Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic and open resections for gastric carcinoma

A comparison of postoperative outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy: a comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

The application of robot-assisted technology in gastric cancer surgery is gradually gaining attention from surgeons. In this meta-analysis, our main objective was to assess whether robot-assisted techniques are more advantageous than laparoscopic-assisted technology in total gastrectomy.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for clinical studies published before October 2023 comparing robotic-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for gastric cancer. Non-clinical studies, data unavailability, or fewer than 50 included cases were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias by determining the quality of the observational studies. Statistical meta-analysis and drawing were performed using the Software Review Manager version 5.3 and Stata version 16.0. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Nine studies that included 1,864 patients with gastric cancer were included, published between 2012 and 2023. The results of the analysis showed that RATG has advantages in the following aspects: intraoperative blood loss was 17.69 ml lower in the RATG group than in the LATG group (WMD: -17.69,95% CI:-20.90 ∼ -14.49; P < 0.05); In terms of the number of resected lymph nodes, the RATG group had 2.65 more than the LATG group (WMD: 2.65,95% CI:0.88 ∼ -4.42); P < 0.05); the time to start liquid and postoperative hospital stays were 0.62 and 0.90 days shorter in the RATG group than in the LATG group, respectively (WMD: -0.62,95%CI: -1.06 ∼ -0.19; P < 0.05), (WMD: -0.90,95%CI: -1.43 ∼ -0.37; P < 0.05)); the incidence of major complications and pancreas fistula in the RATG group was 0.59% and 0.17% lower than in the LATG group, respectively (OR: 0.59,95% CI: 0.38 ∼ 0.93; P < 0.05), (OR: 0.17,95% CI: 0.03 ∼ 0.94; P < 0.05). However, the analysis showed that the operative time in the RATG group was 30.96 min longer than in the LATG group (WMD: 30.96,95% CI: 21.24 ∼ 40.69; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this meta-analysis, we concluded that robotic-assisted technology may be a worthwhile technique to apply in the surgical treatment of total gastrectomy. However, this meta-analysis has the limitations that the included studies were all non-randomized controlled trials and published in Asian countries, and more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed for further validation in the future.

THE REGISTERED NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study protocol for this meta-analysis is registered on the PROSPERO website under registration number CRD42024500512.

Evaluating the Role of Robotic Surgery Gastric Cancer Treatment: A Comprehensive Review by the Robotic Global Surgical Society (TROGSS) and European Federation International Society for Digestive Surgery (EFISDS) Joint Working Group

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy (RAMIG) represents a significant advancement in the surgical management of gastric cancer, offering superior dexterity, enhanced visualization, and improved ergonomics compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). This review systematically evaluates the current evidence on perioperative outcomes, oncological efficacy, learning curves, and economic considerations, providing insights into RAMIG's potential role in modern gastric cancer surgery.

METHODS

A thorough analysis of retrospective, prospective, and meta-analytic studies was conducted to compare RAMIG with LG. Key outcomes, including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, lymph node retrieval, postoperative complications, learning curve duration, and cost-effectiveness, were assessed. Emphasis was placed on both short-term and long-term oncological outcomes to determine the clinical value of RAMIG.

RESULTS

Evidence indicates that RAMIG is associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity rates, and a shorter learning curve, with proficiency achieved after 11-25 cases compared to 40-60 cases for LG. The robotic platform's articulated instruments and enhanced three-dimensional visualization enable more precise lymphadenectomy, particularly in complex anatomical regions. Despite these advantages, operative time remains longer, and costs remain higher due to system acquisition, maintenance, and consumable expenses. However, emerging data suggest a gradual narrowing of cost disparities. While short-term outcomes are favorable, further high-quality, multicenter studies are needed to validate long-term oncological efficacy and survival outcomes.

CONCLUSION

RAMIG offers significant technical and clinical advantages over conventional LG, particularly in terms of precision and learning efficiency. However, the long-term oncological benefits and economic feasibility require further validation. Future research should focus on cost optimization, advanced technological integration such as near-infrared fluorescence and artificial intelligence, and multicenter trials to solidify RAMIG's role as a standard approach for gastric cancer surgery.

The Evolving Surgical Landscape: A Comprehensive Review of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer

Robotic gastrectomy has been gaining ground in the past 20 years. This study aims to (a) provide an updated and all-encompassing comprehensive review including post-operative outcomes, rate of complications, surgical efficiency and costs, pathology, overall survival, mortality and recurrence, and disease-free survival of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy, (b) report research gaps, and (c) identify ongoing or forthcoming clinical trials that could potentially shed light on underreported findings within the existing literature. Regarding the methodology, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses published between January 2012 and October 2023. ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for related clinical trials currently underway or recruiting. Robotic gastrectomy, when compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy, for the treatment of gastric cancer, performs equally well or shows superiority in terms of the length of hospitalization, overall complications rates, rate of conversion to open surgery, surgical complications, anastomotic leakage, pancreatic complications, blood loss, mortality rates, time to first flatus, time to oral intake, distal and proximal resection margins, recurrence rate, reoperation rates, and overall survival. However, it is associated with higher costs and longer operative time. Parameters such as duodenal stump leakage, anastomosis stenosis, intestinal obstruction, ileus, delayed gastric emptying, wound complications, acute pancreatitis, pancreatic fistula, direct costs, time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy, postoperative morbidity, recurrence, and disease-free survival are currently underreported in the literature and necessitate for further research. Lastly, four clinical trials are currently underway or recruiting that could possibly bridge the research gap.

Effects of the learning curve on operative time and lymph node harvesting during robotic gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is the fifth most frequent cancer globally. The introduction of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer aimed at reducing post-operative morbidity and hospital length of stay. Although the role of laparoscopic gastrectomy has been established, robotic gastric surgery has only recently gained popularity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate, with a multidimensional analysis, the learning curve of a single surgeon with extensive experience in laparoscopic gastrectomy.

METHODS

We prospectively collected data from 104 gastric cancer patients who underwent surgery with a robotic approach from June 2015 to June 2019 by a single surgeon. We performed 21 total gastrectomies (TGs) and 83 subtotal gastrectomies (STGs). A D2 lymphadenectomy was performed in all the patients. Proximal and distal resection margins were tumoour-free in all patients. There were no intraoperative complications, and no conversions occurred.

RESULTS

The plateau of the learning curve based on harvesting lymph nodes and operative time was not reached for TG. The learning curve of operative time for STG could be divided into three different phases: an early or learning phase from 1 to 27 cases, an intermediate or proficiency phase from 28 to 48 cases, and a late or mastery phase from 49 to 83 cases. The learning curve for harvesting lymph nodes was achieved after 41 cases in the STG group.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that robotic gastrectomy is a complex procedure with a significant multiphasic learning curve. Nevertheless, the robotic learning curve seems to be more rapid than that of conventional laparoscopy. Most importantly, our results suggest that the robotic technique can provide oncological adequacy in terms of lymph node harvesting even in the very first phase of the learning curve.

