Cargando…

Comparison of short-term outcomes between single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for distal gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The technical safety and efficacy of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS+1) for distal gastric cancer remain unclear. This study was performed to compare the short-term outcomes of patients with distal gastric cancer undergoing SILS+1 versus conventional laparoscopic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Teng, Wenhao, Liu, Jingfu, Liu, Wenju, Jiang, Jianping, Chen, Meimei, Wei, Cheng, Chong, Choon Seng, Zang, Weidong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8904954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35281417
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tcr-21-1916
_version_ 1784665074494865408
author Teng, Wenhao
Liu, Jingfu
Liu, Wenju
Jiang, Jianping
Chen, Meimei
Wei, Cheng
Chong, Choon Seng
Zang, Weidong
author_facet Teng, Wenhao
Liu, Jingfu
Liu, Wenju
Jiang, Jianping
Chen, Meimei
Wei, Cheng
Chong, Choon Seng
Zang, Weidong
author_sort Teng, Wenhao
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The technical safety and efficacy of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS+1) for distal gastric cancer remain unclear. This study was performed to compare the short-term outcomes of patients with distal gastric cancer undergoing SILS+1 versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). METHODS: This randomized controlled trial involved patients with clinical stage cT1b-3N0-2M0 distal gastric cancer. The patients were randomized to the CLS group or SILS+1 group. The surgical and pathologic outcomes, postoperative mortality, and pain intensity were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: From January 2019 to April 2021, 117 patients were enrolled and assigned to either the CLS group (n=59) or SILS+1 group (n=58). The clinical characteristics, including blood loss, tumor diameter, pathologic stage, number of lymph nodes harvested, and postoperative recovery, were similar between the two groups (P>0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the overall postoperative complication rates between the CLS group and SILS+1 group (10.2% vs. 6.9%, respectively; P=0.743). The Clavien-Dindo classification was also comparable (P=0.435). However, the operating time was significantly longer in the CLS group than SILS+1 group (207.0±41.2 vs. 185.1±40.7 min, respectively; P=0.005), and the total incision length was significantly shorter in the SILS+1 group than CLS group (6.1±0.6 vs. 7.6±0.7 cm, respectively; P=0.000). Moreover, on the third day after surgery, the visual analog scale (VAS) score was significantly higher in the CLS group than SILS+1 group (1.6±0.6 vs. 0.6±0.7, respectively; P=0.000). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that SILS+1 for distal gastric cancer performed by an experienced surgeon might be a feasible and safe technique with better cosmetic results and less pain in strictly selected patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100051491).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8904954
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89049542022-03-10 Comparison of short-term outcomes between single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for distal gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial Teng, Wenhao Liu, Jingfu Liu, Wenju Jiang, Jianping Chen, Meimei Wei, Cheng Chong, Choon Seng Zang, Weidong Transl Cancer Res Original Article BACKGROUND: The technical safety and efficacy of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS+1) for distal gastric cancer remain unclear. This study was performed to compare the short-term outcomes of patients with distal gastric cancer undergoing SILS+1 versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). METHODS: This randomized controlled trial involved patients with clinical stage cT1b-3N0-2M0 distal gastric cancer. The patients were randomized to the CLS group or SILS+1 group. The surgical and pathologic outcomes, postoperative mortality, and pain intensity were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: From January 2019 to April 2021, 117 patients were enrolled and assigned to either the CLS group (n=59) or SILS+1 group (n=58). The clinical characteristics, including blood loss, tumor diameter, pathologic stage, number of lymph nodes harvested, and postoperative recovery, were similar between the two groups (P>0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the overall postoperative complication rates between the CLS group and SILS+1 group (10.2% vs. 6.9%, respectively; P=0.743). The Clavien-Dindo classification was also comparable (P=0.435). However, the operating time was significantly longer in the CLS group than SILS+1 group (207.0±41.2 vs. 185.1±40.7 min, respectively; P=0.005), and the total incision length was significantly shorter in the SILS+1 group than CLS group (6.1±0.6 vs. 7.6±0.7 cm, respectively; P=0.000). Moreover, on the third day after surgery, the visual analog scale (VAS) score was significantly higher in the CLS group than SILS+1 group (1.6±0.6 vs. 0.6±0.7, respectively; P=0.000). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that SILS+1 for distal gastric cancer performed by an experienced surgeon might be a feasible and safe technique with better cosmetic results and less pain in strictly selected patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100051491). AME Publishing Company 2022-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8904954/ /pubmed/35281417 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tcr-21-1916 Text en 2022 Translational Cancer Research. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Article
Teng, Wenhao
Liu, Jingfu
Liu, Wenju
Jiang, Jianping
Chen, Meimei
Wei, Cheng
Chong, Choon Seng
Zang, Weidong
Comparison of short-term outcomes between single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for distal gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial
title Comparison of short-term outcomes between single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for distal gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial
title_full Comparison of short-term outcomes between single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for distal gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Comparison of short-term outcomes between single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for distal gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of short-term outcomes between single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for distal gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial
title_short Comparison of short-term outcomes between single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for distal gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial
title_sort comparison of short-term outcomes between single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for distal gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8904954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35281417
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tcr-21-1916
work_keys_str_mv AT tengwenhao comparisonofshorttermoutcomesbetweensingleincisionplusoneportlaparoscopicsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicsurgeryfordistalgastriccancerarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT liujingfu comparisonofshorttermoutcomesbetweensingleincisionplusoneportlaparoscopicsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicsurgeryfordistalgastriccancerarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT liuwenju comparisonofshorttermoutcomesbetweensingleincisionplusoneportlaparoscopicsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicsurgeryfordistalgastriccancerarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT jiangjianping comparisonofshorttermoutcomesbetweensingleincisionplusoneportlaparoscopicsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicsurgeryfordistalgastriccancerarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT chenmeimei comparisonofshorttermoutcomesbetweensingleincisionplusoneportlaparoscopicsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicsurgeryfordistalgastriccancerarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT weicheng comparisonofshorttermoutcomesbetweensingleincisionplusoneportlaparoscopicsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicsurgeryfordistalgastriccancerarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT chongchoonseng comparisonofshorttermoutcomesbetweensingleincisionplusoneportlaparoscopicsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicsurgeryfordistalgastriccancerarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT zangweidong comparisonofshorttermoutcomesbetweensingleincisionplusoneportlaparoscopicsurgeryandconventionallaparoscopicsurgeryfordistalgastriccancerarandomizedcontrolledtrial