Trial reportJournal of gastric cancer2025
Safety and Efficacy of Reduced-Port Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Early Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter, Randomized, Non-inferiority Trial (KLASS-12).
Trial report in Journal of gastric cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of textbook outcomes and postoperative pain trajectories between reduced-port and conventional robotic distal gastrectomy: a cumulative sum (CUSUM)-adjusted propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gastric Cancer.Cancers · 2026Review
- Comparison of the efficacy and safety of single-incision versus multi-port laparoscopic D2 lymphadenectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Single-port robotic gastrectomy in gastric cancer: a narrative review on the state of the art and outlook.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis trial (KLASS-12) compares the efficacy and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (RPLG) versus conventional 5-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (CPLG) for early gastric cancer (EGC). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial enrolled patients diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma (T1N0M0) at 15 university hospitals in Korea. Participants underwent RPLG or CPLG with at least D1+ lymph node dissection. The primary aim of this study was to verify the non-inferiority of RPLG to CPLG in terms of postoperative 30-day complications.
resultsFrom May 2022 to October 2023, 348 patients were randomly assigned to the RPLG and CPLG groups, with 174 patients in each group. After applying the exclusion criteria, 164 and 166 patients from the RPLG and CPLG groups, respectively, were analyzed. Complication rates were 10.4% and 9.2% for the RPLG and CPLG groups, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, and 10.4% vs. 7.2% in the per-protocol (PP) population. The risk difference was 0.012 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.051 to 0.075) in the ITT population and 0.031 (95% CI, -0.030 to 0.093) in the PP population. These findings verified the non-inferiority of RPLG to CPLG, with a 10% margin. Additionally, the pain score on postoperative day 5 was significantly lower in the RPLG group (1.6% vs. 1.8%; P=0.028). The 2 groups showed no significant differences in the lymph node yield, conversion rate, or length of hospital stay. RPLG was not an independent risk factor for complications.
conclusionsRPLG is a feasible and safe alternative for patients with EGC, and its short-term outcomes are not inferior to those of CPLG.
trial registrationClinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0006935.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.