Open vs robotic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis on 1469 patients from the IMIGASTRIC prospective database

BACKGROUND

Comparative data on D2-robotic gastrectomy (RG) vs D2-open gastrectomy (OG) are lacking in the Literature. Aim of this paper is to compare RG to OG with a focus on D2-lymphadenectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Data of patients undergoing D2-OG or RG for gastric cancer were retrieved from the international IMIGASTRIC prospective database and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 1469 patients were selected for inclusion in the study. After 1:1 propensity score matching, a total of 580 patients were matched and included in the final analysis, 290 in each group, RG vs OG. RG had longer operation time (210 vs 330 min, p < 0.0001), reduced intraoperative blood loss (155 vs 119.7 ml, p < 0.0001), time to liquid diet (4.4 vs 3 days, p < 0.0001) and to peristalsis (2.4 vs 2 days, p < 0.0001), and length of postoperative stay (11 vs 8 days, p < 0.0001). Morbidity rate was higher in OG (24.1% vs 16.2%, p = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

RG significantly expedites recovery and reduces the risk of complications compared to OG. However, long-term survival is similar.

Fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in comparing laparoscopic versus robotic abdominopelvic surgeries

BACKGROUND

Utility of robotic over laparoscopic approach has been an area of debate across all surgical specialties over the past decade. The fragility index (FI) is a metric that evaluates the frailty of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) findings by altering the status of patients from an event to non-event until significance is lost. This study aims to evaluate the robustness of RCTs comparing laparoscopic and robotic abdominopelvic surgeries through the FI.

METHODS

A search was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE for RCTs with dichotomous outcomes comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery in general surgery, gynecology, and urology. The FI and reverse fragility Index (RFI) metrics were used to assess the strength of findings reported by RCTs, and bivariate correlation was conducted to analyze relationships between FI and trial characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 21 RCTs were included, with a median sample size of 89 participants (Interquartile range [IQR] 62-126). The median FI was 2 (IQR 0-15) and median RFI 5.5 (IQR 4-8.5). The median FI was 3 (IQR 1-15) for general surgery (n = 7), 2 (0.5-3.5) for gynecology (n = 4), and 0 (IQR 0-8.5) for urology RCTs (n = 4). Correlation was found between increasing FI and decreasing p-value, but not sample size, number of outcome events, journal impact factor, loss to follow-up, or risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

RCTs comparing laparoscopic and robotic abdominal surgery did not prove to be very robust. While possible advantages of robotic surgery may be emphasized, it remains novel and requires further concrete RCT data.

Current standards of surgical management of gastric cancer: an appraisal

PURPOSE

Gastric cancer (GC) is the fifth most common malignancy worldwide and portends a grim prognosis due to a lack of appreciable improvement in 5-year survival. We aimed to analyze the available literature and summarize the current standards of surgical care for curative and palliative intent treatment of GC.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on the PubMed database for studies on the management of GC.

RESULTS

Endoscopic resection is an acceptable treatment option for T1a tumors. The role of optimal resection margin for GC remains unclear. D2 lymph node dissection remains the standard of care with splenectomy needed selectively for splenic hilum involvement. A distal pancreatic resection should be avoided. The advantage of bursectomy and omentectomy in GC surgery is not clear. Multi-visceral resection may be considered for locally advanced GC in carefully selected patients. Minimally invasive approaches are non-inferior to open surgery. Surgery should be abandoned prior even in metastatic GC within the frame of multimodal therapy approach.

CONCLUSION

Various trials have conclusively shown improved patient outcomes when well-established surgical standards are followed.

The application of enhanced recovery after surgery in minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for patients with gastric cancer undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS).

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, VIP, WanFang, and CBM for relevant RCTs from the database inception until December 2021, for studies that compared the ERAS and traditional care (TC) in MIS for gastric cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 25 RCTs comprising 2809 patients were included in this study. When compared with the traditional care TC group, the ERAS group had a shorter postoperative hospital stay [MD = -1.88,95%CI (-2.22, -1.55), P < 0.00001] and an earlier time at first postoperative flatus [MD = -18.12,95%CI (-21.45,-14.80), P < 0.00001] along with lower medical costs [SMD = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.85, -0.43), P < 0.00001] and an overall reduction in postoperative complication rates [RR = 0.55, 95% CI (0.44, 0.69), P < 0.00001]. However, the difference in the readmission rates    was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS can shorten the postoperative hospital stay, hasten the first postoperative flatus and reduce medical costs and overall postoperative complication rate without increasing readmission rates. Therefore, the ERAS protocol is preferable for gastric cancer patients undergoing MIS.

Robot-Assisted Surgery in Gynecology

The advancement of robotics-based procedures in the medical industry is the subject of this review article. The purpose of the surgical robot is to increase surgical abilities and address human shortcomings. The robot's success has been predicated on its ability to accurately and consistently repeat tasks. The following are a few objectives and quantifiable benefits of robotic technology improving surgical maneuverability and physical capabilities. In 2005, the FDA granted gynecological surgery approval for the Da Vinci surgical system. It has been quickly embraced and has already taken on a significant role at many of the locations where it is offered. It consists of a cart with robotic branches next to the patient and a high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) vision system. This study covers laparoscopy via robots in benign gynecological surgeries, myomectomy surgery, hysterectomies, endometriosis, tubal anastomosis, and sacrocolpopexy. The appropriate published studies were evaluated after a PubMed search was conducted. Additionally, procedures that may be used in the future are highlighted. In benign gynecological illness, most currently available research does not show a substantial benefit over traditional laparoscopic surgery. Robotics, however, does provide help in more complicated operations. Compared to laparoscopy, robotic assistance has a lower conversion rate to open procedures. Endo wrist movement of an automated machine during myomectomy surgery can perform proper and better suturing than traditional laparoscopy. The automated program is a noticeable improvement over laparoscopic surgery and, if price issues are resolved, can gain popularity among gynecological surgeons around the globe.

The impact of robotic technology on the learning curve for robot-assisted gastrectomy in the initial clinical application stage

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of robotic technology on the learning curve for robot-assisted gastrectomy in the initial clinical application stage and to compare RAG with laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy using a short-term evaluation.

METHODS

Between September 2016 and December 2018, 111 consecutive distal gastric cancer patients who were candidates for RAG or LAG were prospectively enrolled. Operative findings, morbidity, oncological findings, and the learning curve were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients underwent RAG with the da Vinci Si robot system, and eighty-one patients underwent LAG. Blood loss was lower during RAG than during LAG (133.80 ± 95.28 vs. 178.83 ± 98.37, P = 0.046). The operative time for RAG was significantly longer (304.45 ± 42.08 vs. 281.17 ± 32.69, P = 0.015). The number of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) was greater (37.33 ± 8.25 vs. 32.78 ± 5.98, P = 0.003) with RAG. Notably, RAG had an advantage in the dissection of No. 9 and 11p LNs (3.56 ± 1.76 vs. 2.78 ± 1.30, P = 0.038; 2.48 ± 0.93 vs. 1.99 ± 0.84, P = 0.015, respectively). Severe complications were less frequent in the RAG group (7 (8.6%) vs. 1 (3.3%), P = 0.003). No significant differences in terms of postoperative recovery were found between the two groups. The learning curve for RAG showed that the cumulative sum value decreased from the 10th case, while it decreased from the 28th case in the LAG group.

