Actual 3-Year Survival After Reduced-Port Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer (RpLDG): a Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Background Total laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer has been widely accepted; however, reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy has not gained the same popularity because of technical difficulties and oncologic safety issues. This study aimed to analyze the oncologic safety...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of gastrointestinal surgery 2022-03, Vol.26 (3), p.550-557
Hauptverfasser: Kim, Ki Hyun, Lee, Si-Hak, Choi, Cheol Woong, Kim, Su Jin, In Choi, Chang, Kim, Dae-Hwan, Jeon, Tae-Yong, Hwang, Sun-Hwi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Total laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer has been widely accepted; however, reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy has not gained the same popularity because of technical difficulties and oncologic safety issues. This study aimed to analyze the oncologic safety and short-term surgical outcomes of patients who underwent reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RpLDG) for gastric cancer. Methods Consecutive patients who underwent surgical treatment between January 2016 and May 2018 were included in this study. Of the 833 patients enrolled, 158 underwent RpLDG and were propensity-matched with 158 patients who underwent conventional port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (CpLDG). The groups were compared in terms of short-term outcomes and disease-free and overall survival rates. Results The RpLDG group had shorter operation times (161.8 min vs. 189.0 min, p < 0.00) and shorter postoperative hospital stays (7.6 days vs. 9.1 days, p = 0.04) compared to the CpLDG group. Estimated blood loss was lower in the RpLDG group than in the CpLDG group (52.6 mL vs. 73.7 mL, p < 0.00), while hospital costs incurred by the RpLDG group were lower than those of the CpLDG group (10,033.7 vs. 11,016.8 USD, p < 0.00). No statistical differences were found regarding overall morbidity and occurrence of surgical complications of grade III or higher, as defined by the Clavien-Dindo classification. Furthermore, no significant differences between RpLDG and CpLDG were found in 3-year disease-free (99.4% vs. 98.1%; p = 0.42) and 3-year overall survival rates (98.7% vs. 96.8%; p = 0.25). Conclusion Patients who underwent RpLDG had better short-term surgical outcomes than those who underwent CpLDG in terms of operation time, estimated blood loss, duration of hospital stay, and hospital costs. The oncologic safety of RpLDG was satisfactory.
ISSN:1091-255X
1873-4626
DOI:10.1007/s11605-021-05097-9