Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: surgical techniques and clinical merits

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.

Risk factors for pneumonia after radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to systematically gather relevant research to determine and quantify the risk factors and pooled prevalence for pneumonia after a radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

The reporting procedures of this meta-analysis conformed to the PRISMA 2020. Chinese Wan Fang data, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Periodical Full-text Database (VIP), Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to January 20, 2024, were systematically searched for cohort or case-control studies that reported particular risk factors for pneumonia after radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The pooled prevalence of pneumonia was estimated alongside risk factor analysis. The quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale after the chosen studies had been screened and the data retrieved. RevMan 5.4 and R 4.4.2 were the program used to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Our study included data from 20,840 individuals across 27 trials. The pooled prevalence of postoperative pneumonia was 11.0% (95% CI = 8.0% ~ 15.0%). Fifteen risk factors were statistically significant, according to pooled analyses. Several factors were identified to be strong risk factors, including smoking history (OR 2.71, 95% CI = 2.09 ~ 3.50, I2 = 26%), prolonged postoperative nasogastric tube retention (OR 2.25, 95% CI = 1.36-3.72, I2 = 63%), intraoperative bleeding ≥ 200 ml (OR 2.21, 95% CI = 1.15-4.24, I2 = 79%), diabetes mellitus (OR 4.58, 95% CI = 1.84-11.38, I2 = 96%), male gender (OR 3.56, 95% CI = 1.50-8.42, I2 = 0%), total gastrectomy (OR 2.59, 95% CI = 1.83-3.66, I2 = 0%), COPD (OR 4.72, 95% CI = 3.80-5.86, I2 = 0%), impaired respiratory function (OR 2.72, 95% CI = 1.58-4.69, I2 = 92%), D2 lymphadenectomy (OR 4.14, 95% CI = 2.29-7.49, I2 = 0%), perioperative blood transfusion (OR 4.21, 95% CI = 2.51-7.06, I2 = 90%), and hypertension (OR 2.21, 95% CI = 1.29-3.79, I2 = 0%). Moderate risk factors included excessive surgery duration (OR 1.51, 95% CI = 1.25-1.83, I2 = 90%), advanced age (OR 1.91, 95% CI = 1.42-2.58, I2 = 94%), nutritional status (OR 2.62, 95% CI = 1.55-4.44, I2 = 71%), and history of pulmonary disease (OR 1.61, 95% CI = 1.17-2.21, I2 = 79%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified 15 independent risk factors significantly associated with pneumonia after radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer, with a pooled prevalence of 11.0%. These findings emphasize the importance of targeted preventive strategies, including preoperative smoking cessation, nutritional interventions, blood glucose and blood pressure control, perioperative respiratory training, minimizing nasogastric tube retention time, and optimizing perioperative blood transfusion strategies. For high-risk patients, such as the elderly, those undergoing prolonged surgeries, experiencing excessive intraoperative blood loss, undergoing total gastrectomy, or receiving open surgery, close postoperative monitoring is essential. Early recognition of pneumonia signs and timely intervention can improve patient outcomes and reduce complications.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: The Largest Systematic Reviews of 68,755 Patients and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in treating gastric cancer (GC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature search across PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science identified 86 eligible studies, including 68,755 patients (20,894 in the RG group and 47,861 in the LG group).

RESULTS

The analysis revealed that RG was associated with superior outcomes in several areas: more lymph nodes were harvested, intraoperative blood loss was reduced, postoperative hospital stays were shorter, and the time to first flatus and oral intake was shortened (all p < 0.001). Additionally, RG resulted in lower incidences of conversion to open surgery (OR = 0.62, p = 0.004), reoperation (OR = 0.68, p = 0.010), overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.82, p < 0.001), severe complications (OR = 0.65, p < 0.001), and pancreatic complications (OR = 0.60, p = 0.004). However, RG had longer operative times and higher costs (both p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between RG and LG in terms of resection margin distance, mortality, anastomotic leakage, or recurrence rates.

CONCLUSIONS

RG is a safe and effective surgical option for patients of GC, but further improvements in operative duration and costs are needed.