CONCLUSION

By means of robotic technology, RAG is better than LAG for the dissection of No. 9 and 11p LNs and for the alleviation of surgical trauma, and the technique is learned more rapidly during the preliminary stage than the LAG technique.

Laparoscopic vs. Open Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Case-Control Study

Introduction: Minimally invasive surgery has been increasingly used in the treatment of gastric cancer. While laparoscopic gastrectomy has become standard therapy for early-stage gastric cancer, especially in Asian countries, the use of minimally invasive techniques has not attained the same widespread acceptance for the treatment of more advanced tumours, principally due to existing concerns about its feasibility and oncological adequacy. We aimed to examine the safety and oncological effectiveness of laparoscopic technique with radical intent for the treatment of patients with locally advanced gastric cancer by comparing short-term surgical and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy at two Western regional institutions. Methods: The trial was designed as a retrospective comparative matched case-control study for postoperative pathological diagnoses of locally advanced gastric carcinoma. Between January 2015 and September 2021, 120 consecutive patients who underwent curative-intent laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection were retrospectively recruited and compared with 120 patients who received open gastrectomy. In order to obtain a comparison that was as homogeneous as possible, the equal control group of pairing (1:1) patients submitted to open gastrectomy who matched those of the laparoscopic group was statistically generated by using a propensity matched score method. The following potential confounder factors were aligned: age, gender, Body Mass Index (BMI), comorbidity, ASA, adjuvant therapy, tumour location, type of gastrectomy, and pT stage. Patient demographics, operative findings, pathologic characteristics, and short-term outcomes were analyzed. Results: In the case-control study, the two groups were clearly comparable with respect to matched variables, as was expected given the intentional primary selective criteria. No statistically significant differences were revealed in overall complications (16.7% vs. 20.8%, p = 0.489), rate of reoperation (3.3% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.714), and mortality (4.2% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.987) within 30 days. Pulmonary infection and wound complications were observed more frequently in the OG group (0.8% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.01, for each of these two categories). Anastomotic and duodenal stump leakage occurred in 5.8% of the patients after laparoscopic gastrectomy and in 3.3% after open procedure (p = 0.072). The laparoscopic approach was associated with a significantly longer operative time (212 vs. 192 min, p < 0.05) but shorter postoperative length of stay (9.1 vs. 11.6 days, p < 0.001). The mean number of resected lymph nodes after D2 dissection (31.4 vs. 33.3, p = 0.134) and clearance of surgical margins (97.5% vs. 95.8%, p = 0.432) were equivalent between the groups. Conclusion: Laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 nodal dissection appears to be safe and feasible in terms of perioperative morbidity for locally advanced gastric cancer, with comparable oncological equivalency with respect to traditional open surgery.

AI in healthcare: A narrative review

In this paper, we focus on providing a narrative review of healthcare services in which artificial intelligence (AI) based services are used as part of the operations and analyze key elements to create successful AI-based services for healthcare. The benefits of AI in healthcare are measured by how AI is improving the healthcare outcomes, help caregivers in work, and reducing healthcare costs. AI market in healthcare sector have also a high market potential with 28% global compound annual growth rate. This paper will collect outcomes from multiple perspectives of healthcare sector including financial, health improvement, and care outcome as well as provide proposals and key factors for successful implementation of AI methods in healthcare. It is shown in this paper that AI implementation in healthcare can provide cost reduction and same time provide better health outcome for all.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

An umbrella review was performed to summarize literature data and to investigate benefits and harm of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared to laparoscopic (LG) approach. To overcome the intrinsic limitations of laparoscopy, the robotic approach is claimed to facilitate lymph-node dissection and complex reconstruction after gastrectomy, to assure oncologic safety also in advanced gastric cancer. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases for all meta-analyses published up to December 2019. The search strategy was previously published in a protocol. We selected fourteen meta-analyses comparing outcomes between LG and RG with curative intent in patients with diagnosis of resectable gastric cancer. We highlight that RG has a longer operation time, inferior blood loss, reduction in hospital stay and a more rapid recovery of bowel function. In meta-analyses with statistical significance the number of nodes removed in RG is higher than LG and the distal margin of resection is higher. There is no difference in terms of total complication rate, mortality, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis, intestinal obstruction and in conversion rate to open technique. The safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy are not clearly supported by strong evidence, suggesting that the outcomes reported for each surgical technique need to be interpreted with caution, in particular for the meta-analyses in which the heterogeneity is large. Certainly, robotic gastrectomy is associated with shorter time to oral intake, lesser intraoperative bleeding and longer operation time with an acceptable level of evidence. On the other hand, the data regarding other outcomes are insufficient as well as non-significant, from an evidence point of view, to draw any robust conclusion.

Challenges in improving the minimal invasiveness of the surgical treatment for gastric cancer using robotic technology

The number of operations performed using the da Vinci Surgical System® (DVSS) has been increasing worldwide in the past decade. We introduced robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC) in January 2009 to overcome the disadvantage of conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy. Initially, we experienced some troubles in the technical aspect and cost of robotic surgery. After extensive trial and error, we were able to develop the "double bipolar method" and the "da Vinci's plane theory" to use DVSS effectively. We then conducted "Senshiniryo B," which was a multi-institutional prospective single-arm study to determine the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy for GC in 2014. In that study, we demonstrated that the morbidity rate in the robotic group (2.45%) was significantly lower than that in the historical control group (6.4%). As a consequence of that clinical trial, 12 procedures, including robotic gastrectomy for GC, have been covered under the Japanese national insurance in 2018. An additional seven procedures were newly covered in April 2020. In the first half of this article, we describe the history of robotic surgery in the world and Japan and demonstrate the "double bipolar method" and "da Vinci's plane theory." In the latter half, we explain the Japanese systems for the safe dissemination of robotic surgery and state our efforts to solve some problems in robotic surgery.

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for gastric cancer in Turkish population

Objective: In this study, it was aimed to compare short-term outcomes of minimally invasive and open surgery for gastric cancer in the Turkish population carrying both European and Asian characteristics.

Material and Methods: Short-term (30-day) outcomes of the patients undergoing minimally invasive and open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenec- tomy for gastric adenocarcinoma between January 2013 and December 2017 were compared. Patient demographics, history of previous abdominal surgery, comorbidities, short-term perioperative outcomes and histopathological results were evaluated between the study groups.

Results: There were a total of 179 patients. Fifty (28%) patients underwent minimally invasive [laparoscopic (n= 19) and robotic (n= 31)] and 129 (72%) patients underwent open surgery. There were no differences between the two groups in terms of age, sex, body mass index and ASA scores. While operative time was significantly longer in the minimally invasive surgery group (p< 0.0001), length of hospital stay and operative morbidity were com- parable between the groups.

Conclusion: While both laparoscopic and robotic surgery is safe and feasible in terms of short-term outcomes in selected patients, long operating time and increased cost are the major drawbacks of the robotic technique preventing its widespread use.

Reduction in postoperative complications by robotic surgery: a case-control study of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer

Background

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is being increasingly performed globally; it is considered an evolved type of conventional laparoscopic surgery with excellent dexterity and precision, but higher costs and longer operation time. Thus, there is a need to identify the benefits from RG and its specific candidates.

