Robot-assisted laparoscopic total and partial gastric resection with D2 lymph node dissection for adenocarcinoma

Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes After Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Radical Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer in Elderly Individuals: A Propensity Score-Matching Study

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been widely used to treat gastric cancer. However, whether the short-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy are superior to those of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer has not been reported.

METHODS

The study enrolled of 594 elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer who underwent robotic or laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. The RG cohort was matched 1:3 with the LG cohort using propensity score-matching (PSM).

RESULTS

After PSM, 121 patients were included in the robot group and 363 patients in the laparoscopic group. Excluding the docking and undocking times, the operation time of the two groups was similar (P = 0.617). The RG group had less intraoperative blood loss than the LG group (P < 0.001). The time to ambulation and first liquid food intake was significantly shorter in the RG group than in the LG group (P < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the two groups (P = 0.14). Significantly more lymph nodes were dissected in the RG group than in the LG group (P = 0.001). Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy was started earlier in the RG group than in the LG group (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

For elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer, RG is safe and feasible. Compared with LG, RG is associated with less intraoperative blood loss; a faster postoperative recovery time, allowing a greater number of lymph nodes to be dissected; and earlier adjuvant chemotherapy.

Current Status of Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery

Development of surgical support robots began in the 1980s as a navigation and auxiliary device for endoscopic surgery. For remote surgery on the battlefield, a master-slave-type surgical support robot was developed, in which a console surgeon operates the robot at will. The da Vinci surgical system, which currently dominates the global robotic surgery market, received United States Food and Drug Administration and regulatory approval in Japan in 2000 and 2009 respectively. The latest, fourth generation, da Vinci Xi has a good field of view via a three-dimensional monitor, highly operable forceps, a motion scale function, and a tremor-filtered articulated function. Gastroenterological tract robotic surgery is safe and minimally invasive when accessing and operating on the esophagus, stomach, colon, and rectum. The learning curve is said to be short, and robotic surgery will likely be standardized soon. Therefore, robotic surgery training should be systematized for young surgeons so that it can be further standardized and later adapted to a wider range of surgeries. This article reviews current trends and potential developments in robotic surgery.

Robotic spleen-preserving total gastrectomy shows better short-term advantages: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery may be advantageous for complex surgery. We aimed to compare the intraoperative and postoperative short-term outcomes of spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy (SPSHL) during robotic and laparoscopic total gastrectomy.

METHODS

From July 2016 to December 2020, the clinicopathological data of 115 patients who underwent robotic total gastrectomy combined with robotic SPSHL (RSPSHL) and 697 patients who underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy combined with laparoscopic SPSHL (LSPSHL) were retrospectively analyzed. A 1:2 ratio propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the differences between the two groups to compare their outcomes. The Generic Error Rating Tool was used to evaluate the technical performance.

RESULTS

After PSM, the baseline preoperative characteristics of the 115 patients in the RSPSHL and 230 patients in the LSPSHL groups were balanced. The dissection time of the region of the splenic artery trunk (5.4 ± 1.9 min vs. 7.8 ± 3.6 min, P < 0.001), the estimated blood loss during SPSHL (9.6 ± 4.8 ml vs. 14.9 ± 7.8 ml, P < 0.001), and the average number of intraoperative technical errors during SPSHL (15.1 ± 3.4 times/case vs. 20.7 ± 4.3 times/case, P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the RSPSHL group than in the LSPSHL group. The RSPSHL group showed higher dissection rates of No. 10 (78.3% vs. 70.0%, P = 0.104) and No. 11d (54.8% vs. 40.4%, P = 0.012) lymph nodes and significantly improved postoperative recovery results in terms of times to ambulation, first flatus, and first intake (P < 0.05). The splenectomy rates of the two groups were similar (1.7% vs. 0.4%, P = 0.539), and there was no significant difference in morbidity and mortality within postoperative 30 days (13.0% vs. 15.2%, P = 0.589).

CONCLUSION

Compared to LSPSHL, RSPSHL has more advantages in terms of surgical qualities and postoperative recovery process with similar morbidity and mortality. For complex SPSHL, robotic surgery may be a better choice.

Robotic total gastrectomy with thrombectomy and portal vein reconstruction for gastric cancer and portal vein tumor thrombus

