Single-incision Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in overweight and obese gastric cancer patients: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The technical challenges and safety concerns of single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy for overweight and obese gastric cancer patients remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (SIDG) compared to multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) in overweight and obese gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed overweight and obese patients (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2) and pathologic stage T1 primary gastric adenocarcinoma treated with either SIDG or MLDG. The SIDG and MLDG groups were propensity score matched at a 1:2 ratio using age, sex, height, body weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, year of surgery, pathologic N stage, and anastomosis method as covariates.

RESULTS

After 1:2 matching, the study included patients who underwent SIDG (n = 179) and MLDG (n = 358). No significant difference in the number of retrieved lymph nodes was found between the SIDG and MLDG groups (52.8 ± 19.3 vs. 53.9 ± 21.0, P = 0.56). Operation times were significantly shorter in the SIDG group (170.8 ± 60.0 min vs. 186.1 ± 52.6 min, P = 0.004). The postoperative hospital length of stay was comparable between the 2 groups (SIDG: 5.9 ± 3.4 days vs. MLDG: 6.3 ± 5.1 days, P = 0.23), as was postoperative complication rate (SIDG: 13.4% vs. MLDG: 12.8%, P = 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

SIDG was shown to be as safe and feasible as MLDG for overweight and obese gastric cancer patients, with comparable early postoperative complication rates without compromising operation time compared to MLDG.

Routine gastric suspension technique in single-port sleeve gastrectomy procedure

BACKGROUND

Due to limited technical demand, single-port sleeve gastrectomy (SPSG) is a feasible laparoscopic technique for sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Nonetheless, difficulties exist when performing the single-port technique, and in this study, we aim to describe a slight maneuver that can improve the SPSG procedure.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic SG between January 2022 and May 2023 at our hospital were included. The patients were classified into two groups: (1) SPSG and (2) multiple-port SG (MPSG). The parameters for this analysis were the patients' age, gender, weight, body mass index (BMI), conversion rate, drainage placement, 30-day readmission rate, and postoperative complications. Postoperative one-month and three-month percentages of total weight loss (%TWL) were calculated and compared.

RESULTS

171 patients were included in this study: (1) the SPSG group (n = 96) and (2) the MPSG group (n = 75). No statistically significant difference was observed within the preoperative (age, gender, height, weight, and BMI) and the perioperative parameters between SPSG and MPSG (operation time, drainage placement, 30-day readmission) (p > 0.05). Per Clavien-Dindo's grading, two patients in the SPSG group suffered grade 1 complications; for the MPSG group, one patient sustained grade 2 and another suffered grade 3b complication. No statistical significance was observed on the %TWL between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our study found that performing SPSG in specific patient is feasible and non-inferior when compared to the MPSG. Further studies will be needed to elucidate better the efficacy and safety of performing SPSG.

Feasibility and Potential of Reduced Port Surgery for Total Gastrectomy With Overlap Esophagojejunal Anastomosis Method

PURPOSE

Reduced port surgery (RPS) for gastric cancer has been frequently reported in distal gastrectomies but rarely in total gastrectomies. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of 3-port totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) with overlapping esophagojejunal (EJ) anastomosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 81 patients who underwent curative TLTG for gastric cancer (36 and 45 patients with 3-port and 5-port TLTG, respectively) were evaluated. All 3-port TLTG procedures were performed with the same method as 5-port TLTG, including EJ anastomosis with the intracorporeal overlap method using a linear stapler, except for the number of ports and assistants. Short-term outcomes, including the number of lymph nodes (LNs) harvested by station and postoperative complications, were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Clinical characteristics were not significantly different among the groups, except that the 3-port TLTG group was younger and had a lower rate of pulmonary comorbidity. There were no cases of open conversion or additional port placement. All operative details and the number of harvested LNs did not differ between the groups, but the rate of suprapancreatic LN harvest was higher in the 3-port TLTG group. No significant differences were observed in the overall complication rates between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Three-port TLTG with overlapping EJ anastomoses using a linear stapler is a feasible RPS procedure for total gastrectomy to treat gastric cancer.

Single-port laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Performing a single-port laparoscopic pancreatectomy is technically challenging. Single-port laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (SPLPD) is rarely reported in English literature.