Methods

This retrospective study analyzed data from a prospectively collected clinical database at our center. Data of patients with primary gastric cancer undergoing either robotic or laparoscopic radical gastrectomy from June 2014 to June 2020 were reviewed. Surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups, and multivariable analyses were performed to elucidate the relevant factors for postoperative complications in several subgroups.

Results

A total of 1172 patients were divided into those who underwent RG (n = 152) and those who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) (n = 1020). Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups, except the RG group included more patients undergoing total/proximal gastrectomy (TG/PG) and patients at clinical stage III. Compared with the LG group, the RG group had lower incidences of postoperative complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade III (2/152 (1.3%) versus 72/1020 (7.1%); P = 0.004), and intraabdominal complications ≥ grade II (6/152 (3.9%) versus 119/1020 (11.7%); P = 0.004). Multivariable analysis revealed that RG was a significant relevant factor for reducing overall postoperative complications (≥ grade III) (odds ratio (OR) 0.16, P = 0.013), and intraabdominal complications (≥ grade II) (OR 0.29, P = 0.002). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that this tendency was enhanced in patients undergoing TG/PG (OR 0.29, P = 0.021) or at clinical stage II/III (OR 0.10, P = 0.027).

Conclusions

RG reduces the incidence of postoperative complications compared with conventional LG and this tendency may be enhanced in technically complicated procedures with demanding anastomosis or D2 lymphadenectomy. Patients requiring such procedures would most benefit from RG.

Identification of Inertial Parameters for Position and Force Control of Surgical Assistance Robots

Surgeries or rehabilitation exercises are hazardous tasks for a mechanical system, as the device has to interact with parts of the human body without the hands-on experience that the surgeon or physiotherapist acquires over time. For various gynecological laparoscopic surgeries, such as laparoscopic hysterectomy or laparoscopic pelvic endometriosis, Uterine Manipulators are used. These medical devices allow the uterus to be suitably mobilized. A gap needs to be filled in terms of the precise handling of this type of devices. In this sense, this manuscript first describes the mathematical procedure to identify the inertial parameters of uterine manipulators. These parameters are needed to establish an accurate position and force control for an electromechanical system to assist surgical operations. The method for identifying the mass and the center of mass of the manipulator is based on the solution of the equations for the static equilibrium of rigid solids. Based on the manipulator inertial parameter estimation, the paper shows how the force exerted by the manipulator can be obtained. For this purpose, it solves a matrix system composed of the torques and forces of the manipulator. Different manipulators have been used, and it has been verified that the mathematical procedures proposed in this work allow us to calculate in an accurate and efficient way the force exerted by these manipulators.

Robotic gastric surgery: a monocentric case series and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

The technical complexity of D2 lymphadenectomy and esophago-jejunal anastomosis are the main factors that limit the application of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer. Robotic assisted gastric surgery provides potential technical advantages over conventional laparoscopy but an improvement in clinical outcomes after robotic surgery has not been demonstrated yet.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Data from 128 consecutive patients who had undergone robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer at our center institution from April 2017 to June 2020 where retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively updated database. A narrative review was then carried out on PubMed, Embase and Scopus using the following keywords: "gastric cancer," "robotic surgery," "robotic gastrectomy" and "robotic gastric surgery".

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Ninety-eight patients underwent robotic distal gastrectomy and 30 underwent robotic total gastrectomy. The mean value of estimated blood loss was 99.5 ml. No patients required conversion to laparoscopy or open surgery. The median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 42. No tumor involvement of the proximal or distal margin was found in any patient. The median time to first flatus and first oral feeding was on postoperative day 3 and 5, respectively. We registered 6 leakages (4.6%), namely, 1 duodenal stump leakage and 5 anastomotic leakages. No 30-day surgical related mortality was recorded. The median length of hospital stay was 10.5 days (range 4-37).

CONCLUSIONS

Published data and our experience suggest that the robotic approach for gastric cancer is safe and feasible with potential advantages over conventional laparoscopy.

Current status of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy

Robotic systems were developed to overcome limitations of laparoscopic surgery with its mechanical advantages. Along with the technical advances, robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer is increasing. However, the evidence regarding safety and efficacy for robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer is not mature yet. Although studies are limited, it is evident that robotic gastrectomy has a longer operation and less blood loss compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy. Studies revealed long-term oncological outcomes after robotic gastrectomy was comparable to those after laparoscopic gastrectomy. Taken together, robotic gastrectomy with systemic lymph node dissection is suggested as a safe procedure with equivalent short- and long-term oncologic outcomes to either laparoscopic or open gastrectomy for the surgical treatment of gastric cancer. However, high cost is the most significant barrier to justify robotic surgery as a routine and standard treatment for patients with gastric cancer. In the meanwhile, robotic surgery will be expansively used as long as technologic developments continue.

Current perspectives on the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted surgery for gastric cancer

INTRODUCTION

Robotic gastrectomy is performed worldwide as part of the treatment for gastric cancer and is associated with good clinical outcome. This review aims to describe the current issues, debates, and future directions associated with the use of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

AREA COVERED

Here, we review the current evidence surrounding the safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy, including our institutional experience. Current issues associated with robotic gastrectomy, including feasibility, perioperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes, are described.

EXPERT OPINION

Sophisticated movements, articulating instruments, and the rapid introduction of fast-developing novel technology make robotic gastrectomy use more frequent. However, the need for well-designed prospective randomized trials is warranted.

Should robotic gastrectomy become a standard surgical treatment option for gastric cancer?

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) using the da Vinci Surgical System for gastric cancer was approved for national medical insurance coverage in Japan in April, 2018, and has been used increasingly since. We reviewed the current evidence on RG, open gastrectomy (OG), and conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) to identify differences in surgical outcomes between Japan and other countries. Briefly, three independent reviewers systematically reviewed the data collected from a comprehensive literature search by an independent organization and focused on the following nine endpoints: mortality, morbidity, operative time, estimated volume of blood loss, length of postoperative hospital stay, long-term oncologic outcome, quality of life, learning curve, and cost. Overall, the mortality rate of the three approaches did not differ, but RG and LG had less intraoperative blood loss and resulted in a shorter postoperative hospital stay than OG. RG had longer operative times and incurred higher costs than LG and OG. However, in Japan, RG may be more effective than LG and OG for decreasing morbidity. Further studies are needed to establish the specific indications for RG, optimal robotic setup, and dissection methods to best utilize the surgical robot.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: The largest meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been increasingly used in the treatment of gastric cancer (GC). Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has shown several advantages over open surgery in dealing with GC, although it is still considered a demanding procedure. Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is now being employed with increased frequency worldwide and has been reported to overcome some limitations of conventional LG. The aim of this updated meta-analysis is to compare surgical and oncological outcomes of RG versus LG for gastric cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane library database of published studies comparing RG and LG up to March 2020. The evaluated end-points were intra-operative, post-operative and oncological outcomes. Dichotomous data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) and continuous data were calculated by mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and a random-effect model was always applied.