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer with portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) is poor prognosis, and the treatment remains challenging. Regarding surgery, there are only reports of highly invasive laparotomy. We report some techniques of the completely robotic total gastrectomy with thrombectomy and portal vein reconstruction for the patient with gastric cancer and PVTT for the first time.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 79-year-old man was diagnosed with a 5-cm gastric cancer on the side of the lesser curvature from the middle of the gastric body to the cardia. Computed tomography revealed a massive PVTT extending from the left gastric vein to the portal trunk (28 x 16 mm). There were no other distant metastases. After 3 cycles of the chemotherapy, the PVTT shrank to 19 x 12 mm. After obtaining informed consent from the patient, robotic total gastrectomy with regional lymphadenectomy and thrombectomy were performed. We used the da Vinci Xi Surgical System. A 3-cm incision was made at the umbilicus, and a wound retractor was placed. Five additional ports were placed. The right side suprapancreatic lymph nodes were performed at the time of the thrombectomy. It was important to identify the precise extent of the PVTT with intraoperative ultrasonography before the thrombectomy. After PVTT identification, the portal trunk was clamped above and below the tumor thrombus with vascular clips. The membrane on the anterior wall of the portal trunk around the PVTT was carefully incised with da Vinci Scissors. The tumor thrombus was completely enucleated without separation. The incised part of the portal trunk was reconstructed with continuous 5-0 synthetic monofilament nonabsorbable polypropylene sutures. After removing the vascular clamps, we made sure there was no leakage from the portal vein and no tumor thrombus remnants with intraoperative ultrasonography. Robotic total gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy and Roux-en-Y reconstruction were performed. The patient was discharged without complications. The patient has remained alive for 30 months after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic total gastrectomy with thrombectomy and portal vein reconstruction is a safe, minimally invasive, and precise surgery. It may contribute to improved prognosis of gastric cancer with PVTT when combined with chemotherapy.

The Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gastric Cancer

Objective: This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in gastric cancer and to compare MIS versus open gastrectomy (OG) in terms of early mortality and morbidity, long-term oncological outcomes, and recurrence rates.

Methods: A total of 75 patients who underwent MIS or OG for gastric cancer at Koç University School of Medicine between December 2014 and December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Postoperative complications and disease-specific survival were compared between surgical approaches.

Results: Of the patients, 44 were treated with MIS and 31 with OG. In the MIS group, 33 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery, and 11 patients underwent robotic gastrectomy. Duration of operation was significantly longer in the MIS group than in the OG group (p<0.0001). The median amount of blood loss was 142.5 (range, 110 to 180) mL in the MIS group and 180.4 (range, 145 to 230) mL in the OG group (p<0.706). The median number of lymph node dissection was 38.9 (range, 15 to 66) and 38.7 (range, 12 to 70) in the MIS and OG groups, respectively (p<0.736). The median length of hospitalization, twelve days in the OG group and nine days in the MIS group. Median follow-up was 19.1 (range, 2 to 61) months in the MIS group and 22.1 (range, 2 to 58) months in the OG group. The median OS and DFS rates were 56.8 months and 39.6 months in the MIS group, respectively (log-rank; p=0.004) and 31.6 months and 23.1 months in the OG group, respectively (log-rank; p=0.003).

Conclusion: Our study results suggest that, despite its technical challenges, MIS is an effective and safe method in treating gastric cancer with favorable early mortality and morbidity rates and long-term oncological outcomes, and acceptable recurrence rates.

Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

Aim

The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of robot-assisted (RAGD2) and laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy (LAGD2) for patients with gastric cancer.

Material and methods

Relevant articles published up to September 2020 were searched. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was used to pool continuous variables, while risk ratio (RR) was calculated for dichotomous outcomes.

Results

RAGD2 required a longer operating time (WMD = 29.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 15.97-43.59) and had less operative blood loss (WMD = -31.93, 95% CI: -44.03 to -19.83), shorter time to first flatus (WMD = -0.13, 95% CI: -0.22 to -0.04), shorter time to liquid diet (WMD = -0.20, 95% CI: -0.28 to 0.12), and fewer severe complications (RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43-0.90) and overall complications (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.62-0.91) than LAGD2.

Conclusions

RAGD2 could be beneficial in reducing operative blood loss and postoperative complications relative to LAGD2.

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.

Synchronous robotic right hemicolectomy and subtotal gastrectomy

About 4% of patients with stomach cancer diagnosis have synchronous colorectal cancer and some of these patients may require a synchronous surgical resection. So far, only few minimally invasive series of synchronous resections have been described. We investigated the feasibility and safety of the synchronous robotic resection of the right colon and stomach malignancies, trying to identify a standardised and reproducible technique. It is essential to carefully plan the operation and the trocars positioning to minimise the number of robotic dockings and be able to operate comfortably. Herein, we describe our approach, which is safe and effective in terms of minimal invasiveness and oncological radicality. Robotic surgery could be used with even more advantage in complex multi-organ resections, providing the surgeon with a better vision, a more accurate dissection and longer instruments, to offer the patient all the benefits of a minimal invasive surgery.

A Novel Technique to Predict Liver Damage After Laparoscopic Gastrectomy From the Stomach Volume Overlapping the Liver by Preoperative Computed Tomography

BACKGROUND

During laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), it is necessary to manipulate the lateral segment of the liver to secure the surgical field. Liver retraction during surgery often causes liver dysfunction after LG. However, no previous studies have used preoperative image evaluations to predict postoperative liver damage associated with surgical retraction. We aimed to predict postoperative liver damage after LG.