METHODS

Eighty-seven cases of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) were performed by a single surgical team in the Department of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University between February 2020 and December 2020. Among these, 13 cases of LPD (group 1) were performed using a single-port device. Basing on the same inclusion and exclusion criteria, 68 cases of LPD performed using traditional 5-trocar were included as a control group (group 2). The patient's demographic characteristics, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Five men and eight women were included in the SPLPD group. The median age of these patients was 57 years. The patients who underwent SPLPD required a longer operative time (332.7 ± 38.1 min vs. 305.8 ± 64.7 min; p = 0.03) than those in the LPD group. The estimated blood loss, conversion rate, blood transfusion rate, time to oral intake, postoperative hospital stays, and perioperative complications were comparable between the two groups. The short-term oncological outcomes, such as R0 rate and lymph node harvested, were comparable between the two groups. The 90-day mortality of all patients was zero.

CONCLUSIONS

SPLPD is a safe and feasible procedure for well-selected patients in an experienced minimally invasive pancreatic surgery team. SPLPD may provide several potential advantages, such as the requirement of fewer trocars, fewer abdominal complications, and reduced participation of assistants than conventional LPD.

Comparison of clinical safety and feasibility between reduced-port laparoscopic radical gastrectomy and conventional laparoscopic radical gastrectomy: A retrospective study

Background

Traditional open gastric cancer surgery has evolved from porous to reduced-hole, single-hole, or even natural cavity surgery to laparoscopic surgery, due to the continuous development of minimally invasive concepts and medical technologies, as well as awareness for the concept of rapid recovery. Conventional laparoscopic radical gastrectomy is quite mature in age at the moment, but how to progress to minimally invasive surgery without increasing the difficulty of surgery while ensuring clinical safety and feasibility is worth further investigation. Therefore, the clinical safety and feasibility of reduced port laparoscopic radical gastrectomy were assessed in this study.

Methods

Information on the clinical data of patients undergoing laparoscopic radical gastric cancer surgery in a single centre between May 2020 and May 2022 was collected, and a total of 232 patients were included in this study according to the study protocol design. The clinical data of 232 patients with gastric cancer treated by two different surgical methods, namely, reduced port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) or conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS), were retrospectively analysed. The intraoperative indices, postoperative pathological indices, and short-term postoperative complications (within 30 days) of the two different surgical methods were evaluated, as well as the surgical methods’ feasibility and short-term postoperative recovery effect.

Results

There was no significant difference between the general data of patients with RPLS and CLS (P > 0.05). Compared with CLSG, the operation time, digestive tract reconstruction time and lymph node dissection time of RPLSG are shorter. The intraoperative blood loss was less, and the incision was minimally invasive (P < 0.05). In the short-term postoperative effect, the level of white blood cell count on the first day, the time of getting out of bed, the time of removing drainage tube, the time of hospitalization and the VAS of pain on the first, third and fifth days after operation, RPLSG was obviously superior to CLSG (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between RPLSG and CLSG in terms of pathological indices (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

The treatment of gastric cancer with RPLS has good safety, feasibility and short-term postoperative effects, which is in line with the implementation of the modern concept of rapid rehabilitation surgery.

Convenience of Adding a Needle Grasper in Single-Incision Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy With Billroth I Anastomosis for Clinical Early Gastric Cancer

PURPOSE

To overcome the technical difficulties of single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (SILDG), needle grasper (Endo Relief^TM)-assisted SILDG (NASILDG) was developed. Here, we compared the operative convenience and postoperative outcomes between SILDG and NASILDG.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A needle grasper was inserted into the right upper abdomen and used in the NASILDG. We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent D1 + dissection and delta-shaped Billroth I anastomosis with SILDG or NASILDG performed by a single surgeon between September 2015 and August 2018.

RESULTS

The SILDG (male, 50.0%) and NASILDG (male, 60.0%) groups included 10 and 15 patients, respectively. The operative time without combined operation and anastomosis was significantly shorter in the NASILDG group. Early complications and scar characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

By adding a needle grasper, SILDG became more convenient without decreasing cosmetic results. NASILDG could be a recommended method to reduce the technical difficulty of SILDG.

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 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.

Recent Advances in the Diagnosis, Staging, Treatment, and Prognosis of Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Literature Review

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cause of cancer related deaths worldwide which results in malignant tumors in the digestive tract. The only radical treatment option available is surgical resection. Recently, the implementation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy resulted in 5-year survival rates of 95% for early gastric cancer. The main reason of treatment failure is that early diagnosis is minimal, with many patients presenting advanced stages. Hence, the greatest benefit of radical resection is missed. Consequently, the main therapeutic approach for advanced gastric cancer is combined surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy. In this review, we will discuss the various treatment options for advanced gastric cancer. Clinical practice and clinical research is the most practical way of reaching new advents in terms of patients' characteristics, optimum drug choice, and better prognosis. With the recent advances in gastric cancer diagnosis, staging, treatment, and prognosis, we are evident that the improvement of survival in this patient population is just a matter of time.

