Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic gastrectomy versus conventional multi-port laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: We compared short-term perioperative outcomes after single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (SILG+1) and conventional multi-port laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (C-LAG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS: The work was conducted between August 2017 and October 2019. A total of 90 patients with early or advanced gastric cancer were retrospectively analyzed: 43 patients of which underwent SILG+1, and 47 of which underwent C-LAG, respectively. These were divided into two groups: the total gastrectomy group (SILT+1 and C-LATG) and the distal gastrectomy group (SILD + 1 and C-LADG). The demographics, tumor characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and short-term complications of all enrolled patients were summarized and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS: The mean incision length in SILT+1 group was 5.40 cm shorter than that in C-LATG group (3.15 ± 0.43 vs. 8.55 ± 2.72, P < 0.001). This comparison between the SILD + 1 and the C-LADG group produced comparable results. The SILT+1 group underwent a 56.32 min longer operation than the C-LATG group (273.03 ± 66.80 vs. 216.71 ± 82.61, P = 0.0205). SILG+1 group had better postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) and cosmetic score than those of the C-LATG group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in preoperative demographics or 30-day postoperative complication rates between the SILG+1 and C-LAG groups. Tumor-related index, including mass size, histological type, number of retrieved lymph nodes, pathological tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage, and proximal and distal edges were all equivalent between the SILG+1 and the C-LAG group.

CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of SILG+1 with D1+ or D2 lymphadenectomy for the treatment of early and advanced gastric cancers, compared with C-LAG.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app