Dual-Port Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Dual-Port Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Randomised Clinical Trial

Dual-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (DPLG) has been widely performed in recent years for treating gastric cancers. The present study explore the safety and effect of dual-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (DPLDG).

Study Overview

Status

Recruiting

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

As a novel minimally invasive technique,laparoscopic surgery has presently become widely accepted as an alternative treatment for malignant diseases. In the treatment of gastric cancers, it has been reported to be an optionalprocedure with the advantages of less invasiveness,less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery and shorter hospital stay, when compared to open surgery. In general, four or five trocars are required in conventional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (CLDG), and each port results in abdominal injury, which may lead to port site complications, such as wound infection, dehiscence and small bowel herniation. Hence, it remains challenging to determine whether surgical wounds could be minimized during laparoscopic gastric surgery. The development of reduced-port laparoscopic techniques has been largely due to the appearance of multi-channel ports. A conventional trocar port can only be used for inserting a single instrument. With the advancement of laparoscopic devices, a variety of multi-channel ports have been introduced and used in laparoscopic surgeries. At present, multi-channel ports that have been reported include Uni-X devices (Pnavel Systems, Brooklyn, NY, USA), TriPort devices (Advanced Surgical Concepts,Wicklow, Ireland), SILS devices (Covidien, Norwalk, CT, USA), OctoPort devices (DalimSurgNet, Seoul, Korea) and self-made multichannel devices from medical centers globally. The number of ports located on these multichannel devices varies from two to four. Twoport and three-port devices are more commonly used at present in laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery. In recent years, the use of reduced-port laparoscopic gastrectomy has rapidly increased. Several studies have suggested that, in contrast to conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (CLG), the reduced-port method has some apparent postoperative benefits in the treatment of gastric cancers, such as shorter hospital stay, less pain, less blood loss and better cosmetic results. Among these studies, most have been about distal gastrectomy. Hence, the application of this technique in total gastrectomy is at present relatively less. As a type of reduced-port technique, Kawamura et al. first used this technique in 2011 to treat early distal gastric cancers, and suggested that dual-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (DPLDG) is superior to conventional approaches from the cosmetic standpoint, and has the potential to become a technically acceptable procedure. However, due to the more limited operating space when compared to CLDG, it has been generally considered that DPLDG is more difficult to perform than CLDG. The difficulty of DPLDG is mainly due to insufficient intraoperative traction and exposure, which makes the principle of triangulation and counteraction in DPLDG less good when compared to those in CLDG. In addition, since merely one additional trocar is located at one side of the abdominal wall, it is difficult for the surgeon to change position with the assistant, when necessary. The application of DPLDG to distal gastric cancer remains controversial, and critical comments have been made regarding it.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Anticipated)

300

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

    • Guangdong
      • Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, 510515
        • Recruiting
        • Nanfang Hospital
        • Contact:

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

16 years to 73 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. patients within 18--75 years old;
  2. patients with a preoperative pathological diagnosis of gastric adenocarcinoma;
  3. patients with a clinical tumor stage of T1N1,T2N0 according to the preoperative examinations (gastroscopy, ultrasound gastroscopy and computed tomography);
  4. patients with a plan to undergo laparoscopic distal gastrectomy and obtain R0 surgical results;
  5. patients without severe heart, liver, lung, or kidney dysfunction;
  6. patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0-1; and (7) patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II.

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. patients with a history of upperabdominal surgery;
  2. patients who presentedas an emergency case;
  3. patients with other histories of malignant diseases within 5 years;
  4. patients with prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiation therapy; and (5)patients who need simultaneous surgical treatment for other malignant diseases.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: DPLDG arm
Dual-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy
Dual-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy
Active Comparator: LDG arm
Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy
Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Early operative morbidity
Time Frame: Within 30 days following surgery
Including wound complications (infection, effusion, dehiscence,poor healing), intra-abdominal active bleeding,digestive tract active bleeding, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis, intestinal fistula, pancreatic fistula, chylous fistula, intra-abdominal abscess formation, gastroparesis, intestinal paralysis, intestinal obstruction, cholecystitis, pancreatitis, pneumonia, pleural effusion, pulmonary embolism, cardiocerebrovascular complications, deep venous thrombosis, urinary tract complications, catheter-related complications, condition of pain,etc.;
Within 30 days following surgery

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
5 year overall survival rate
Time Frame: 5 years
From date of randomization until the date of first documented date of death from any cause, assessed up to 5 years
5 years

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Guoxin Li, Ph.D, Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University
  • Principal Investigator: Tian Lin, Ph.D, Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

August 1, 2022

Primary Completion (Anticipated)

December 31, 2024

Study Completion (Anticipated)

December 31, 2029

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

July 10, 2022

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 7, 2022

First Posted (Actual)

August 9, 2022

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

November 4, 2022

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

November 2, 2022

Last Verified

July 1, 2022

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

Yes

IPD Plan Description

All

IPD Sharing Access Criteria

All

IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type

  • Study Protocol
  • Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Gastric Cancer

3
Subscribe