Robotic vs laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with Billroth I and II reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of gastric cancer, however, its comparative safety and efficacy against the laparoscopic approach (LDG), remains unclear, especially when accounting the reconstruction method as a confounder. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of RDG vs LDG In patIents with gastric cancer, undergoing Billroth I and II reconstruction. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We searched Pubmed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library, up to October 22nd, 2024. The primary outcomes analyzed were the blood loss, operative duration, and the number of harvested lymph nodes and the secondary outcomes included overall complications, time to oral intake, duration of hospitalization and time to first flatus. Random-effects models were used to calculate weighted mean differences (WMD) and Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. P values were also calculated. Sensitivity analysis was performed for outcomes with moderate to high heterogeneity. Five studies were included, involving 811 patients (RDG: n = 289, LDG: n = 522). RDG was associated with a significantly longer operative duration compared to LDG (WMD = 34.14 min, 95%CI 10.92 to 57.35, P = 0.004, I2 = 91%). RDG patients initiated oral intake earlier (WMD = -0.20 days, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.01, P = 0.03, I2 = 45%). RDG resulted in shorter hospital stays (WMD = -1.48 days, 95%CI -2.91 to -0.04, P = 0.04, I2 = 86%). RDG patients had a faster return to bowel function (time to first flatus) (WMD = -0.33 days, 95%CI -0.50 to -0.15, P = 0.00003, I2 = 57%). No statistically significant differences were observed regarding blood loss between RDG and LDG (WMD = -3.88 mL, 95%CI -21.63 to 13.87, P = 0.67, I2 = 78%). There was no statistically significant difference in complication rates (OR = 0.61, 95%CI 0.36 to 1.03, P = 0.06, I2 = 0%). No significant differences were observed regarding the number of lymph nodes harvested (WMD = -0.49, 95%CI -3.02 to 2.04, P = 0.70, I2 = 24%). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the findings of operative duration and time to first flatus. RDG with BI/ BII requires longer operative duration, but it associated with faster recovery compared to LDG. No differences were observed between RDG and LDG with regards to overall complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and blood loss, showing that RDG is as safe and oncological equivalent to LDG. Future studies particularly, multi-center randomized clinical trials, should have a longer follow up period and examine the type of reconstruction separately. PROSPERO registration: CRD42024605895.

Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score matching studies

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of robot distal gastrectomy (RDG) versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) for gastric cancer. Studies included only those that utilized propensity score matching (PSM). A systematic literature search was conducted in several major global databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, up to June 2024. Articles were screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Baseline data and primary and secondary outcome measures (e.g., operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph-node yield dissection, length of hospital stay, and time to first flatus) were extracted. The quality of PSM studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I, and data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.1 software. A total of 12 propensity score-matched studies involving 3688 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Robot-assisted surgery resulted in a longer operative time (WMD 30.64 min, 95% CI 15.63 - 45.66; p < 0.0001), less estimated blood loss (WMD 29.54 mL, 95% CI - 47.14 - 11.94; p = 0.001), more lymph-node yield (WMD 5.14, 95% CI 2.39 - 7.88; p = 0.0002), and a shorter hospital stay (WMD - 0.36, 95% CI - 0.60 - 0.12; p = 0.004) compared with laparoscopic surgery. There were no significant differences between the two surgical methods in terms of time to first flatus, overall complications, and major complications. Robot distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer reduces intraoperative blood loss, increases lymph-node yield, and shortens hospital stay compared with laparoscopic surgery, despite a longer operative time. There are no significant differences in time to first flatus and complication rates between the two groups.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Distal gastrectomy (DG) with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer is routinely performed. In this meta-analysis, we present an updated overview of the perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic DG (LDG) and robotic DG (RDG) to compare their safety and overall outcomes in patients undergoing DG. An extensive search was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the establishment of the database to June 2023 for randomized clinical trials comparing RDG and LDG. The primary outcome was operative results, postoperative recovery, complications, adequacy of resection, and long-term survival. We identified twenty studies, evaluating 5,447 patients (1,968 and 3,479 patients treated with RDG and LDG, respectively). We observed no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the proximal resection margin, number of dissected lymph nodes, major complications, anastomosis site leakage, time to first flatus, and length of hospital stay. The RDG group had a longer operative time (P < 0.00001), lesser bleeding (P = 0.0001), longer distal resection margin (P = 0.02), earlier time to oral intake (P = 0.02), fewer overall complications (P = 0.004), and higher costs (P < 0.0001) than the LDG group. RDG is a promising approach for improving LDG owing to acceptable complications and the possibility of radical resection. Longer operative times and higher costs should not prevent researchers from exploring new applications of robotic surgery.

Evaluating body mass index's impact on Da Vinci Robotic rectal cancer surgery, a retrospective study

Robotic surgery addresses laparoscopic shortcomings and yields comparable results for low and high body mass index (BMI) patients. However, the impact of BMI on postoperative complications in robotic colorectal surgery remains debated. This study assessed the implications of BMI on short outcomes and postoperative complications, highlighting its unique role in the outcomes. Retrospective analysis of 119 patients who underwent robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer (January 2022 to March 2023). Patients grouped by BMI: normal weight (BMI < 23.9 kg/m2), overweight (BMI ≥ 23.9 kg/m2 and BMI < 27.9 kg/m2), and obese (BMI ≥ 27.9 kg/m2). Investigated BMI's impact on surgical outcomes and postoperative complications. Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) in Clavien-Dindo, ASA scores. The obese group had a longer time to flatus (P = 0.002) and a higher re-operation rate than other groups (P = 0.01). The overweight group had a higher anastomotic fistula rate than the obese group. Overall complications showed no significant differences among BMI cohorts (P = 0.0295). There were no significant differences in TNM stages and comorbidities. BMI had no significant impact on overall postoperative complications in robotic surgery for rectal cancer. However, higher BMI correlated with a longer time to flatus and increased re-operation rate.

