title: Comparison of Reduced Port Totally Laparoscopic-assisted Total Gastrectomy (Duet TLTG) and Conventional Laparoscopic-assisted Total Gastrectomy.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes of patients with gastric cancer undergoing reduced port totally laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (duet TLTG) with those of patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG).
  
  
  METHODS
  Between January 2013 and 2015, 54 patients with gastric cancer underwent LATG at the Samsung Medical Center. Duet TLTG using 3 ports was performed in 30 patients, and conventional LATG using 5 ports was performed in 24 patients. Either extracorporeal or intracorporeal anastomosis was used for esophagojejunostomy. Surgical outcomes were compared between the operation methods.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The operating time was similar for duet TLTG and conventional LATG [222 min (range, 163 to 287 min) vs. 233 min (range, 170 to 310 min), respectively; P=0.807]. Blood loss during surgery was also similar between duet TLTG and conventional LATG groups [100 mL (range, 50 to 400 mL) vs. 175 mL (range, 50 to 400 mL), respectively; P=0.249]. The median number of nodes dissected [duet TLTG vs. conventional LATG, 47 (20 to 67) vs. 41 (22 to 70), P=0.338] was not different between groups. Pain scores were 3.9, 3.3, and 2.9, and 3.9, 3.4, and 2.8, at postoperative days 1, 3, and 5, respectively, in the duet TLTG and the conventional LATG groups (P=0.857, 0.659, and 0.427, respectively). Overall complication rates in the duet TLTG and conventional LATG groups were not significantly different (36.7% vs. 16.7%, P=0.103).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Duet TLTG is an acceptable procedure with quality of lymph node dissection, including the number of dissected lymph nodes and morbidity.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
authors.forename: Han Byeol
authors.initials: HB
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.forename: Su Mi
authors.initials: SM
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.forename: Man Ho
authors.initials: MH
authors.lastname: Ha
authors.forename: Jeong Eun
authors.initials: JE
authors.lastname: Seo
authors.forename: Min-Gew
authors.initials: MG
authors.lastname: Choi
authors.forename: Tae Sung
authors.initials: TS
authors.lastname: Sohn
authors.forename: Jae Moon
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Bae
authors.forename: Sung
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.forename: Jun Ho
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Lee
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000714:Anastomosis, Surgical; D004867:Equipment Design; D004947:Esophagus / Q000601:surgery*; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005743:Gastrectomy / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D007583:Jejunum / Q000601:surgery*; D020706:Laparoscopes; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000295:instrumentation*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D061646:Operative Time; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000453:epidemiology; D056910:Republic of Korea / Q000453:epidemiology; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013274:Stomach Neoplasms / Q000601:surgery*; D016896:Treatment Outcome