Early experience and learning curve of solo single-incision distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a review of consecutive 100 cases

Comparison of Reduced Port Gastrectomy and Multiport Gastrectomy in Korea: Ad Hoc Analysis and Nationwide Survey on Gastric Cancer 2019

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and current status of reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RLDG) compared with multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) based on a 2019 nationwide survey of surgical gastric cancer treatments by the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted retrospectively from March to December 2020 using data from the 2019 KGCA nationwide survey database. To compare RLDG and MLDG based on age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histological type, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis, propensity score matching was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 14,076 registered patients with gastric cancer, the five-port approach was the most favored for multiport gastrectomy, accounting for 6,396 (70.9%) cases, followed by the four-port approach, with 1,462 (16.2%) cases. The single-port approach was used in 303 (3.4%) cases, the two-port approach in 95 (1.1%) cases, and the three-port approach in 731 (8.1%) cases. RLDG was performed in 805 patients (6.4%), MLDG was conducted in 4,831 patients (34.3%), and 804 patients were 1:1 matched in each group. The average operation time was shorter in the RLDG (168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P<0.001). No significant difference was found in blood loss (84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, P=0.152), overall complication rates (11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254), or complications ≥ to grade IIIa (3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that RLDG is a safe and effective surgical option for gastric cancer with the potential to offer shorter operation times without increasing the risk of complications.

Learning Curve of Uniportal Compared With Biportal Endoscopic Techniques for the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation

OBJECTIVES

Currently, unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) and uniportal full-endoscopic (UFE) techniques for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) are gaining popularity. However, studies investigating the number of surgeries needed for surgeons to achieve proficiency in these procedures are lacking. This study aims to compare the early learning curve for UBE and UFE when treating LDH.

METHODS

The learning curve for two fellowship-trained surgeons at our institution was retrospectively assessed for 160 consecutive patients (UFE: n = 100, UBE: n = 60) who underwent procedures between September 2020 and May 2023. Surgeon 1 first learned UBE, followed by UFE (S1BF), while Surgeon 2 first learned UFE and then UBE (S2FB). Operation time was evaluated as the primary outcome for determining the learning curve using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. Secondary outcomes assessing endoscopic prowess include surgical outcomes, such as fluoroscopy usage times, postoperative hospital stays, the incidence of complications, and clinical outcomes, including visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score and modified MacNab criteria.

RESULTS

The learning curve analysis identified the cutoff point in UBE at 14 cases and 11 cases for S1BF and S2FB, respectively, and in UFE at 31 cases and 27 cases, respectively. Without UFE or UBE experience, at the last follow-up, both the VAS back and leg pain in UFE were significantly higher than that in UBE (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the incidence of complications of UFE was also higher than that of UBE (29.0% vs. 7.1%). When surgeons have previous UFE or UBE experience, there was no significant difference in the clinical outcomes between UFE and UBE, and the complication rates were also similar (p > 0.05). After gaining UBE experience, the UFE performed by S1BF showed significantly better outcomes in fluoroscopy usage times (p = 0.024), surgical complications (p = 0.036), last follow-up VAS back pain (p = 0.003), and leg pain (p < 0.001) compared to S2FB. However, after gaining UFE experience, the S2FB only showed significant improvement in operation time (p = 0.041) during the process of learning UBE compared to S1BF.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of whether UBE or UFE is learned first, both techniques can significantly shorten the learning curve for the other technique. We recommend prioritizing the learning of UBE. Compared with UBE, the learning curve for UFE was significantly steeper and longer with higher incidence of complications in the early stage.

Enlightenment of robotic gastrectomy from 527 patients with gastric cancer in the minimally invasive era: 5 years of optimizing surgical performance in a high-volume center - a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Learning curves have been used in the field of robotic gastrectomy (RG). However, it should be noted that the previous study did not comprehensively investigate all changes related to the learning curve. This study aims to establish a learning curve for radical RG and evaluate its effect on the short-term outcomes of patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

The clinicopathological data of 527 patients who underwent RG between August 2016 and June 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Learning curves related to the operation time and postoperative hospital stay were determined separately using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. Then, the impact of the learning curve on surgical efficacy was analyzed.

RESULTS

Combining the CUSUM curve break points and technical optimization time points, the entire cohort was divided into three phases (patients 1-100, 101-250, and 251-527). The postoperative complication rate and postoperative recovery time tended to decrease significantly with phase advancement ( P <0.05). More extraperigastric examined lymph nodes (LN) were retrieved in phase III than in phase I (I vs. III, 15.12±6.90 vs. 17.40±7.05, P =0.005). The rate of LN noncompliance decreased with phase advancement. Textbook outcome (TO) analysis showed that the learning phase was an independent factor in TO attainment ( P <0.05).

