Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 15, 2026
Single Incision Plus One Port Laparoscopic Proximal Gastrectomy with Double Channel Anastomosis for Gastric Cancer Treatment
Published on: December 27, 2024
Balancing Surgical Innovation with Indications: A Multicenter Retrospective Comparison of Reduced-Port Distal
Jae Hun Chung1, Hyoung-Il Kim2, Sang-Hoon Ahn3
1Department of Surgery, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, School of Medicine, Pusan National University, Yangsan 50612, Republic of Korea.
Background:
The da Vinci single-port reduced-port robotic distal gastrectomy (spRRDG) approach shows promise in enhancing surgical recovery while maintaining oncologic safety, but robust multicenter comparative data across diverse robotic platforms are lacking. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between spRRDG and conventional RRDG (cRRDG) using Korean Laparoendoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery Study-13 data.
Methods:
Clinicopathologic variables and perioperative outcomes concerning 820 patients who underwent curative RRDG with D1+ or D2 lymph node dissection (LND) (da Vinci spRRDG, n = 86; cRRDG, n = 734) were analyzed. We compared continuous variables using Student's t- or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, as appropriate, and categorical variables using χ2 or Fisher's exact tests. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the extent of LND (D1+ vs. D2). Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.
Results:
spRRDG involved a longer operative time than cRRDG (227.06 ± 6.19 vs. 183.58 ± 2.18 min, p < 0.0001) and fewer retrieved LNs (rLNs) (36.38 ± 1.53 vs. 46.52 ± 0.66, p < 0.0001), but showed superior enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)-related outcomes, including shorter hospital stay (4.06 ± 0.23 vs. 5.95 ± 0.13 days), and earlier gas passage (postoperative day [POD] 2.24 ± 0.10 vs. 3.08 ± 0.04) and soft diet initiation (POD 1.59 ± 0.14 vs. 2.89 ± 0.07; all p < 0.0001). In subgroup analyses, the number of rLNs was lower in D1+ spRRDG (34.09 ± 1.58 vs. 44.36 ± 0.72, p < 0.0001), but remained above the oncologic threshold (≥16 LNs). In D2 dissections, no significant difference was observed (45.71 ± 3.69 vs. 53.30 ± 1.39, p = 0.1030). Faster postoperative recovery in spRRDG persisted after adjustment.
Conclusion:
spRRDG exhibited lower rLNs than cRRDG but remained within an oncologically acceptable range. Comparable complication rates and significantly improved ERAS outcomes suggest spRRDG is safe and feasible; however, its clinical application should remain limited to early gastric cancer until robust evidence from prospective studies emerges.
