Is the 5-port approach necessary in laparoscopic gastrectomy? Comparison of surgical effects of reduced-port laparoscopic gastrectomy and conventional laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Reduced-port surgery, in which fewer ports are used than those in conventional laparoscopic surgery, is becoming increasingly popular for various procedures. However, the application of reduced-port surgery to the gastrectomy field is still underdeveloped. The aim of this study was to use meta-analysis to address the potentially important advantages of this surgical technique.

METHODS

Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically reviewed (through October 2019) to identify studies that compared reduced-port (RPLG) and conventional laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (CLG) in patients with gastric carcinoma. The endpoints were postoperative time, length of in-hospital stay, blood loss, retrieved lymph nodes, postoperative complications, time to first flatus, and aesthetic outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies, which included 1743 patients (907 RPLG and 836 CLG), were ultimately included in this analysis. Better aesthetic results: were obtained with RPLG (risk ratio 1.578; 95%CI, 1.377-1.808; P = .000), although length of in-hospital stay (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.106; 95% CI, -0.222 to 0.010; P = .074), time to first flatus (SMD -0.006; 95%CI, -0.123 to 0.110; P = .913), and perioperative complications (risk ratio 0.255; 95%CI, 0.142-0.369; P = .478) were equivalent. However, operative time was significantly longer (SMD 0.301; 95%CI, 0.194-0.409; P = .00), blood loss was greater (SMD -0.31; 95%CI, -0.415 to 0.205; P = .000), and fewer lymph nodes were harvested (SMD 0.255; 95%CI, 0.142-0.369; P = .000) in the RPLG group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis showed that RPLG is as safe as the CLG approach and offers better aesthetic results for patients with gastric carcinoma. However, basing on current evidence, RPLG was not an efficacious surgical alternative to CLG, as operative time was significantly longer, blood loss was greater, and fewer lymph nodes were harvested in the RPLG group. Additional high-powered controlled randomized trials are required, to determine whether RPLG truly offers any advantages; these future studies should particularly focus on pain scores and aesthetic outcomes.