Effectiveness and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery vs conventional multi-port laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of gastric diseases: A meta-analysis

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) and conventional multi-port laparoscopic (CMPLS) surgery in the treatment of gastric diseases.The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Chinese Biomedical Literature databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case control studies on the use of RPLS vs conventional multi-port laparoscopic surgery in treating gastric diseases from their inception until March 10, 2019. The evaluated outcomes were the operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, number of dissected lymph nodes, postoperative complications, and conversions. All of these were compared using Stata software version 12.0.A total of 18 studies were included, which involved 2938 patients. In studies referring to the comparison between RPLS and CMPLS in treating gastric diseases, the former showed significantly inferior in terms of operative time (P =.011) and number of dissected lymph nodes (P=.031); but superior results in terms of the estimated blood loss (P=.000) and length of hospital stay (P=.001) than the latter did; however, the rates of postoperative complications (P=.830) and conversions (P=.102) were not statistically significant between the 2 groups.RPLS and CMPLS showed comparable effectiveness and safety in the treatment of gastric diseases in our meta-analysis. Based on the current evidence, we believe that RPLS is an efficacious surgical alternative to CMPLS in the management of gastric diseases because of the shorter hospital stay and reduced blood loss. However, large-scale, well-designed, multicenter studies are needed to further confirm the results of this study.