Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in
Menu
Find a journal Publish with us Track your research
Search
Cart
  1. Home
  2. Gastric Cancer
  3. Article

Prospective randomized study of two laparotomy incisions for gastrectomy: midline incision versus transverse incision

  • Original article
  • Published: September 2004
  • Volume 7, pages 167–171, (2004)
  • Cite this article
Download PDF
Gastric Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript
Prospective randomized study of two laparotomy incisions for gastrectomy: midline incision versus transverse incision
Download PDF
  • Tsuyoshi Inaba1,
  • Kota Okinaga1,
  • Ryoji Fukushima1,
  • Hisae Iinuma1,
  • Takashi Ogihara1,
  • Fujio Ogawa1,
  • Kota Iwasaki1,
  • Masanao Tanaka1 &
  • …
  • Hideki Yamada1 
  • 1702 Accesses

  • Explore all metrics

Abstract

Background

We performed a randomized study to evaluate the differences between upper midline incision and transverse incision for gastrectomy.

Methods

Patients undergoing distal gastrectomy or total gastrectomy for gastric cancer were randomly allocated to have either an upper midline incision or a transverse incision. The times taken to open and close the abdominal cavity, the number of doses of postoperative analgesics, and the incidence of postoperative pneumonia, wound infection, and intestinal obstruction were compared between the patients having the two incisions.

Results

Times for both opening and closing the abdominal cavity were longer with a transverse incision, in both the distal gastrectomy group and total gastrectomy group. In the patients in whom continuous epidural analgesia was used postoperatively, the number of additional doses of analgesics was smaller in the transverse-incision group after distal gastrectomy. The incidence of postoperative pneumonia was lower in the transverse-incision group after distal gastrectomy. The number of patients with postoperative intestinal obstruction was smaller in the transverse-incision group than in the midline-incision group after distal gastrectomy. In contrast to distal gastrectomy, there was no significant difference in the number of doses of postoperative analgesics, incidence of postoperative pneumonia, or incidence of postoperative intestinal obstruction between the two study groups after total gastrectomy.

Conclusion

A transverse incision for distal gastrectomy may be more beneficial than an upper midline incision in attenuating postoperative wound pain, decreasing the incidence of postoperative pneumonia, and preventing postoperative intestinal obstruction.

Article PDF

Download to read the full article text

Similar content being viewed by others

Bilateral Ultrasound-Guided External Oblique Intercostal Block Vs. Modified Thoracoabdominal Nerve Block Through Perichondrial Approach for Postoperative Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Study

Article 11 September 2024

Ultrasound-Guided External Oblique Intercostal Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Patient and Observer-Blinded Study

Article Open access 18 March 2024

Spinal analgesia with continuous local wound infusion vs thoracic epidural analgesia after open pancreaticoduodenectomy

Article 12 November 2024

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.
  • Abdominal Surgery
  • Surgery
  • Gastric cancer
  • General Surgery
  • Colorectal Surgery
  • Gastroenterology
Use our pre-submission checklist

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Teikyo University Hospital, 2-11-1 Kaga, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, 173-8605, Japan

    Tsuyoshi Inaba, Kota Okinaga, Ryoji Fukushima, Hisae Iinuma, Takashi Ogihara, Fujio Ogawa, Kota Iwasaki, Masanao Tanaka & Hideki Yamada

Authors
  1. Tsuyoshi Inaba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kota Okinaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ryoji Fukushima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hisae Iinuma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takashi Ogihara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fujio Ogawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kota Iwasaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Masanao Tanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hideki Yamada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Inaba, T., Okinaga, K., Fukushima, R. et al. Prospective randomized study of two laparotomy incisions for gastrectomy: midline incision versus transverse incision. Gastric Cancer 7, 167–171 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-004-0291-6

Download citation

  • Received: 14 April 2004

  • Accepted: 05 July 2004

  • Issue Date: September 2004

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-004-0291-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Key words

  • Midline incision
  • Transverse incision
  • Gastrectomy
  • Gastric cancer
  • Intestinal obstruction
Use our pre-submission checklist

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Advertisement

Search

Navigation

  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Books A-Z

Publish with us

  • Journal finder
  • Publish your research
  • Open access publishing

Products and services

  • Our products
  • Librarians
  • Societies
  • Partners and advertisers

Our brands

  • Springer
  • Nature Portfolio
  • BMC
  • Palgrave Macmillan
  • Apress
  • Discover
  • Your US state privacy rights
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms and conditions
  • Privacy policy
  • Help and support
  • Legal notice
  • Cancel contracts here

18.216.103.219

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2025 Springer Nature