RESULTS

Forty retrospective studies describing 17,712 patients met the inclusion criteria. With respect to surgical outcomes, robotic compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy was associated with higher operating time [MD 44.73, (95%CI 36.01, 53.45) p < 0.00001] and less intraoperative blood loss [MD -18.24, (95%CI -25.21, -11.26) p < 0.00001] and lower rate of surgical complication in terms of Dindo-Clavien ≥ 3 classification [OR 0.66, (95%CI 0.49, 0.88) p = 0.005]. With respect to oncological outcomes, the RG group showed a significantly increased mean number of retrieved lymph nodes [MD 1.84, (95%CI 0.84, 2.84) p = 0.0003], but mean proximal and distal resection margin distance and the recurrence rate were not significantly different between the two approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

With respect to safety, technical feasibility and oncological adequacy, robotic and laparoscopic groups were comparable, although the robotic approach seems to achieve better short-term surgical outcomes. Moreover, a higher rate of retrieved lymph nodes was observed in the RG group.

Long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for clinical stage I gastric cancer: a single-center prospective phase II study

INTRODUCTION

The outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer remain unclear due to a lack of prospective studies. We had previously designed and conducted a prospective phase II study of RG that showed favorable short-term outcomes. Herein, we aimed to determine the long-term outcomes of RG for clinical stage I gastric cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This single-center, prospective phase II study enrolled patients with clinical stage I gastric cancer undergoing RG. The survival outcomes, which were the secondary endpoints of the study, were evaluated.

RESULTS

Between December 2012 and April 2015, 120 patients were enrolled in this study. The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91.5-98.7%). The 5-year recurrence-free (RFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) rates were 96.7% (95% CI 91.5-98.7%) and 99.2% (95% CI 94.3-99.9%), respectively. When confining the analysis to distal and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy, the 5-year OS, RFS, and DSS were 98.1% (95% CI 92.7-99.5%), 98.1% (95% CI 92.7-99.5%), and 100%, respectively. Only one patient died due to relapse of gastric cancer, while three died from other causes.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term outcomes of RG was comparable to those of open and laparoscopic gastrectomy when the surgeries were performed by experienced surgeons in a high-volume center.

Short-term outcomes of robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted Total Gastrectomy for advanced gastric Cancer: a propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have been designed to evaluate the short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) and laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The purpose of this study was to assess the short-term outcomes of RATG compared with LATG for AGC.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 126 and 257 patients who underwent RATG or LATG, respectively. In addition, we performed propensity score matching (PSM) analysis between RATG and LATG for clinicopathological characteristics to reduce bias and compared short-term surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

After PSM, the RATG group had a longer mean operation time (291.14 ± 59.18 vs. 270.34 ± 52.22 min, p = 0.003), less intraoperative bleeding (154.37 ± 89.68 vs. 183.77 ± 95.39 ml, p = 0.004) and more N2 tier RLNs (9.07 ± 5.34 vs. 7.56 ± 4.50, p = 0.016) than the LATG group. Additionally, the total RLNs of the RATG group were almost significantly different compared to that of the LATG group (34.90 ± 13.05 vs. 31.91 ± 12.46, p = 0.065). Moreover, no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of the length of incision, proximal resection margin, distal resection margin, residual disease and postoperative hospital stay. There was no significant difference in the overall complication rate between the RATG and LATG groups after PSM (23.8% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.390). Grade II complications accounted for most of the complications in the two cohorts after PSM. The conversion rates were 4.55 and 8.54% in the RATG and LATG groups, respectively, with no significant difference (p = 0.145), and the ratio of splenectomy were 1.59 and 0.39% (p = 0.253). The mortality rates were 0.8 and 0.4% for the RATG and LATG groups, respectively (p = 1.000).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that RATG is comparable to LATG in terms of short-term surgical outcomes.

Trends of robotic-assisted surgery for thyroid, colorectal, stomach and hepatopancreaticobiliary cancer: 10 year Korea trend investigation

BACKGROUND

The current position of robotic surgery in the field of minimally invasive surgery remains ambiguous. We evaluated long-term trends of robotic general surgery and the future direction of its development.

METHODS

Data on robotic cancer surgeries between 2005 and 2014 were retrospectively collected by volunteer institutions in the Republic of Korea. Spearman's correlation and logistic regression analyses were used to compare robotic and laparoscopic surgery trends in general surgery.

RESULTS

The odds that robotic surgery was performed instead of laparoscopic surgery significantly decreased in the fields of colorectal, stomach, and hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery (odds ratio [OR]: 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-0.97; OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.88-0.92; and OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.65-0.78, respectively), except for thyroid surgery (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.25-1.30). Of the total numbers of each procedure, proportions of robotic intersphincteric resections, abdominoperineal resections, and pylorus-preserving surgery performed significantly increased (r = 0.98, P < .001; r = 0.78, P = .01; and r = 0.86, P = .007, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of robotic surgery failed to preponderate that of laparoscopic surgery, except for thyroid surgery. Robotic surgery is increasingly preferred for limited fields or complex surgeries, but the use of robotics in simple surgeries has decreased.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: an overview of systematic reviews with quality assessment of current evidence

Many systematic reviews have been published to evaluate the clinical benefits of robotic surgery for gastric cancer. However, these reviews have investigated various outcomes and differ considerably in quality. In this overview, we summarize the findings and quality of these reviews. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses that compared robotic surgery with laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer. We summarized the results of the meta-analyses and evaluated the quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR-2 tool. The literature search identified 14 eligible reviews. The reviews showed that estimated blood loss was significantly less and time to resumption of oral intake was significantly shorter in patients who underwent robotic surgery than in those who underwent laparoscopic surgery. However, no significant differences in other outcomes were found between the two types of surgery. The quality of the included reviews was judged to be critically low. In conclusion, the available evidence, albeit of critically low quality, suggests that robotic surgery decreases estimated blood loss and shortens the time to resumption of oral intake in patients with gastric cancer. There is currently no high-quality evidence that robotic surgery has clinical benefits for gastric cancer patients.

[Minimally invasive and robotic-assisted surgical management of upper gastrointestinal cancer]

Total minimally invasive upper gastrointestinal resections are currently mainly performed in centers. The advantages include reduction of operative trauma, magnified enlargement of the operation field and the resulting improvement in operative precision. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) and laparoscopic/thoracoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) are currently the most commonly performed strategies for esophageal cancer. Laparoscopic (MIG) and robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) are the equivalent procedures for gastric cancer. Due to the relatively low number of reported cases, no definitive statement regarding superiority of these procedures compared to standard open or hybrid procedures can be made; however, there is mounting evidence from high-volume centers in which these procedures are routinely performed that there might be an advantage regarding perioperative morbidity. All of the four procedures described are provided at our high-volume centers in a standardized manner and we are convinced of the benefits of these minimally invasive techniques with respect to morbidity compared to open and hybrid techniques. The additional costs of this technology have to be off-set against a possible reduction of morbidity, reduced cost for personnel and new operative options, such as real-time fluoroscopy.

Clinical advantages of robotic gastrectomy for clinical stage I/II gastric cancer: a multi-institutional prospective single-arm study

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer (GC) has been increasingly performed for a decade; however, evidence for its use as a standard treatment has not yet been established. The present study aimed to determine the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of RG for GC.

