Learning Curve of Pure Single-Port Laparoscopic Distal 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.

Establishing the Learning Curve of Laparoscopic and Robotic Distal Gastrectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal gastrectomy (MIDG) is non-inferior compared with open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. However, MIDG bears a learning curve (LC). This study aims to evaluate the number of cases required to surmount the LC (i.e. NLC) in MIDG.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to August 2022 for studies which reported NLC in MIDG. NLC on reduced-port/single-port MIDG only were separately analysed. Poisson mean (95% confidence interval (CI)) was used to determine NLC. Negative binomial regression was used to compare NLC between laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) and robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG).

RESULTS

A total of 45 articles with 71 data sets (LDG n=47, RDG n=24) were analysed. There were 7776 patients in total (LDG n=5516, RDG n=2260). Majority of studies were conducted in East Asia (n=68/71). Majority (76.1%) of data sets used non-arbitrary methods of analyses. The overall NLC for RDG was significantly lower compared to LDG (RDG 22.4 (95% CI: 20.4-24.5); LDG 46.7 (95% CI: 44.1-49.4); incidence rate ratio 0.48, p<0.001). The median number of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) cases prior was 0 (interquartile range (IQR) 0-105) for LDG and 159 (IQR 101-305.3) for RDG. Meta-regression analysis did not show a significant impact prior experience in LG, extent of lymphadenectomy and intracorporeal vs extracorporeal anastomosis had on overall NLC for LDG and RDG.

CONCLUSION

NLC for RDG is shorter compared to LDG, but this may be due to prior experience in LG and ergonomic advantages of RDG.

Postoperative pain and quality of life after single-incision distal gastrectomy versus multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer - a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although it has been more than ten years since its first introduction, single-incision distal gastrectomy (SIDG) still lacks solid evidence and there are also no reports on patient quality of life (QOL). This study evaluates the postoperative outcomes and patient QOL of SIDG compared to multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG).

METHODS

This study was designed as a prospective phase II randomized controlled study. Patients diagnosed with early gastric cancer in the distal 2/3rd of the stomach were randomized to either multiport or single-port group. Primary endpoint was pain using the visual analogue scale on postoperative day (POD) 1. Other outcomes include operative data, complications, and patient QOL using the EORTC C30 and STO22 modules.

RESULTS

A total of 43 patients in the SIDG group and 40 patients in the MLDG group were enrolled from September 2017 to February 2020. Mean operation time was 154.3 ± 53.3 min in the MLDG group and 148.9 ± 50.1 min in the SIDG group (p = 0.631). There was no difference in POD1 pain scores between the two groups (MLDG = 4.0 ± 1.3, SIDG = 4.3 ± 1.3, p = 0.372). Mean hospital stay was 5.5 (range 4-12) days in the MLDG group and 5 (range 4-17) days in the SIDG group (p = 0.993). There was no statistical significance in postoperative QOL scores.

CONCLUSION

Unlike previous reports, there was no difference in POD1 pain scores between SIDG and MLDG. Nevertheless, SIDG did not increase short-term morbidity compared to MLDG and had similar outcomes in QOL.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been widely used for advanced gastric cancer (GC), and its resection extent is not limited to distal gastrectomy. However, the superiority of this minimally invasive approach remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the benefits and risks of LG on the short- and long-term outcomes compared with open gastrectomy (OG) for GC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LG and OG for treatment of GC. The primary outcomes were adverse events, recurrence, mortality, and the quality of life. The secondary outcomes included operation-relevant outcomes and postoperative recovery outcomes. We employed random-effects meta-analyses to pool results with Hartung-Knapp adjustment. The prediction interval (PI) was used to quantify the between-study heterogeneity. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the potential sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies involving 7643 patients were included. Most studies (22 out of 28) reported results from experienced surgeons. Compared to OG, LG was found to have the advantages of less blood loss, fewer postoperative complications, and faster recovery, but at the expense of lesser proximal resection margin length, longer operation time, and fewer retrieved lymph nodes. There were no significant differences for anastomosis-related complications, recurrence and survival and other outcomes between LG and OG. Significant between-study heterogeneity was observed. Body mass index (BMI) and age were two major sources of heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

For experienced surgeons, LG is an alternative approach to OG for patients with GC. Patients with lower BMI and older age may benefit most from LG. Future studies are needed to confirm our findings in low-volume hospitals and for less-experienced surgeons. Future trials focusing on patient-important outcomes are warranted for clinical decision-making.