METHODS

In all, 117 consecutive patients with gastric cancer who underwent LG were included in this study. Using preoperative computed tomography (CT), the volume of the stomach overlapping the liver was integrated and calculated as the liver projecting stomach volume (LPSV). The liver projection ratio (LPR) was calculated by dividing the LPSV by the volume of the whole stomach. The relationships among liver damage, the LPSV and LPR were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 112 patients were divided into two groups as follows: 33 patients in the liver dysfunction group (D group) and 79 patients in the non-dysfunction group (N group). The LPSV was significantly larger in the D group than in the N group (median 77.1 vs 50.1 cm³; p = 0.0061). Similarly, LPR values in the D group were significantly higher than those in the N group (median 33.6 vs 26.2%; p = 0.003). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis indicated a statistically significant ability of the LPSV and LPR to predict postoperative liver damage (area under the curve; 0.705 and 0.735, respectively). Furthermore, multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the increase in the LPR was an independent predictor of postoperative liver damage (odds ratio: 1.042; 95% confidence interval: 1.009-1.078; p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a novel technique for predicting postoperative liver damage associated with surgical liver retraction following LG. This method confirms the degree of the LPSV and LPR of the stomach via preoperative CT.

Short-term efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy via Huang's three-step maneuver for advanced upper gastric cancer: Results from a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been considered to be significantly better than laparoscopic surgery for complicated procedures.

AIM

To explore the short-term effect of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy (SPSHL) for advanced gastric cancer (GC) by Huang's three-step maneuver.

METHODS

A total of 643 patients who underwent SPSHL were recruited from April 2012 to July 2017, including 35 patients who underwent robotic SPSHL (RSPSHL) and 608 who underwent laparoscopic SPSHL (LSPSHL). One-to-four propensity score matching was used to analyze the differences in clinical data between patients who underwent robotic SPSHL and those who underwent laparoscopic SPSHL.

RESULTS

In all, 175 patients were matched, including 35 patients who underwent RSPSHL and 140 who underwent LSPSHL. After matching, there were no significant differences detected in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. Significant differences in total operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), splenic hilar blood loss (SHBL), splenic hilar dissection time (SHDT), and splenic trunk dissection time were evident between these groups (P < 0.05). Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in the overall noncompliance rate of lymph node (LN) dissection (62.9% vs 60%, P = 0.757), number of retrieved No. 10 LNs (3.1 ± 1.4 vs 3.3 ± 2.5, P = 0.650), total number of examined LNs (37.8 ± 13.1 vs 40.6 ± 13.6, P = 0.274), and postoperative complications (14.3% vs 17.9%, P = 0.616). A stratified analysis that divided the patients receiving RSPSHL into an early group (EG) and a late group (LG) revealed that the LG experienced obvious improvements in SHDT and length of stay compared with the EG (P < 0.05). Logistic regression showed that robotic surgery was a significantly protective factor against both SHBL and SHDT (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

RSPSHL is safe and feasible, especially after overcoming the early learning curve, as this procedure results in a radical curative effect equivalent to that of LSPSHL.

A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Oncological, Cost, and Surgical Stress Analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) has been rapidly adopted for gastric cancer (GC) treatment. However, whether RAG provides any significant outcome/cost advantages over laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for the experienced laparoscopist remains unclear.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database identified 768 consecutive patients who underwent either RAG (n = 103) or LAG (n = 667) for GC between July 2016 and June 2017 at a large center. A 1:3 matched propensity score analysis was performed. The short-term outcomes and hospital costs between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

A well-balanced cohort of 404 patients was analyzed (RAG:LAG = 1:3 match). The mean operation times were 226.6 ± 36.2 min for the RAG group and 181.8 ± 49.8 min for the LAG group (p < 0.001). The total numbers of retrieved lymph nodes were similar in the RAG and LAG groups (means 38 and 40, respectively, p = 0.115). The overall and major complication rates (RAG, 13.9% vs. LAG, 12.5%, p = 0.732 and RAG, 3.0% vs. LAG, 1.3%, p = 0.373, respectively) were similar. RAG was much more costly than LAG (1.3 times, p < 0.001) mainly due to the amortization and consumables of the robotic system. According to cumulative sum (CUSUM), the learning phases were divided as follows: phase 1 (cases 1-21), phase 2 (cases 22-63), and phase 3 (cases 64-101), in the robotic group. The surgical stress (SS) was higher in the robotic group compared with the laparoscopic group in phase 1 (p < 0.05). However, the SS did not differ significantly between the two groups in phase 3.

CONCLUSIONS

RAG is a feasible and safe surgical procedure for GC, especially in the post-learning curve period. However, further studies are warranted to evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes and to elucidate whether RAG is cost-effective when compared to LAG.

A New Robot-assisted Billroth-I Reconstruction: Details of the Technique and Early Results

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for gastric tumor is considered a demanding procedure because of lymph node dissection and reconstruction. Billroth-I (B-I) reconstruction after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is commonly performed extracorporeally because of the complexity of an intracorporeal procedure. Robotic surgery overcomes some limitations of laparoscopy, allowing to reproduce the basic maneuvers of open surgery. We describe a new technique to perform robotic B-I anastomosis.

METHODS

Between January 2012 and February 2015, 5 patients underwent distal gastrectomy with intracorporeal B-I-stapled anastomosis. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, histopathologic features, and perioperative data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Median operative time was 170 minutes (145 to 180 min). There were no conversions. Contrast swallow was routinely performed on the third postoperative day. Median postoperative hospitalization was 7 days (range: 6 to 8). No major complications or mortality were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic distal gastrectomy with intracorporeal B-I anastomosis is a safe and promising technique in selected cases of gastric tumors.