METHODS

This multi-institutional, single-arm prospective study, which included 330 patients from 15 institutions, was designed to compare morbidity rate of RG with that of a historical control (conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy, LG). This trial was approved for Advanced Medical Technology ("Senshiniryo") B. The included patients were operable patients with cStage I/II GC. The primary endpoint was morbidity (Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ IIIa). The specific hypothesis was that RG could reduce the morbidity rate to less than half of that with LG (6.4%). A sample size of 330 was considered sufficient (one-sided alpha 0.05, power 80%).

RESULTS

Among the 330 study patients, the protocol treatment was suspended in 4 patients. Thus, 326 patients fully enrolled and completed the study. The median patient age and BMI were 66 years and 22.4 kg/m2, respectively. Distal gastrectomy was performed in 253 (77.6%) patients. The median operative time and estimated blood loss were 313 min and 20 mL, respectively. No 30-day mortality was seen, and morbidity showed a significant reduction to 2.45% with RG (p = 0.0018).

CONCLUSIONS

RG for cStage I/II GC is safe and feasible. It may be effective in reducing morbidity with LG.

Robot-Assisted Total Gastrectomy: Preliminary Evaluation

Background: Laparoscopic total gastrectomy with extended lymphadenectomy is a technically demanding surgical procedure with steep learning curve that has limited its widespread use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the robotic approach in total gastrectomy for cancer. We present our experience of 17 consecutive patients who underwent robotic total gastrectomy with intracorporal sutured Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy and jejuno jejunostomy between 2014 and 2017. Methods: Data were collected, and patients' demographics and outcomes were examined retrospectively. Results: Seventeen patients with a median age of 68 years (range 32-81) were identified (10 males, 7 females). Mean operative time was 198 minutes (range 108-277) including mean anastomosis time of 25 minutes (range 18-35). There was no conversion to open surgery or requirement for perioperative blood transfusion. Median length of hospital stay was 9 days (range 2-30). Two patients developed postoperative complications including one anastomotic leakage treated conservatively and one internal hernia requiring surgical revision. There was no 90-day mortality or readmission. Conclusion: Robot-assisted total gastrectomy is feasible and reproducible. It overcomes several laparoscopic technical difficulties especially regarding anastomosis. It has the potential to become an alternative to open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Nevertheless, further follow-up and randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate mid-term and long-term outcomes of this approach.

Robotic total gastrectomy with π-shaped esophagojejunostomy using a linear stapler as a novel technique

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes of a novel robotic intracorporeal π-shaped esophagojejunostomy (EJS) after D2 total gastrectomy (TG) using the Da Vinci robotic surgical system for intracorporeal anastomosis after TG.

BACKGROUND

Intracorporeal π-shaped EJS, using a linear stapler, was recently reported for laparoscopic total gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer. However, robotic intracorporeal π-shaped EJS using a linear stapler has not been reported. This report aimed to describe the use of a novel technique for π-shaped EJS using the Da Vinci robotic system.

METHODS

Robotic intracorporeal π-shaped esophagojejunostomy after total gastrectomy was performed in 11 consecutive patients diagnosed with early gastric cancer, and their perioperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

All the operations were successful without conversion to open or laparoscopic surgery and postoperative complications. The total number of patients was 11 (7 males and 4 females). The mean age of the patients was 63.36 ± 10.56 years old. Seven patients were diagnosed with cardia cancer, 3 patients were diagnosed with gastric body cancer, and 1 patient was diagnosed with gastric antrum cancer. The patients' mean proximal resection margin was 3.18 ± 1.17 cm, the distal resection margin was 6.18 ± 1.40 cm, the mean length of the incision was 4.55 ± 0.69 cm, the mean operative time was 287.27 ± 30.69 min, the mean day of first flatus was 3.27 ± 0.79 days, the mean day of the start of diet was 2.91 ± 0.94 days, the mean postoperative hospital stay was 11.45 ± 5.13 days, and the mean operative blood loss was 47.27 ± 31.33 ml. No complications were observed during anastomosis, and the median anastomosis time was 19.5 min. The mean number of lymph node dissections was 17.91 ± 4.59, the mean number of positive lymph nodes was 0.45 ± 0.69, all patients were diagnosed with stage I-II gastric cancer, and the mean maximum diameter of the tumor was 2.67 ± 1.30 cm. All the patients had a smooth hospital discharge.

CONCLUSION

A novel robotic gastrectomy with intracorporeal π-shaped EJS for esophagojejunal anastomosis described and shows acceptable resulted. This technique has the potential to offer better short-term surgical outcomes and overcomes the drawbacks of laparoscopy with a decreased risk of complications during and after surgery.

Minimally invasive and open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to find the better treatment for gastric cancer by comparing robotic gastrectomy, laparoscopic gastrectomy, and open gastrectomy using Bayesian network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We will search PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for eligible studies published before 1 September 2018. There will be no language restrictions. Randomized clinical trials that compare robotic gastrectomy, laparoscopic gastrectomy, or open gastrectomy for patients with gastric cancer will be included. The risk of bias of included studies will be assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trial. The outcomes of the study include operation time, estimated blood loss, time of ambulation, times to first flatus, time of oral intake, hospitalization, and the occurrence of complication. If sufficient data is collected and adequate clinical homogeneity is established among studies, we will conduct pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses for all related outcome measures.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study does not involve human subjects and does not need ethical approval and patient consent. The results of the network meta-analysis will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

Comparison of surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic and open resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) has been developed with the aim of improving surgical quality and overcoming the limitations of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic resections. A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China Biology Medicine databases up to December 2016 for studies that compared the surgical outcomes of RADP vs. LDP or ODP for pancreatic resections. The weighted mean differences, odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and the data were combined using the random-effects model. The GRADE system was used to interpret the primary outcomes of this meta-analysis. A total of seventeen non-randomized observational clinical studies involving 2133 patients satisfied the eligibility criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with a longer operative time (P = 0.018), a shorter hospital length of stay (P = 0.030), and a higher rate of spleen preservation (P = 0.022). Moreover, RADP was associated with a shorter hospital LOS (P = 0.014) and a lower total complication rate (P = 0.034) than ODP. We found no statistically significant differences between the techniques in the mean estimated blood loss, severe complication rate, incidence of total pancreatic fistulas or incidence of severe pancreatic fistulas. The overall quality of evidence was poor for all outcomes. This meta-analysis indicates that RADP may be safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP and ODP. Further RCTs are needed to confirm the outcomes of this meta-analysis.

Robotic surgery for the upper gastrointestinal tract: Current status and future perspectives

More than 4000 da Vinci Surgical Systems have been installed worldwide. Robotic surgery using the da Vinci Surgical System has been increasingly performed in the last decade, especially in urology and gynecology. The da Vinci Surgical System has not become standard in surgery of the upper gastrointestinal tract because of a lack of clear benefits in comparison with conventional minimally invasive surgery. We initiated robotic gastrectomy and esophagectomy for patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer in 2009, and we have demonstrated the potential advantages of the da Vinci Surgical System in reducing postoperative local complications after gastrectomy and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy after esophagectomy. However, robotic surgery has the disadvantages of a longer operative time and higher costs than the conventional approach. In this review article, we present the current status of robotic surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, as well as future perspectives on this approach, based on our experience and a review of the literature.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy in obese gastric cancer patients: a comparative study with non-obese patients and evaluation of difference in laparoscopic methods

Background

Obesity is a growing epidemic around the world, and obese patients are generally regarded as high risk for surgery compared with normal weight patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of obesity on the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer.

