Published in:
06-11-2023 | Gastrectomy | Dynamic Manuscript
Feasibility and safety of pure single-incision laparoscopic total and proximal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: propensity score-matched comparison to multiport totally laparoscopic approach
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 12/2023
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
There have been few studies regarding the feasibility and safety of pure single-incision laparoscopic total gastrectomy (SITG) or proximal gastrectomy (SIPG) for early gastric cancer (EGC). The purpose of this study was to analyze the surgical outcome of all consecutive SITG or SIPG cases compared with multiport laparoscopic total gastrectomy (MLTG) or proximal gastrectomy (MLPG) for EGC.
Methods
We analyzed all consecutive SITG or SIPG cases with double-tract reconstruction for ECG, including the initial case, between March 2013 and December 2021. SITG/SIPG was performed on patients without significant systemic comorbidities through a 3–4 cm vertical transumbilical incision. SITG/SIPG was matched to multiport laparoscopic total or proximal gastrectomy (MLTG/MLPG) cases performed in the same period using a 1:3 propensity score matching, including sex, body mass index (BMI), age and type of resection, year of operation, and institution as covariates. We compared perioperative clinicopathological characteristics and early postoperative morbidity within 1 month after surgery between the SITG/SIPG and MLTG/MLPG groups.
Results
In total, 21 patients with SITG and 15 patients with SIPG were compared with those with MLTG (n = 264) and MLPG (n = 220). No conversion to an open or multiport approach occurred in the SITG/SIPG group. After matching, operation time was similar between SITG/SIPG and MLTG/MLPG (223.9 ± 63.5 min vs 234.8 ± 68.7 min, P = 0.402). Length of stay was not significantly different between SITG/SIPG and MLTG/MLPG (11.9 ± 15.4 days vs 8.4 ± 5.0 days, P = 0.210). The average number of retrieved lymph nodes was not significantly different between SITG and MLTG (53.1 ± 16.3 vs 63.2 ± 27.5, P = 0.115), but it was significantly higher in SIPG than MLPG (59.6 ± 27.2 vs 46.0 ± 19.7, P = 0.040). The overall complication rate (30.6% vs 25.9%, P = 0.666) and Clavien–Dindo grade III or higher complication rates (13.9% vs 6.5%, P = 0.175) were not significantly different between the SITG/SIPG and MLTG/MLPG groups.
Conclusion
Cautious adoption of SITG/SIPG procedures for EGC is feasible and safe.