0.012) and reduced blood loss (RPDG 48 ml vs CLDG 68 ml; p = 0.001 and RPTG 75 ml vs CLTG 110 ml; p = 0.026). The number of dissected lymph nodes was significantly higher in the CLDG group than in the RPDG group (38 vs 31; p = 0.002). Cosmetic satisfaction showed significant superiority in the reduced-port group compared with the conventional group. No significant difference was observed in overall survival (OS) (5-year OS: RPDG 100% vs CLDG 96.7%; p = 0.207 and RPTG 91.6% vs CLTG 91.8%; p = 0.615) or relapse-free survival (RFS) (5-year RFS: RPTG 92.3% vs CLTG 92.1%; p = 0.587).
The study results suggest that RPG for gastric cancer by an experienced surgeon is a feasible and safe technique. The RPG procedure can be presented to patients as one of the effective treatment options.
- 8.Yu J, Hu J, Huang C, et al. The impact of age and comorbidity on postoperative complications in patients with advanced gastric cancer after laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy: results from the Chinese Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery Study (CLASS) Group. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:1144–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. International Union Against Cancer (UICC) TNM classification of malignant tumors. 8th ed. New York: Wiley; 2016.Google Scholar
- 18.Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines 2018, Version 5, in Japanese. Tokyo: Kanehara; 2018.Google Scholar