Methods

We reviewed data for all patients undergoing LG for gastric cancer at our institute between October 2004 and December 2016. Patients were divided into non-obese and obese groups and the perioperative outcomes were compared. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate which of the two commonly used methods of LG, laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) and totally laparoscopic gastrectomy (TLG), is more suitable for obese patients.

Results

A total of 1691 patients, 1255 non-obese and 436 obese or overweight patients, underwent LG during the study period. The mean operation time was significantly longer in the obese group than in the non-obese group (209.9 ± 29.7 vs. 227.2 ± 25.7 min, P < 0.01), and intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the non-obese group (113.4 ± 34.1 vs. 136.9 ± 36.7 ml, P < 0.01). Time to first flatus, time to oral intake, and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the non-obese group than in the obese group (3.3 ± 0.8 vs. 3.6 ± 0.9 days; 4.3 ± 1.0 vs. 4.6 ± 1.0 days; and 9.0 ± 2.2 vs. 9.6 ± 2.2 days, respectively; P < 0.01). 119 (9.5%) of the non-obese patients had postoperative complications as compared to 44 (10.1%) of the obese patients (P = 0.71). In the subgroup analysis of all patients, TLG showed improved results for early surgical outcomes compared to LAG, mainly due to its advantages in obese patients.

Conclusions

Obesity is associated with long operation time, increased blood loss, and slow recovery after laparoscopic gastric resection but does not affect intraoperative security or effectiveness. TLG may have less negative results in obese patients than LAG due to a variety of reasons. Our analysis shows that TLG is more advantageous, with regard to early surgical outcomes, for obese patients.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the potential effectiveness of robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) in comparison to open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was carried out to identify studies comparing RAG and OG in gastric cancer. Participants of any age and sex were considered for inclusion in comparative studies of the two techniques independently from type of gastrectomy. A meta-analysis of short-term perioperative outcomes was performed to evaluate whether RAG is equivalent to OG. The primary outcome measures were set for estimated blood loss, operative time, conversion rate, morbidity, and hospital stay. Secondary among postoperative complications, wound infection, bleeding and anastomotic leakage were also analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 6 articles, 5 retrospective and 1 randomized controlled study, involving 6123 patients overall, with 689 (11.3%) cases submitted to RAG and 5434 (88.7%) to OG, satisfied the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. RAG was associated with longer operation time than OG (weighted mean difference 72.20 min; P < 0.001), but with reduction in blood loss and shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference -166.83 mL and -1.97 d respectively; P < 0.001). No differences were found with respect to overall postoperative complications (P = 0.65), wound infection (P = 0.35), bleeding (P = 0.65), and anastomotic leakage (P = 0.06). The postoperative mortality rates were similar between the two groups. With respect to oncological outcomes, no statistical differences among the number of harvested lymph nodes were found (weighted mean difference -1.12; P = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

RAG seems to be a technically valid alternative to OG for performing radical gastrectomy in gastric cancer resulting in safe complications.

Gastric cancer treatment: similarity and difference between China and Korea

Chinese populations have many demographic similarities to Korean populations. However, the long-term survival rates of gastric cancer patients in China are still not satisfactory when compared with Korea, especially for the advanced cases. In this article, we discuss about the similarity and difference of gastric cancer treatment in terms of screening, surgical approach, stomach resection, digestive tract reconstruction, lymphadenectomy, harvested lymph nodes, operative morbidity and mortality, postoperative chemotherapy as well as follow-up between China and Korea. Given that a variety of factors ranging from tumor characteristics to different treatment strategies are seen between the two countries, the reasons accounting for the differences in survival should be focused and the corresponding strategy should be considered and finally promote to improve the prognosis of gastric cancer.

Surgical Outcomes After Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

In contrast to the significant advantages of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy, robotic gastrectomy has shown little benefit over laparoscopic gastrectomy. This study aimed to compare multi-dimensional aspects of surgical outcomes after open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy.

METHODS

Data from 915 gastric cancer patients who underwent gastrectomy by one surgeon between March 2009 and May 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative parameters were analyzed for short-term outcomes. Surgical success was defined as the absence of conversion to open surgery, major complications, readmission, positive resection margin, or fewer than 16 retrieved lymph nodes.

RESULTS

This study investigated 241 patients undergoing open gastrectomy, 511 patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy, and 173 patients undergoing robotic gastrectomy. For each approach, the respective incidences were as follows: conversion to open surgery (not applicable, 0.4%, and 0%; p = 0.444), in-hospital major complications (5.8, 2.7, and 1.2%; p = 0.020), delayed complications requiring readmission (2.9, 2.0, and 1.2%; p = 0.453), positive resection margin (1.7, 0, and 0%; p = 0.003), and inadequate number of retrieved lymph nodes (0.4, 4.1, and 1.7%; p = 0.010). Compared with open and laparoscopic surgery, robotic gastrectomy had the highest surgical success rate (90, 90.8, and 96.0%). Learning-curve analysis of success using cumulative sum plots showed success with the robotic approach from the start. Multivariate analyses identified age, sex, and gastrectomy extent as significant independent parameters affecting surgical success. Surgical approach was not a contributing factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy exhibited different incidences and causes of surgical failure. Robotic gastrectomy produced the best surgical outcomes, although the approach method itself was not an independent factor for success.

Excellent Long-Term Prognosis and Favorable Postoperative Nutritional Status After Laparoscopic Pylorus-Preserving Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (LPPG) has been introduced as a minimally invasive function-preserving operation for early gastric cancer (GC). This study aimed to investigate the surgical and prognostic outcomes after LPPG at the authors' institution.

METHODS

This study analyzed 465 patients who underwent LPPG for cT1 N0 GC located in the middle part of the stomach between 2006 and 2012. Short- and long-term surgical outcomes including 5-year survival rates, postoperative nutritional data, and body weight change were retrospectively investigated.

RESULTS

Regarding short-term surgical results, 14 (3%) of the 465 patients had severe complications classified as Clavien-Dindo grade 3a or above, and no mortality occurred (no in-hospital deaths). The median follow-up period was 1829 days (range 226-3197 days), and the 5-year overall survival and relapse-free survival rates were respectively 98% (95% confidence interval [CI] 96.1-99.0%) and 98% (95% CI 96.1-99.0%). Only two cases of postoperative recurrence were confirmed, and their recurrence sites were not in the remnant stomach or regional lymph nodes. The postoperative nutritional status, in terms of serum total protein, albumin, and hemoglobin levels, was well maintained, and the mean relative body weight (postoperative/preoperative) was 93.24 ± 7.29% after LPPG.

CONCLUSIONS

For the first time, we have clarified the detailed long-term survival outcomes of LPPG for cT1 N0 GC. LPPG is an acceptable and favorable operative method for clinically diagnosed early-stage GC, in terms of long-term survival and postoperative nutrition.