CONCLUSION

With learning phase advancement, the short-term outcomes were significantly improved. It is possible that our optimization of surgical procedures could have contributed to this improvement. The findings of this study facilitate the safe dissemination of RG in the minimally invasive era.

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.

Current Issues in Reduced-Port Gastrectomy: A Comprehensive Review

Reduced-port gastrectomy (RPG) includes all procedures derived from various efforts to minimize surgical invasiveness, with single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy (SILG) being the ultimate reduced-port technique. However, there are challenges related to its feasibility, oncological validity, training, and education. This review describes the current issues and challenges, as well as the future prospects of RPG for gastric cancer. Gastrectomy, which started as an open surgery, has evolved into a laparoscopic surgery. With the advancements in laparoscopic technology, SILG has been used to minimize surgical scarring. However, owing to the technical difficulties of SILG, cases involving the addition of 1 trocar or needle grasper alongside the multichannel port have also been reported. Additionally, 3-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (3PLG) using only 3 trocars is also being performed. RPG, as a concept, includes a range of approaches such as SILG, 2-port laparoscopic gastrectomy, and 3PLG. These techniques aimed to reduce the number of ports or incisions required for laparoscopic gastrectomy. Despite technical difficulties, RPGs offer numerous advantages, including minimal invasiveness, excellent cosmetic outcomes, and the potential for improved post-operative recovery, such as reduced length of hospital stay and post-operative pain. It could be considered similar to conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy, and may not be oncologically inferior. Ongoing studies, such as the KLASS 12, are required to gain further insights.

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.

Short- and long-term outcomes of single-port versus multiport laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies and randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

At present, there is no convincing evidence-based medical basis for the efficacy of single-port laparoscopic gastrectomy. To make a high-quality comparison of the short- and long-term outcomes of single-port laparoscopic gastrectomy versus multiport laparoscopic gastrectomy, we performed this meta-analysis, which only included propensity score-matched studies and randomized controlled trials comparing single-port laparoscopic gastrectomy with multiport laparoscopic gastrectomy for patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

Data were retrieved from the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP up to January 2023, and the data included the outcomes of treatment after single-port laparoscopic gastrectomy and multiport laparoscopic gastrectomy. The primary outcomes were early complications, survival rate after surgery at 1 year, and survival rate after surgery at 5 years. The secondary outcomes were number of pain medications, mean operation time, estimated blood loss, hospital mortality, time to first soft fluid diet, time to first flatus, hospital stay after surgery, and retrieved number of lymph nodes. The Jadad score and Newcastle‒Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

After screening, 9 studies were finally included, including 988 patients. The meta-analysis results showed that estimated blood loss (MD=-29.35, 95% CI: -42.95-15.75, P < 0.0001), hospital stay (MD=-0.99, 95% CI:-1.82~-0.17, P = 0.02), and number of pain medications(MD=-0.65, 95% CI:-1.07~-0.23, P = 0.002) in the single-port laparoscopic gastrectomy group were better than those in the multiport laparoscopic gastrectomy group. There is no significant difference between the single-port laparoscopic gastrectomy group and the multiport laparoscopic gastrectomy group in mean operation time(MD = 5.23,95% CI:-16.58~27.04,P = 0.64), time to first soft fluid diet(MD=-0.06,95% CI: -0.30~0.18,P = 0.63), time to first flatus(MD=-0.18,95% CI:-0.43~0.07,P = 0.16), early complication(OR = 0.73,95% CI:0.50~1.09,P = 0.12), hospital mortality(OR = 1.00,95% CI:0.09~11.16,P = 1.00), retrieved number of lymph nodes(MD=-1.15, 95% CI:-2.71~0.40, P = 0.15), survival rate after surgery 1 year(OR = 2.14,95% CI:0.50~9.07,P = 0.30), and survival rate after surgery 5 year(93.7 vs. 87.6%; p = 0.689).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that single-port laparoscopic gastrectomy is both safe and feasible for laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer, with similar operation times and better short-term outcomes than multiport laparoscopic gastrectomy in terms of hospital stay, postoperative pain, and estimated blood loss. There was no significant difference in long-term outcomes between single-port laparoscopic gastrectomy and multiport laparoscopic gastrectomy.

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.