Impact of an Ultrasonically Activated Device in Robot-Assisted Distal Gastrectomy

Objective

Robot-assisted gastrectomy is increasingly used for the treatment of gastric cancer, although it remains a time-consuming procedure. An ultrasonically activated device might be useful to shorten operation times. This study therefore assessed the effect of ultrasonically activated device use on procedural times and on other early surgical outcomes.

Methods

Consecutive patients (N = 42) who underwent robot-assisted distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer were included. Clinicopathological characteristics and early surgical outcomes were compared between robotic-assisted gastrectomy procedures using an ultrasonically activated device (U group, n = 21) and those without it (NU group, n = 21).

Results

There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the groups; however, the median operation time was significantly less in the U group than in the NU group (291 vs 351 minutes, P = 0.006). In detail, the median duration of console time until dividing the duodenum was less in the U group (70 vs 102 minutes, P < 0.001). Estimated blood loss, incidence of postoperative morbidity, and duration of postoperative hospital stay were not different between the groups.

Conclusions

An ultrasonically activated device reduced the operation time of robot-assisted gastrectomy without increasing blood loss and morbidity.

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.

Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

The number of robotic gastrectomy (RG) performed per year has been increasing, particularly in East Asia where the incidence of gastric cancer is high and approximately half of the cases are diagnosed as early gastric cancer. With articulated devices of RG, surgeons are able to perform every procedure more meticulously, which can result in less bleeding and damage to organs. There are many single arm and comparative studies, and these study showed similar trends, which included relatively less estimated blood loss and longer operation time following RG than laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), equivalent number of harvested lymph nodes and similar length of postoperative hospital stay between RG and LG. Considering the results of these retrospective comparative studies, RG seems to be as feasible as LG in terms of early surgical outcomes. However, medical expense of RG is approximately twice as much as that of LG. Lack of solid evidence in terms of long-term outcomes is another problem. Considering the higher medical expenses associated with RG, its superiority in terms of long-term survival outcomes needs to be confirmed in the future for it to be accepted more widely.

Status and Prospects of Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Our Experience and a Review of the Literature

Since the first report of robotic gastrectomy, experienced laparoscopic surgeons have used surgical robots to treat gastric cancer and resolve problems associated with laparoscopic gastrectomy. However, compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy, the superiority of robotic procedures has not been clearly proven. There are several advantages to using robotic surgery for gastric cancer, such as reduced estimated blood loss during the operation, a shorter learning curve, and a larger number of examined lymph nodes than conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy. The increased operation time observed with a robotic system is decreasing because surgeons have accumulated experience using this procedure. While there is limited evidence, long-term oncologic outcomes appear to be similar between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy. Robotic procedures have a significantly greater financial cost than laparoscopic gastrectomy, which is a major drawback. Recent clinical studies tried to demonstrate that the benefits of robotic surgery outweighed the cost, but the overall results were disappointing. Ongoing studies are investigating the benefits of robotic gastrectomy in more complicated and challenging cases. Well-designed randomized control trials with large sample sizes are needed to investigate the benefits of robotic gastrectomy compared with laparoscopic surgery.

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.

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.

[Robot-assisted gastrectomy for cancer. German version]

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-termdata on survival, immediate oncological measures (lymph node yield and margin status) are encouraging. Further studies investigating the long-term oncological outcomes are required.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Current considerations

Radical gastrectomy with an adequate lymphadenectomy is the main procedure which makes it possible to cure patients with resectable gastric cancer (GC). A number of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis provide phase III evidence that laparoscopic gastrectomy is technically safe and that it yields better short-term outcomes than conventional open gastrectomy for early-stage GC. While laparoscopic gastrectomy has become standard therapy for early-stage GC, especially in Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea, the use of minimally invasive techniques is still controversial for the treatment of more advanced tumours, principally due to existing concerns about its oncological adequacy and capacity to carry out an adequately extended lymphadenectomy. Some intrinsic drawbacks of the conventional laparoscopic technique have prevented the worldwide spread of laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer and, despite technological advances in recent year, it remains a technically challenging procedure. The introduction of robotic surgery over the last ten years has implied a notable mutation of certain minimally invasive procedures, making it possible to overcome some limitations of the traditional laparoscopic technique. Robot-assisted gastric resection with D2 lymph node dissection has been shown to be safe and feasible in prospective and retrospective studies. However, to date there are no high quality comparative studies investigating the advantages of a robotic approach to GC over traditional laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. On the basis of the literature review here presented, robot-assisted surgery seems to fulfill oncologic criteria for D2 dissection and has a comparable oncologic outcome to traditional laparoscopic and open procedure. Robot-assisted gastrectomy was associated with the trend toward a shorter hospital stay with a comparable morbidity of conventional laparoscopic and open gastrectomy, but randomized clinical trials and longer follow-ups are needed to evaluate the possible influence of robot gastrectomy on GC patient survival.

Comparison Between Minimally Invasive and Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer in Europe: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

AIMS

We compared laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies with open gastrectomies and with each other that were held for gastric cancer in Europe.

METHODS

We searched for studies conducted in Europe and published up to 20 February 2015 in the PubMed database that compared laparoscopic or robotic with open gastrectomies for gastric cancer and with each other.