D2 Lymph Node Dissections during Reduced-port Robotic Distal Subtotal Gastrectomy and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery Performed by a Single Surgeon in a High-volume Center: a Propensity Score-matched Analysis

Purpose

Various studies have indicated that reduced-port robotic gastrectomies are safe and feasible for treating patients with early gastric cancer. However, there have not been any comparative studies conducted that have evaluated patients with clinically advanced gastric cancer. Therefore, we aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of D2 lymph node dissections during reduced-port robotic distal subtotal gastrectomies (RRDGs) and conventional 5-port laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomies (CLDGs).

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 118 patients with clinically advanced gastric cancer who underwent minimally invasive distal subtotal gastrectomies with D2 lymph node dissections between February 2016 and November 2019. To evaluate the patient data, we performed a 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) according to age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification score, and clinical T status. The short-term surgical outcomes were also compared between the two groups.

Results

The PSM identified 40 pairs of patients who underwent RRDG or CLDG. The RRDG group experienced a significantly longer operation time than the CLDG group (P<0.001), although the RRDG group had significantly less estimated blood loss (P=0.034). The number of retrieved extraperigastric lymph nodes in the RRDG group was significantly higher than that of the CLDG group (P=0.008). The rate of postoperative complications was not significantly different between the two groups (P=0.115).

Conclusions

D2 lymph node dissections can be safely performed during RRDGs and the perioperative outcomes appear to be comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic surgeries. Further studies are needed to compare long-term survival outcomes.

Laparoscopic Gastrectomy Using Instruments with a Minimal Diameter for Early Gastric Cancer: A Feasible Alternative to Conventional Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Experienced Surgeons

Background: The application of laparoscopic surgery using instruments that are 3 mm or less in diameter for patients with early gastric cancer (EGC) has not yet been established. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic gastrectomy using instruments with minimal diameter. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 41 patients who underwent laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy with D1-positive lymph node dissection for EGC. Among them, 17 patients underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy using instruments with a minimal diameter (experimental group), while 24 patients underwent conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (control group). In the experimental group, we used two 3-mm trocars, one 5-mm trocar, and the GelPOINT^® Advanced Access Platform. We compared operative outcomes between the two groups and assessed the learning curve of laparoscopic gastrectomy using instruments with minimal diameter. Results: The operative outcomes were similar between the two groups. The preoperative-to-postoperative day 2 ratio of neutrophil count in the experimental group was significantly lower than in the control group (2.07 versus 2.65; P = .038). Morbidity was not observed in the experimental group and 3 patients experienced complications in the control group, although it was not significantly different (P = .252). The operation time according to the accumulation of cases was stable without any significant change in the experimental group. Conclusions: Laparoscopic gastrectomy using instruments with minimal diameter is technically feasible and safe for EGC and could also be a good alternative to conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy to minimize the impact of surgical invasiveness when performed by experienced surgeons.

Initial Experience of Dual-Port Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Single-Arm Study

INTRODUCTION

Dual-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (DPLG) has been widely performed in recent years for treating gastric cancers. The present study reports our initial experience of dual-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (DPLDG).

METHODS

From November 2016 to August 2018, 38 consecutive patients underwent DPLDG in our center. The observational outcomes included 30-day morbidity and mortality rates, time to first flatus, time to first oral liquid diet, time to first oral semiliquid diet, time to drainage tube removal, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, postoperative 4-day recovery rate, additional analgesic use, hospital stay and cosmetic benefits.

RESULTS

Mean operative time was 191.6 ± 44.4 min, mean intra-operative blood loss was 39.8 ± 48.7 ml, and the mean number of dissected lymph nodes was 38.3 ± 13.7 nodes. One case was converted to five-port laparoscopic surgery, and no intraoperative complications occurred in any of the cases. The mean time to postoperative first flatus was 45.3 ± 18.0 h. The mean time to intake of an oral liquid diet was 56.7 ± 30.4 h. The mean time to drainage tube removal was 97.9 ± 52.3 h. The mean VAS scores for the 3 days after surgery were 2.3 ± 0.7, 2.0 ± 0.6 and 1.6 ± 0.5, respectively. A total of 81.6% of the enrolled patients met the postoperative 4-day recovery standard, and 15.8% of patients received additional analgesics. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 6.0 ± 2.0 days. No deaths were observed, and the 30-day morbidity rate was 13.2%.

CONCLUSION

DPLDG is a feasible and safe procedure for experienced surgeons with acceptable short-term outcomes, reduced invasiveness and good cosmetic effects.