Feasibility and preliminary experience of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Overlap esophagojejunostomy for gastric cancer: A study of 10 cases

Background

This study aimed to explore the feasibility and safety of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic total gastrectomy (SITG + 1) with Overlap esophagojejunostomy (SITG + 1-Overlap) and to share preliminary experiences.

Methods

This retrospective study included 10 patients with gastric cancer located in the cardia or body who underwent SITG + 1-Overlap between August 2020 and October 2021.The demographics, tumor characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and short-term complications of all the enrolled patients were summarized and statistically analyzed. Data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) if they were normally distributed. Otherwise, Median (Quartile1, Quartile3) was used.

Results

In the collective perioperative data of these 10 patients who underwent radical gastrectomy, the median of the length of transumbilical incision and blood loss were 3.0 cm and 100.0 ml respectively, and the mean operation time and 385.5 ± 51.6 min. Postoperative data indicated that the gastric tube was removed on 2.0 (2.0, 3.0) days, and the timing of first feeding, activity, flatus, and defecation was 1.5 (1.0, 2.0) days, 2.0 (2.0, 2.0) days, 3.0 (2.0, 3.0) days, and 3.8 ± 0.6 days, respectively. The timing of drainage tube removal was 4.6 ± 1.0 days after operation. The duration of hospital stay was 7.5 ± 1.2 days and the VAS pain scores for the 3 days following surgery were 3.0 (2.0, 3.3), 2.0 (2.0, 3.0), and 1.5 (1.0, 2.0) respectively. The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was 30.7 ± 13.2. Most biochemical indicators gradually normalized with the recovery of the patients after surgery. No 30-day postoperative complications were noted.

Conclusions

For the first time, our preliminary data indicate the feasibility and safety of Overlap esophagojejunostomy in SITG + 1 surgery. This modified Overlap procedure has the potential to simplify the reconstruction procedure and lower the technical challenge of SITG + 1 radical gastrectomy for cardia or upper gastric cancer in the early and advanced stages.

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.

Advantages of a robotic approach compared with laparoscopy gastrectomy for patients with high visceral fat area

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer surgery for obese patients is regarded as a technically challenging procedure. The morbidity after gastrectomy has been reported to be significantly higher in patients with high visceral fat area (VFA). Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is expected to be advantageous for complicated operations. However, whether RG is superior to conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for patients with visceral fat obesity remains unclear. The present study aimed to clarify the impact of RG on the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with high VFAs.

METHODS

This study included 1306 patients with clinical stage I/II gastric cancer who underwent minimally invasive gastrectomy between January 2012 and December 2020. The patients were subclassified according to VFA. The short- and long-term outcomes of RG were compared with those of LG in two VFA categories.

RESULTS

This study included 394 (high-VFA, 151; low-VFA, 243) and 882 patients (high-VFA, 366; low-VFA, 516) in the RG and LG groups, respectively. RG was associated with a significantly longer operative time than LG (high-VFA, P < 0.001; low-VFA, P < 0.001). The incidence rates of overall and intra-abdominal infectious complications in the high-VFA patients were lower in the RG group than in the LG group (P = 0.019 and P = 0.048, respectively) but not significantly different from those in the low-VFA patients. In the multivariate analysis, LG was identified as the only independent risk factor of overall (odds ratio [OR] 3.281; P = 0.012) and intra-abdominal infectious complications (OR 3.462; P = 0.021) in the high-VFA patients. The overall survival of high-VFA patients was significantly better in the RG group than in the LG group (P = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with visceral fat obesity, RG appears to be advantageous to LG in terms of reducing the risk of complications and better long-term survival.

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.

Evaluation of Reduced Port Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy Performed by a Novice Surgeon

Purpose

Reduced port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RPLDG) using 3 ports is less invasive than conventional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (CLDG) using 5 ports. Although RPLDG performed by expert surgeons is safe and feasible, novice surgeons have difficulty performing this procedure. This study evaluated the surgical outcomes and feasibility of RPLDG performed by a novice surgeon.

Materials and Methods

The records of 136 patients who underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer performed by a single novice surgeon between May 2016 and December 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Among these 136 patients, 52 underwent RPLDG and 84 underwent CLDG. The clinicopathological characteristics, operative outcomes, and short-term postoperative outcomes of the 2 groups were compared.