RESULTS

We found 18 original studies (laparoscopic vs open: 13; robotic vs open: 3; laparoscopic vs robotic: 2). Of these, 17 were non-randomized trials and only 1 was a randomized controlled trial. Only four studies had more than 50 patients in each arm. No significant differences were detected between minimally invasive and open approaches regarding the number of retrieved lymph nodes, anastomotic leakage, duodenal stump leakage, anastomotic stenosis, postoperative bleeding, reoperation rates, and intraoperative/postoperative mortality. Nevertheless, laparoscopic procedures provided higher overall morbidity rates when compared with open ones, but robotic approaches did not differ from open ones. On the contrary, blood loss was less and hospital stay was shorter in minimally invasive than in open approaches. However, the results were controversial concerning the duration of operations when comparing minimally invasive with open gastrectomies. Additionally, laparoscopic and robotic procedures provided equivalent results regarding resection margins, duodenal stump leakage, postoperative bleeding, intraoperative/postoperative mortality, and length of hospital stay. On the contrary, robotic operations had less blood loss, but lasted longer than laparoscopic ones. Finally, there were relatively low conversion rates in laparoscopic (0%-6.7%) and robotic gastrectomies (0%-5.6%) in most studies.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies may be considered alternative approaches to open gastrectomies for treating gastric cancer. Minimally invasive operations are characterized by less blood loss and shorter hospital stay than open ones. In addition, robotic procedures have less blood loss, but last longer than laparoscopic ones.

Robotic management of gastric stromal tumors (GIST): a single Middle Eastern center experience

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is the gold standard treatment for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). This paper describes the authors' experience in the management of posterior gastric wall GISTs through the robotic surgical approach.

METHODS

A case-series analysis for surgically resected GISTs was conducted between 2009 and 2010. All patients were followed up until mid-2015.

RESULTS

Robotic resection was performed in four cases. There was no evidence of bleeding or leak in all cases. The median hospital length of stay was 8 (5-8) days. No post-operative morbidity or mortality was reported during the follow-up duration (mean ± SD; 40.25 ± 35 months).

CONCLUSION

Findings show that the robotic assisted surgical approach to the removal of posterior wall gastric stromal tumors is associated with 100% disease-free survival rate. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Robot-assisted surgery for gastric cancer

Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer is a relatively new research field, with convincing results mostly stemming from Asian countries. The use of the robotic surgery platform, thus far assessed as a safe procedure, which is also easier to learn, sets the background for a wider spread of minimally invasive technique in the treatment of gastric cancer. This review will cover the literature published so far, analyzing the pros and cons of robotic surgery and highlighting the remaining study questions.

Assessing the safety and efficacy of full robotic gastrectomy with intracorporeal robot-sewn anastomosis for gastric cancer: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy is increasingly used in gastric cancer patients. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of full robotic gastrectomy with intracorporeal robot-sewn anastomosis for gastric cancer.

METHODS

Three hundred and eleven patients were randomized into an open gastrectomy group or a robotic gastrectomy group, and digestive restorations were performed under direct vision and with intracorporeal robot-sewn anastomosis, respectively. Length of postoperative hospital stay, number of lymph node dissections, surgical duration, blood loss, and complication rate after surgery were recorded.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the number of lymph node dissections (30.9 ± 10.4 vs. 29.3 ± 9.7 days, P = 0.281) or complication rates (10.3 vs. 9.3%, P = 0.756) between the two groups. Surgical duration was significantly longer in the robotic gastrectomy group than in the open gastrectomy group (242.7 ± 43.8 vs. 192.4 ± 31.5 min, P = 0.002), whereas blood loss was less (94.2 ± 51.5 vs. 152.8 ± 76.9 ml, P < 0.001), length of postoperative hospital stay was shorter (5.6 ± 1.9 vs. 6.7 ± 1.9 days, P = 0.021), and postoperative restoration of bowel function was earlier (2.6 ± 1.1 vs. 3.1 ± 1.2 days, P = 0.028).

CONCLUSION

Full robotic gastrectomy with intracorporeal robot-sewn anastomosis for gastric cancer is safe and does not increase the complication risk during or after surgery. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:397-404. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Surgical management of advanced gastric cancer: An evolving issue

Worldwide, gastric cancer represents the fifth most common cancer and the third leading cause of cancer deaths. Although the overall 5-year survival for resectable disease was more than 70% in Japan due to the implementation of screening programs resulting in detection of disease at earlier stages, in Western countries more than two thirds of gastric cancers are usually diagnosed in advanced stages reporting a 5-year survival rate of only 25.7%. Anyway surgical resection with extended lymph node dissection remains the only curative therapy for non-metastatic advanced gastric cancer, while neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapies can improve the outcomes aimed at the reduction of recurrence and extension of survival. High-quality research and advances in technologies have contributed to well define the oncological outcomes and have stimulated many clinical studies testing multimodality managements in the advanced disease setting. This review article aims to outline and discuss open issues in current surgical management of advanced gastric cancer.

Robotic gastrectomy with transvaginal specimen extraction for female gastric cancer patients

AIM: To describe the application of complete robotic gastrectomy with transvaginal specimen extraction (TVSE) for gastric cancer patients.

