Does the Difference of Invasiveness between Totally Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy and Laparoscopy-Assisted Distal Gastrectomy Lead to a Difference in Early Surgical Outcomes? A Prospective Randomized Trial

Abstract

Background

Resection and anastomosis in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy can be performed extracorporeally or intracorporeally. Most surgeons have performed laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) because of technical difficulties of intracorporeal anastomosis. However, totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) has recently been attempted and is expected to be feasible and less invasive compared with LADG. In this study, we tried to evaluate the clinical effect of the difference of invasiveness between TLDG and LADG, by way of a randomized prospective trial.

Methods

From February 2011 to September 2013, a total of 110 patients with primary gastric cancer were randomly assigned to either TLDG or LADG. Clinicopathologic features, operative details, postoperative course, and quality of life (QoL) were compared between the two groups. QoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 and gastric module STO22 at 2 weeks and 3 months after surgery.

Results

The two groups were comparable in clinical and pathological characteristics. The proximal resection margin was significantly longer and the length of wound was shorter in the TLDG group. We could not find any significant difference in postoperative inflammatory parameters, postoperative pulmonary function, postoperative recovery, and QoL scores at 2 weeks and 3 months after surgery. There were no significant differences in complication rates.

Conclusions

This study suggests that TLDG is as safe and feasible as LADG in gastric cancer. The parameters used routinely in the clinical field to evaluate early surgical outcomes could not reflect the delicate difference in surgical invasiveness between TLDG and LADG.