Results

The percentage of women was significantly higher in the RPLDG group than in the CLDG group (48.1% vs. 31%; P=0.045), but other baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. Billroth II anastomosis was performed significantly more frequent (90.4% vs. 73.8%, P=0.015) and operation time was significantly shorter (207.1±43.3 min vs. 225.5±44.6 min, P=0.020) in the RPLDG group than in the CLDG group. The time to first flatus, postoperative pain score, length of postoperative hospital stay, and incidence and severity of complications did not differ significantly between the groups. Analysis of the learning curve based on the operation time showed that performing RPLDG on 20-30 patients was required to achieve technical proficiency.

Conclusions

RPLDG is a safe and feasible surgical procedure for the treatment of gastric cancer, even when performed by a novice surgeon.

Intracorporeal Esophagojejunostomy during Reduced-port Totally Robotic Gastrectomy for Proximal Gastric Cancer: a Novel Application of the Single-Site® Plus 2-port System

Purpose

Intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy during reduced-port gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer is a technically challenging technique. No study has yet reported a robotic technique for anastomosis. Therefore, to address this gap, we describe our reduced-port technique and the short-term outcomes of intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent a totally robotic reduced-port total or proximal gastrectomy between August 2016 and March 2020. We used an infra-umbilical Single-Site^® port with two additional ports on both sides of the abdomen. To transect the esophagus, a 45-mm endolinear stapler was inserted via the right abdominal port. The common channel of the esophagojejunostomy was created between the apertures in the esophagus and proximal jejunum using a 45-mm linear stapler. The entry hole was closed with a 45-mm linear stapler or robot-sewn continuous suture. All anastomoses were performed without the aid of an assistant or placement of stay sutures.

Results

Among the 40 patients, there were no conversions to open, laparoscopic, or conventional 5-port robotic surgery. The median operation time and blood loss were 254 min and 50 mL, respectively. The median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 40.5. The median time to first flatus, soft diet intake, and length of hospital stay were 3, 5, and 7 days, respectively. Three (7.5%) major complications, including two anastomosis-related complications and a case of small bowel obstruction, were treated with an endoscopic procedure and re-operation, respectively. No mortality occurred during the study period.

Conclusions

Intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy during reduced-port gastrectomy can be safely performed and is feasible with acceptable surgical outcomes.

Comparing the short-term outcomes and cost between solo single-incision distal gastrectomy and conventional multiport totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

Purpose

Single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (SIDG) requires experienced camera operators for a stable image. Since it is difficult for skilled camera operators to participate in all SIDG, we began performing solo surgery using mechanical camera holders. We aimed to compare the short-term outcomes and cost between solo SIDG and conventional multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) for early gastric cancer (EGC).

Methods

From January 2014 to December 2016, a total of 938 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy for EGC. Solo SIDG (n = 99) and MLDG patients (n = 198) were selected and 1:2 propensity score matching was done to compare the quality of operation and cost-effectiveness. All solo SIDG was performed by a surgeon using a camera holder, without any assistant.

Results

Mean operation time (120 ± 35.3 vs. 178 ± 53.4 minutes, P = 0.001) and estimated blood loss (24.6 ± 47.4 vs. 46.7 ± 66.5 mL, P = 0.001) were significantly lower in the solo SIDG group. Hospital stay, use of analgesics, and postoperative inflammatory markers (WBC, CRP) were similar between the 2 groups. The early (<30 days) complication rate in solo SIDG and MLDG groups was 21.2% and 23.7%, respectively (P = 0.240); the late (≥30 days) complication rate was 7.1% and 11.1%, respectively (P = 0.672). The manpower cost of solo SIDG was significantly lower than that of MLDG (P = 0.001).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that solo SIDG performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons is safe and feasible for EGC. Solo SIDG is expected to be a promising potential treatment for EGC.

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.

Intracorporeal overlap gastro-gastrostomy for solo single-incision pylorus-preserving gastrectomy in early gastric cancer

This report discusses the technique of solo single-incision pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (SIPPG) for early gastric cancer. To overcome difficulties regarding lymph node dissection (LND), a scope holder and an energy device were used, allowing fine dissection in a fixed field of view. The overlap gastro-gastrostomy technique was used for anastomosis. Seventeen patients underwent solo SIPGG. The mean operation time was 150.1 ± 28.7 min, and no patients developed postoperative complications or delayed gastric emptying within 30 days of the operation. Using scope holders and performing fine dissection with the energy device, challenges regarding LND in SIPPG can be overcome. INTACT anastomosis was initially used; however, due to its inconsistency and the high degree of surgical skill required, it was changed to the overlap method. Solo SIPPG with overlap gastro-gastrostomy may be safe and feasible with good cosmetic results and fast patient recovery.