METHODS: Between July and November 2014, eight female patients who were diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma underwent a TVSE following a full robot-sewn gastrectomy. According to the tumor location, the patients were allocated to two different groups; two patients received robotic total gastrectomy with TVSE and the other six received robotic distal gastrectomy with TVSE.

RESULTS: Surgical procedures were successfully performed in all eight cases without conversion. The mean age was 55.3 (range, 42-69) years, and the mean body mass index was 23.2 (range, 21.6-26.0) kg/m². The mean total operative time and blood loss were 224 (range, 200-298) min and 62.5 (range, 50-150) mL, respectively. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 3.6 (range, 3-5) d. The mean number of lymph nodes resected was 23.6 (range, 17-27). None was readmitted within 30 d of postoperation. During the follow-up, no stricture developed nor was any anastomotic leakage detected.

CONCLUSION: It is possible to perform a TVSE following a full robot-sewn gastrectomy with standard D2 lymph node resection for female gastric cancer patients.

Robotic surgery for gastric cancer

Laparoscopic gastrectomy is a widely used minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer. However, skillful techniques are required to perform lymph node dissection using straight shaped forceps, particularly for D2 dissection. Robotic surgery using the da Vinci surgical system is anticipated to be a powerful tool for performing difficult techniques using high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) images and the EndoWrist equipped with seven degrees of freedom. Attempts are being made to apply robotic surgery in gastrectomy procedures mainly in Japan, South Korea, and Europe. Although definite superiority to laparoscopic gastrectomy is yet to be proven, robotic surgery has been reported to have a shorter learning curve and offer more precise dissection for total gastrectomy. Hence, its oncological efficacy needs to be verified in a clinical trial.

Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Robotic surgery for gastric cancer overcomes technical difficulties with laparoscopic gastrectomy. Its benefits include reduced intraoperative bleeding and shorter hospital stays; it is also easier to learn. Because accuracy increases during lymphadenectomy, a larger number of lymph nodes is likely to be retrieved using robotic gastrectomy. Higher costs and longer operation times have hindered the widespread adaptation and use of robotic surgery. In this review, we summarize the current status and issues regarding robotic gastrectomy.

Current status of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Although over 3000 da Vinci Surgical System (DVSS) devices have been installed worldwide, robotic surgery for gastric cancer has not yet become widely spread and is only available in several advanced institutions. This is because, at least in part, the advantages of robotic surgery for gastric cancer remain unclear. The safety and feasibility of robotic gastrectomy have been demonstrated in several retrospective studies. However, no sound evidence has been reported to support the superiority of a robotic approach for gastric cancer treatment. In addition, the long-term clinical outcomes following robotic gastrectomy have yet to be clarified. Nevertheless, a robotic approach can potentially overcome the disadvantages of conventional laparoscopic surgery if the advantageous functions of this technique are optimized, such as the use of wristed instruments, tremor filtering and high-resolution 3-D images. The potential advantages of robotic gastrectomy have been discussed in several retrospective studies, including the ability to achieve sufficient lymphadenectomy in the area of the splenic hilum, reductions in local complication rates and a shorter learning curve for the robotic approach compared to conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy. In this review, we present the current status and discuss issues regarding robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: current status and technical considerations

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted gastrectomy has been reported as a safe alternative to the conventional laparoscopy or open approach for treating early gastric carcinoma. To date, however, there are a limited number of published reports available in the literature.

METHODS

We assess the current status of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, focusing on the technical details and oncological considerations.

RESULTS

In gastric surgery, the biggest advantage of robotic surgery is the ease and reproducibility of D2-lymphadenectomy. Reports show that even the intracorporeal digestive restoration is facilitated by use of the robotic approach, particularly following total gastrectomy. Additionally, the accuracy of robotic dissection is confirmed by decreased blood loss, as reported in series comparing robot-assisted with laparoscopic gastrectomy. The learning curve and technical reproducibility also appear to be shorter with robotic surgery and, consequently, robotics can help to standardize and diffuse minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, even in the later stages. This is important because the application of minimally invasive surgery is limited by the complexity of performing a D2-lymphadenectomy. The potential to reproduce D2-lymphadenectomy, enlarged resections, and complex reconstructions provides robotic surgery with an important role in the therapeutic strategy of advanced gastric cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

While published reports have shown no significant differences in surgical morbidity, mortality, or oncological adequacy between robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy, more studies are needed to assess the indications and oncological effectiveness of robotic use in the treatment of gastric carcinoma. Herein, the authors assess the current status of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, focusing on the technical details and oncological considerations.

Early phase II study of robot-assisted distal gastrectomy with nodal dissection for clinical stage IA gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) is increasingly performed in Japan and Korea and is thought to have many advantages over laparoscopic gastrectomy. However, a prospective study investigating the safety of RADG has never been reported. The present study evaluated the safety of RADG with nodal dissection for clinical stage IA gastric cancer.

METHODS

This single-center, prospective phase II study included patients with clinical stage IA gastric cancer located within the lower two-thirds of the stomach. The primary endpoint was the incidence of postoperative intraabdominal infectious complications including anastomotic leakage, pancreas-related infection, and intraabdominal abscess. The secondary endpoints included all in-hospital adverse events, RADG completion rate, and survival outcome.