Lymphadenectomy: state of the art

The extent of lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer (GC) surgery has been for long time a matter of debate. Randomized trials performed in the West reported worse results of D2 dissection, in terms of postoperative complications and long-term survival benefit, than Eastern series and observational studies from specialized Western centers. However, long-term re-evaluation of such trials and in depth-analysis of other experiences demonstrated the potential benefit of D2 in reducing the probability of cancer-related death and the safety of this procedure when avoiding unnecessary spleno-pancreatectomy and in centers with ad adequate surgical volume. Nowadays, the D2 is considered the standard treatment in most guidelines all over the world. More limited procedures (D1, D1 plus) may be adequate in selected cases, and more extended dissections (D2 plus) could be indicated in advanced forms with high risk of metastases to distant nodes, but in specialized centers or in the setting of clinical studies. The integration with neoadjuvant therapies and multimodality approach could offer a chance of cure in groups of patients with poor results when approached with standard treatment.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Phase III evidence in the shape of a series of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses has shown that laparoscopic gastrectomy is safe and gives better short-term results with respect to the traditional open technique for early-stage gastric cancer. In fact, in the East laparoscopic gastrectomy has become routine for early-stage gastric cancer. In contrast, the treatment of advanced gastric cancer through a minimally invasive way is still a debated issue, mostly due to worries about its oncological efficacy and the difficulty of carrying out an extended lymphadenectomy and intestinal reconstruction after total gastrectomy laparoscopically. Over the last ten years the introduction of robotic surgery has implied overcoming some intrinsic drawbacks found to be present in the conventional laparoscopic procedure. Robot-assisted gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy has been shown to be safe and feasible for the treatment of gastric cancer patients. But unfortunately, most available studies investigating the robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared to laparoscopic and open technique are so far retrospective and there have not been phase III trials. In the present review we looked at scientific evidence available today regarding the new high-tech surgical robotic approach, and we attempted to bring to light the real advantages of robot-assisted gastrectomy compared to the traditional laparoscopic and open technique for the treatment of gastric cancer.

Robot-assisted gastrectomy for cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer is commonly considered a challenging procedure. The technical drawbacks of laparoscopy have been addressed by robotic technology, which can facilitate demanding reconstructions and fine dissection. These features confer potential advantages in the execution of lymphadenectomy.

OBJECTIVES

Here, we illustrate our technique of robotic gastrectomy and discuss advantages and drawbacks by reviewing the current literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We describe our technique for robot-assisted distal and total gastrectomy for cancer and assess the current literature dealing with short-term outcomes, immediate oncologic measures, and long-term oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted gastrectomy, in comparison with conventional laparoscopic and open surgery.

RESULTS

The robotic procedure seems to be as safe and effective as conventional gastrectomy for gastric cancer, with a longer operative time and decreased blood loss in comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy.

CONCLUSION

The technical advantages offered by robotics could help to standardize minimally invasive D2 lymphadenectomy and enable surgeons to perform this procedure routinely. Despite the scarcity of long-term data on survival, immediate oncological measures (lymph node yield and margin status) are encouraging. Further studies investigating the long-term oncological outcomes are required.

Comparison of the long-term outcomes of robotic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer and conventional laparoscopic approach: a single institutional retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer (GC) has been increasingly performed over the last decade. The technical feasibility and safety of RG for GC, predominantly early GC, have previously been reported; however, few studies have evaluated the oncological outcomes. This study aimed to determine the long-term outcomes of RG for GC compared with those of conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

METHODS

Of the 521 consecutive patients with GC who underwent radical gastrectomy at our institution between 2009 and 2012, 84 consecutive patients who underwent RG and 437 patients who received LG were enrolled in this study. Long-term outcomes including the 3-year overall survival (3yOS) and 3-year recurrence-free survival rates (3yRFS) were examined retrospectively.

RESULTS

In the RG group, the 3yOS rates stratified by pathological stage according to the Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma (IA, IB, II, and III) were 94.7, 90.9, 89.5, and 62.5 %, respectively. No differences in 3yOS (RG, 86.9 % vs. LG, 88.8 %; p = 0.636) or 3yRFS (RG, 86.9 % vs. LG, 86.3 %; p = 0.905) were observed between the groups. 3yOS was strongly associated with cancer recurrence within 3 years (p < 0.001), while 3yRFS was associated with tumor size ≥ 30 mm (p < 0.001), clinical stage ≥ IB (p < 0.001), estimated blood loss ≥ 50 mL (p = 0.033), and postoperative pancreatic fistula CD grade ≥ III) (p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

RG for GC was feasible and safe from the oncological point of view in a cohort including a considerable number of patients with advanced GC.

[Robotics in the operating room : Out of the niche into widespread application]

In the last few years robotic surgery has progressed from being confined to a small niche to a widespread application in routine visceral surgery; however, evidence for superiority of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopy from randomized studies with a sufficient number of patients is still lacking in most fields of visceral surgery. For complex operations that necessitate an extensive reconstruction phase, such as pancreatectomy, gastrectomy and esophagectomy, there is a potential benefit for the permanent and justified use of robotic surgery. Even in operations where delicate nerve preparation and radical surgical resection are simultaneously necessary, such as rectal resection, robotic surgery may provide certain benefits. In the long term there is a great potential for the integration of innovative techniques, such as navigation or other medical imaging procedures into robotic surgery, which can currently only partially be estimated. Care must be taken to avoid premature euphoria; however, due to the assumed great potential there is an urgent need for randomized studies to evaluate the possible benefits of robotic surgical techniques in visceral surgery in order to generate evidence for the welfare of patients.

Robotic surgery for upper gastrointestinal cancer: Current status and future perspectives

Robotic surgery with the da Vinci Surgical System has been increasingly applied in a wide range of surgical specialties, especially in urology and gynecology. However, in the field of upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract, the da Vinci Surgical System has yet to be standard as a result of a lack of clear benefits in comparison with conventional minimally invasive surgery. We have been carrying out robotic gastrectomy and esophagectomy for operable patients with resectable upper GI malignancies since 2009, and have demonstrated the potential advantages of the use of the robot in possibly reducing postoperative local complications including pancreatic fistula following gastrectomy and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy after esophagectomy, even though there have been a couple of problems to be solved including longer duration of operation and higher cost. The present review provides updates on robotic surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer based on our experience and review of the literature.

Advances in Laparoscopic and Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Robot-assisted gastrectomy has been reported to be a safe alternative to both conventional laparoscopy and the open approach for treating early gastric carcinoma. Currently, there are a limited number of published reports on this technique in the literature. We assessed the current status of robotic and laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer and compared the operative outcomes, learning curves, and oncological outcome of the two approaches. Robotic gastrectomy offers benefits that include increased ease of performing D2 lymph node dissection and reduced blood loss compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy. However, the operative time is longer, and robotic gastrectomy is more costly for the patients. Regarding to the operative and oncological outcomes, there appears to be no significant differences between laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies after the surgeon overcomes the associated learning curves. Sharing the available knowledge regarding laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies could shorten these learning curves. For elder patients, minimally invasive surgery that decreases the postoperative recovery time should be considered the preferred treatment. Prospective randomized studies are required to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes among laparoscopic, robotic, and open surgeries for both early and advanced gastric cancer.