» Articles » PMID: 35899917

Comparison of Short-term Surgical Outcomes and Post-operative Recovery Between Single-incision and Multi-port Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Overview
Specialty Gastroenterology
Date 2022 Jul 28
PMID 35899917
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: To summarise data from previous reports and perform a meta-analysis to compare the short-term surgical outcomes and post-operative recovery between single-incision and multi-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) for gastric cancer.

Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed and Embase databases and relevant data were extracted. Short-term surgical outcomes and post-operative recovery of single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (SLDG) and MLDG for gastric cancer were compared using a fixed or random-effect model.

Results: In total, we identified five relevant studies involving 983 participants for this systematic review and meta-analysis, and 45.8% (450/983) of patients underwent SLDG. The results demonstrated that mean operation time (weighted mean difference [WMD]:-3.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.64,8.19, P = 0.580; I = 75.6%), intra-operative blood loss (WMD:-19.77, 95% CI: 40.20,0.65, P = 0.058; I = 85.0%) and lymph node yield (WMD:-0.71, 95% CI: 1.47, 0.05, P = 0.068; I = 0%) of SLDG were comparable to those of MLDG for gastric cancer. In addition, SLDG had a similar incidence of post-operative complications compared with MLDG (odds ratio: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.55-1.22, P = 0.326; I = 0%). There was no significant difference between the two surgical procedures for the conversion to open surgery (OR: 0.32, 95%CI: 0.03-3.15, P = 0.331; I = 0%), the length of hospital stay (WMD:-0.05, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.55, P = 0.876; I = 44.1%), the time to first flatus (WMD:-0.24, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.10, P = 0.169; I = 85.3%) and the time to oral intake (WMD:-0.05, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.10, P = 0.500; I = 0%).

Conclusion: Single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy may be technically feasible and safe for gastric cancer. However, it did not show a more obvious advantage over MLDG.

Citing Articles

Comparative analysis of conventional laparoscopic surgery and single-incision laparoscopic surgery in gastric cancer treatment: Outcomes and prognosis.

Cao C, Tian X, Wang X, Wang Q World J Gastrointest Surg. 2024; 16(12):3786-3793.

PMID: 39734434 PMC: 11650222. DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v16.i12.3786.


Current Issues in Reduced-Port Gastrectomy: A Comprehensive Review.

Kim J J Gastric Cancer. 2024; 24(1):57-68.

PMID: 38225766 PMC: 10774760. DOI: 10.5230/jgc.2024.24.e9.

References
1.
Wang Y, Yu X, Yang J, Wang Y . [Clinical study on the comparison of early efficacy between single incision and conventional multi-port laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for gastric cancer]. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2019; 22(12):1205-1208. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0274.2019.12.018. View

2.
Marks J, Phillips M, Tacchino R, Roberts K, Onders R, DeNoto G . Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with improved cosmesis scoring at the cost of significantly higher hernia rates: 1-year results of a prospective randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial of traditional multiport.... J Am Coll Surg. 2013; 216(6):1037-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.02.024. View

3.
Katai H, Sasako M, Fukuda H, Nakamura K, Hiki N, Saka M . Safety and feasibility of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with suprapancreatic nodal dissection for clinical stage I gastric cancer: a multicenter phase II trial (JCOG 0703). Gastric Cancer. 2010; 13(4):238-44. DOI: 10.1007/s10120-010-0565-0. View

4.
Hozo S, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I . Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005; 5:13. PMC: 1097734. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-5-13. View

5.
Osborne A, Lim J, Gash K, Chaudhary B, Dixon A . Comparison of single-incision laparoscopic high anterior resection with standard laparoscopic high anterior resection. Colorectal Dis. 2012; 15(3):329-33. DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03178.x. View