RESULTS

From May 2012 to November 2012, 18 eligible patients were enrolled for this study. The incidence of intraabdominal infectious complication was 0 % (90 % CI, 0-12.0 %). The overall incidence of in-hospital adverse events was 22.2 % (90 % CI, 8.0-43.9 %). No patient required conversion to laparoscopic or open gastrectomy; thus, the RADG completion rate was 100 %.

CONCLUSIONS

This early phase II study suggested that RADG might be a safe and feasible procedure for stage IA gastric cancer, providing experienced surgeons perform the surgery. This conclusion should be clarified in subsequent late phase II studies with a larger sample size.

Robot-assisted surgery for gastric carcinoma: Five years follow-up and beyond: A single western center experience and long-term oncological outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted surgery for the treatment of gastric cancer is considered to be safe and feasible with early post-operative outcomes comparable to open and laparoscopic series. However, data regarding long-term oncological outcomes are lacking. Aim of this study is to evaluate long-term oncological outcomes of a cohort of gastric cancer patients treated surgically with the robot-assisted approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospectively collected database of robot-assisted gastrectomies performed for gastric cancer at the 'Misericordia Hospital' between September 2001 and October 2011 was retrospectively analysed. Data regarding surgical procedures, early postoperative course, and long-term follow-up were analysed.

RESULTS

The study included 98 consecutive robot-assisted gastrectomies. Fifty-nine distal gastrectomies, 38 total gastrectomies, and 1 proximal gastrectomy. Open conversion occurred in seven patients (7.1%) due to locally advanced disease. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were 12.2% and 4.1% respectively. Post-operative staging showed 46 patients (46.9%) with stage I disease, 25 patients (25.5%) with stage II, 26 (26.5%) with stage III and 1 (1.02%) with stage IV. The mean follow-up was 46.9 months. Cumulative 5-year overall survival (OS) was 73.3% (95% CI: 62.2-84.4). Five-year survival by stage subgroups was 100% for patients with stage IA, 84.6% for stage IB, 76.9% for stage II, and 21.5% for stage III. The only patient in stage IV of this series died eight months after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted gastrectomy for the treatment of gastric cancer is safe and feasible. It provides long-term outcomes comparable to most open and laparoscopic series. Further studies are necessary to better define its indication.

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

Robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer patients with high body mass index: comparison with conventional laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as a treatment of choice for early-stage gastric cancer. However, applying MIS to gastric patients with high body mass index (BMI) is technically challenging, especially when performing D2 lymphadenectomy. Recently, robotic systems have been adopted to overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery. Nevertheless, studies on the impact of the use of robotic systems to perform D2 lymphadenectomy in high BMI patients are lacking. Accordingly, this study was designed to compare the quality of lymphadenectomy, together with surgical outcomes, by robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy (RDGD2) to those by laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy (LDGD2) in patients of different BMI status.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database identified 400 gastric cancer patients who underwent either RDGD2 (n = 133) or LDGD2 (n = 267) between 2003 and 2010. Patients were categorized according to surgical approach and BMI. We compared clinicopathologic characteristics, as well as short-term and long-term outcomes, between surgery and BMI groups.

RESULTS

Regardless of BMI, RDGD2 required significantly longer operation time than LDGD2 (p = 0.001); meanwhile, RDGD2 showed significantly less blood loss than LDGD2 (p = 0.005). Between BMI groups, RDGD2 showed no significant difference in the rate of retrieving more than 25 lymph nodes (p = 0.181); however, LDGD2 was associated with a significantly lower rate of retrieving more than 25 lymph nodes in high BMI patients (p = 0.006). In high BMI patients, complications did not significantly differ between surgical approaches. As well, RDGD2 and LDGD2 demonstrated no statistically significant survival difference according to BMI status.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of a robotic approach were more evident in high BMI patients than in normal BMI patients when performing distal subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy, particularly in terms of blood loss and consistent quality of lymphadenectomy. Robotic surgery could be an effective alternative to conventional laparoscopic surgery in treating gastric cancer patients with high BMI.

Efficacy evaluation of subtotal and total gastrectomies in robotic surgery for gastric cancer compared with that in open and laparoscopic resections: a meta-analysis

PURPOSES

Robotic gastrectomy (RG), as an innovation of minimally invasive surgical method, is developing rapidly for gastric cancer. But there is still no consensus on its comparative merit in either subtotal or total gastrectomy compared with laparoscopic and open resections.

METHODS

Literature searches of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were performed. We combined the data of four studies for RG versus open gastrectomy (OG), and 11 studies for robotic RG versus laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Moreover, subgroup analyses of subtotal and total gastrectomies were performed in both RG vs. OG and RG vs. LG.