Long-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Distal Gastrectomy Compared with Conventional Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is gaining more attention due to advancements in surgical devices and techniques. Ten years have passed since the first report of single-incision distal gastrectomy. This study aims to analyze the long-term oncological safety of single-incision distal gastrectomy by comparing it with multiport distal gastrectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients diagnosed with gastric cancer who underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy from January 2010 to December 2017 were enrolled. Palliative surgery, history of other malignancy, preoperative chemotherapy, and distant metastasis were excluded. The 5-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival were set as coprimary endpoints. Operative time, blood loss, postoperative outcome, and risk factors for survival were secondary endpoints. Propensity score matching of 1:1 ratio was performed to adjust for age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, tumor size, operation history, and clinical stage.

RESULTS

A total of 3,097 patients were enrolled. After propensity score matching, 378 patients were allocated to each group. There was no difference in patient demographics after matching. Operation time was faster (170.8 ± 65.3 minutes vs 147.2 ± 44.1 minutes, p < 0.001), with less blood loss in the single-port group (84.1 ± 87.6 mL vs 34.9 ± 49.9 mL, p < 0.001). Administration of additional intravenous analgesics was less frequent in the single-port group (p = 0.043). There was no difference in long-term survival (5-year overall survival: multiport 94.2%, single-port 95.8%, p = 0.43; 5-year disease-free survival: multiport 94.1%, single-port 95.8%, p = 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision distal gastrectomy is safe and feasible with good long-term outcomes and less use of additional analgesics for patients diagnosed with early gastric cancer.

Reduced-port totally robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: 100 consecutive cases in comparison with conventional robotic and laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy

By overcoming technical difficulties with limited access faced when performing reduced-port surgery for gastric cancer, reduced-port totally robotic gastrectomy (RPRDG) could be a safe alternative to conventional minimally invasive gastrectomy. An initial 100 consecutive cases of RPRDG for gastric cancer were performed from February 2016 to September 2018. Short-term outcomes for RPRDG with those for 261 conventional laparoscopic (CLDG) and for 241 robotic procedures (CRDG) over the same period were compared. Learning curve analysis for RPRDG was conducted to determine whether this procedure could be readily performed despite fewer access. During the first 100 cases of RPRDG, no surgeries were converted to open or laparoscopic surgery, and no additional ports were required. RPRDG showed longer operation time than CLDG (188.4 min vs. 166.2 min, p < 0.001) and similar operation time with CRDG (183.1 min, p = 0.315). The blood loss was 35.4 ml for RPRDG, 85.2 ml for CLDG (p < 0.001), and 41.2 ml for CRDG (p = 0.33). The numbers of retrieved lymph nodes were 50.5 for RPRDG, 43.9 for CLDG (p = 0.003), and 55.0 for CRDG (p = 0.055). Postoperative maximum C-reactive protein levels were 96.8 mg/L for RPRDG, 87.8 mg/L for CLDG (p = 0.454), and 81.9 mg/L for CRDG (p = 0.027). Learning curve analysis indicated that the overall operation time of RPRDG stabilized at 180 min after 21 cases. The incidence of major postoperative complications did not differ among groups. RPRDG for gastric cancer is a feasible and safe alternative to conventional minimally invasive surgery. Notwithstanding, this procedure failed to reduce postoperative inflammatory responses.

Three-dimensional (3D) visualization provides better outcome than two-dimensional (2D) visualization in single-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy: a propensity-matched analysis

PURPOSE

There are currently no reports on the application of three-dimensional (3D) vision to single-incision laparoscopic surgery. This study compared 3D vision to the previous two-dimensional (2D) system in single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (SIDG).

METHODS

Medical charts of 179 gastric cancer patients who underwent SIDG from February 2014 to December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were grouped into either a 2D group or 3D group depending on the type of camera that was used. All operations were performed using a flexible camera (Olympus, Japan). Operative data and postoperative outcome were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 90 patients in the 2D group and 89 patients in the 3D group. No differences were found in terms of the age, body mass index, staging, and other demographics of the patients. Operative time was significantly faster in the 3D group (115.6 ± 34.0 vs. 129.4 ± 38.5 min, p = 0.012), and estimated blood loss (EBL) was less in the 3D group (20.7 ± 30.0 vs. 35.1 ± 56.0 ml, p = 0.034). Patients in the 3D group were able to start a small fluid diet earlier (2.5, range 1-6 vs. 3.0, range 2-8 postoperative days, p = 0.006) and were discharged faster (5.4, range 3-12 vs. 6.2, range 4-24 postoperative days, p = 0.024). There was no statistical difference between early and late complications.

CONCLUSION

The use of the 3D camera shortened operative time with possible clinical benefits for patients undergoing SIDG.

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.