4.1 Article

Learning Curve of Pure Single-Port Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTRIC CANCER
Volume 18, Issue 2, Pages 182-188

Publisher

KOREAN GASTRIC CANCER ASSOC
DOI: 10.5230/jgc.2018.18.e20

Keywords

Stomach neoplasms; Laparoscopy; Learning curve; Gastrectomy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Despite the fact that there are several reports of single-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (SPDG), no analysis of its learning curve has been described in the literature. The aim of this study was to investigate the favorable factors for SPDG and to analyze the learning curve of SPDG. Materials and Methods: A total of 125 cases of SPDG performed from November 2011 to December 2015 were enrolled. All operations were performed by 2 surgeons (surgeon A and surgeon B). The moving average method was used for defining the learning curve. All cases were divided into 10 cases in a sequence, and the mean operative time and estimated blood loss data were extracted from each group. Results: Surgeon A performed 68 cases (female-to-male sex ratio, 91.1%: 8.82%), and surgeon B performed 57 cases (female-to-male sex ratio, 61.4%: 38.5%). The operative time of surgeon B significantly decreased after 30 cases (157.8 +/- 38.4 minutes vs. 118.1 +/- 34.5 minutes, P=0.003); that of surgeon A did not significantly decrease before and after around 30 cases (160.8 +/- 51.6 minutes vs. 173.3 +/- 35.2 minutes, P=0.6). The subgroup analysis showed that the operative time significantly decreased in the patients with body mass index (BMI) of <25 kg/m(2) (<25 kg/m(2):=25 kg/m(2), 159.3 +/- 41.7 minutes: 194.25 +/- 81.1 minutes; P=0.001). Conclusions: Although there was no significant decrease in the operative time for surgeon A, surgeon B reached the learning curve upon conducting 30 cases of SPDG. BMI of < 25 kg/m(2) was found to be a favorable factor for SPDG.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available