RESULTS

Totally 12 studies involving 8493 patients met the criteria. RG, similar with LG, significantly reduced the intraoperative blood loss than OG. But the duration of surgery is longer in RG than in both OG and LG. The number of lymph nodes retrieved in RG was close to that in OG and LG (WMD = -0.78 and 95% CI, -2.15-0.59; WMD = 0.63 and 95% CI, -2.24-3.51). And RG did not increase morbidity and mortality in comparison with OG and LG (OR = 0.92 and 95% CI, 0.69-1.23; OR = 0.72 and 95% CI, 0.25-2.06) and (OR = 1.06 and 95% CI, 0.84-1.34; OR = 1.55 and 95% CI, 0.49-4.94). Moreover, subgroup analysis of subtotal and total gastrectomies in both RG vs. OG and RG vs. LG revealed that the scope of surgical dissection was not a positive factor to influence the comparative results of RG vs. OG or LG in surgery time, blood loss, hospital stay, lymph node harvest, morbidity, and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis highlights that robotic gastrectomy may be a technically feasible alternative for gastric cancer because of its affirmative role in both subtotal and total gastrectomies compared with laparoscopic and open resections.

Robot-assisted gastrectomy and oesophagectomy for cancer

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery is a technically feasible alternative to open and laparoscopic surgery, which is being more frequently used in general surgery. We undertook this review to investigate whether robotic assistance provides a significant benefit for oesophagogastric cancer surgery.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for original English-language publications for robotic-assisted gastrectomy and oesophagectomy between January 1990 and October 2013.

RESULTS

Sixty-one publications were included. Thirty-five included gastrectomy, 31 included oesophagectomy and five included both operations. Several publications suggest that robot-assisted subtotal gastrectomy can be as safe and effective as an open or laparoscopic procedure, with equal outcomes with regard to the number of lymph nodes resected, overall morbidity and perioperative mortality, and length of hospital stay. Robotic assistance is associated with longer operation times but also with less blood loss in some reports. A significant benefit for robotic assistance has not been shown for the more extensive operations of oesophagectomy or total gastrectomy with D2-lymphadenectomy. There are very few oncologic data regarding local recurrence or long-term survival for any of the robotic operations.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences in morbidity, mortality or number of lymph node harvested have been shown between robot-assisted and laparoscopic gastrectomy or oesophagectomy. Robotic surgery, with its relatively short learning curve, may facilitate reproducible minimally invasive surgery in this field but operation times are reportedly longer and cost differences remain unclear. Randomized trials with oncologic outcomes and cost comparisons are needed.

Current role of minimally invasive approaches in the treatment of early gastric cancer

Despite declining incidence, gastric cancer remains one of the most common cancers worldwide. Early detection in population-based screening programs has increased the number of cases of early gastric cancer, representing approximately 50% of newly detected gastric cancer cases in Asian countries. Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection have become the preferred therapeutic techniques in Japan and Korea for the treatment of early gastric cancer patients with a very low risk of lymph node metastasis. Laparoscopic and robotic resections for early gastric cancer, including function-preserving resections, have propagated through advances in technology and surgeon experience. The aim of this paper is to discuss the recent advances in minimally invasive approaches in the treatment of early gastric cancer.

Robotic spleen-preserving total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopic procedure

BACKGROUND

Robotic systems recently have been introduced to overcome technical limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, especially for complex procedures. Laparoscopic spleen-preserving total gastrectomy with D2 lymph node (LN) dissection (LTGD2) is one of the most complicated procedures. We hypothesized that robotic LN dissection would be more thorough and accurate. We compared robotic spleen-preserving total gastrectomy with D2 LN dissection (RTGD2) with LTGD2 to investigate the impact of robotics.

METHODS

Clinicopathologic characteristics and short-term and long-term outcomes of RTGD2 (n = 51) versus LTGD2 (n = 58) in gastric adenocarcinoma patients were extracted from a prospectively designed database and analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

There was no difference of patients' characteristics between groups. Mean operation time of RTGD2 was longer than LTGD2 (p < 0.001), and no differences in tumor histology, size, location, and TNM stage were seen. Total retrieved LNs from RTGD2 was similar to LTGD2 (mean 47.2 vs. 42.8, respectively), as were retrieved LNs at splenic hilum (1.3 vs. 0.8). However, mean numbers of retrieved LNs along the splenic artery from RTGD2 was higher than LTGD2 (2.3 vs. 1.0, respectively; p = 0.013), as was also the case at the splenic hilum and artery (3.6 vs. 1.9, p = 0.014). Postoperative complication (16 vs. 22 %, p = 0.374) and overall and disease-free survival between the two groups were not significantly different (p = 0.767 and p = 0.666, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic spleen-preserving total gastrectomy with D2 LN dissection is feasible. Operation time and retrieved total LNs and splenic hilar LNs in the robotic procedure are acceptable.

Mini-invasive surgery for colorectal cancer

Laparoscopic techniques have been extensively used for the surgical management of colorectal cancer during the last two decades. Accumulating data have demonstrated that laparoscopic colectomy is associated with better short-term outcomes and equivalent oncologic outcomes when compared with open surgery. However, some controversies regarding the oncologic quality of mini-invasive surgery for rectal cancer exist. Meanwhile, some progresses in colorectal surgery, such as robotic technology, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, natural orifice specimen extraction, and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, have been made in recent years. In this article, we review the published data and mainly focus on the current status and latest advances of mini-invasive surgery for colorectal cancer.