Impact of robotic and open surgery on patient wound complications in gastric cancer surgery: A meta-analysis

This meta-analysis is intended to evaluate the effect of both robotic and open-cut operations on postoperative complications of stomach carcinoma. From the earliest date until June 2023, a full and systemic search has been carried out on four main databases with keywords extracted from 'Robot', 'Gastr' and 'Opene'. The ROBINS-I instrument has been applied to evaluate the risk of bias in nonrandomized controlled trials. In these 11 trials, a total of 16 095 patients had received surgical treatment for stomach cancer and all 11 trials were nonrandomized, controlled trials. Abdominal abscesses were reported in 5 trials, wound infections in 8 trials, haemorrhage in 7 trials, wound dehiscence in 2 trials and total postoperative complications in 4 trials. Meta-analyses revealed no statistically significantly different rates of postoperative abdominal abscesses among patients who had received robotic operations than in those who had received open surgical procedures (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.25, 3.36; p = 0.89). The incidence of bleeding after surgery was not significantly different from that in both groups (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.69, 2.75; p = 0.37). Similarly, there was no significant difference between the two groups (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.52, 1.18; p = 0.24). No significant difference was found between the two groups (OR, 1. 28; 95% CI, 0.75, 2.21; p = 0.36). No significant difference was found between the two groups of patients who had received the robotic operation and those who had received the surgery after the operation (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.78, 1.66; p = 0.49). Generally speaking, this meta-analysis suggests that the use of robotics does not result in a reduction in certain postsurgical complications, including wound infections and abdominal abscesses. Thus, the use of a microinvasive robot for stomach carcinoma operation might not be better than that performed on the surgical site after the operation. This is a valuable guide for the surgeon to select the operative method.

Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery: Short-Term Outcomes-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 25,521 Patients

Background: Gastric cancer has the third highest cancer-related mortality worldwide. There is no consensus regarding the optimal surgical technique to perform curative resection surgery. Objective: Compare laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and robotic gastrectomy (RG) regarding short-term outcomes in patients with gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched the following topics: "Gastrectomy," "Laparoscopic," and "Robotic Surgical Procedures." The included studies compared short-term outcomes between LG and RG. Individual risk of bias was assessed with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) scale. Results: There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding conversion rate, reoperation rate, mortality, overall complications, anastomotic leakage, distal and proximal resection margin distances, and recurrence rate. However, mean blood loss (mean difference [MD] -19.43 mL, P < .00001), length of hospital stay (MD -0.50 days, P = .0007), time to first flatus (MD -0.52 days, P < .00001), time to oral intake (MD -0.17 days, P = .0001), surgical complications with a Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, P < .0001), and pancreatic complications (RR 0.51, P = .007) were significantly lower in the RG group. Furthermore, the number of retrieved lymph nodes was significantly higher in the RG group. Nevertheless, the RG group showed a significantly higher operation time (MD 41.19 minutes, P < .00001) and cost (MD 3684.27 U.S. Dollars, P < .00001). Conclusion: This meta-analysis supports the choice of robotic surgery over laparoscopy concerning relevant surgical complications. However, longer operation time and higher cost remain crucial limitations. Randomized clinical trials are required to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of RG.

Solo surgery in robot-assisted gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer is still not well standardized. This study aimed to explore the feasibility and effectiveness of solo surgery in robot-assisted gastrectomy (SRG) for gastric cancer compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective comparative study between SRG and conventional LG. Between April 2015 and December 2022, 510 patients underwent gastrectomy, and data from a prospectively collected database were analyzed. We identified 372 patients who underwent LG (n = 267) and SRG (n = 105) and the remaining 138 patients were excluded because of remnant gastric cancer, esophagogastric junction cancer, open gastrectomy, concurrent surgery for concomitant malignancies, RG before starting SRG, or cases in which the author was unable to perform or supervise gastrectomy. Propensity score matching was performed at a ratio of 1:1 to reduce bias from confounding patient-related variables, and short-term outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 90 pairs of patients who underwent LG and SRG were selected. In the propensity-matched cohort, the operation time was significantly shorter in the SRG group than that in the LG group (SRG = 305.7 ± 74.0 min vs. LG = 340.3 ± 91.65 min, p < 0.0058), less estimated blood loss was observed in the SRG group than that in the LG group (SRG = 25.6 ± 50.6 mL vs. LG = 76.1 ± 104.2 mL, p < 0.0001) and postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the SRG group than that in the LG group (SRG = 7.1 ± 0.8 days vs. LG = 9.1 ± 7.7 days, p = 0.015).

CONCLUSION

We found that SRG for gastric cancer was technically feasible and effective with favorable short-term outcomes, including shorter operative time, less estimated blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and lower postoperative morbidity than those in LG.

Short-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic gastrectomy with articulating instruments for gastric cancer compared with the robotic approach

To overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, robotic systems have been commonly used in the era of minimally invasive surgery despite their high cost. However, the articulation of instruments can be achieved without a robotic system at lower cost using articulating laparoscopic instruments (ALIs). Between May 2021 and May 2022, perioperative outcomes following laparoscopic gastrectomy using ALIs versus robotic gastrectomy were compared. A total of 88 patients underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy using ALIs, while 96 underwent robotic gastrectomy. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups except for a higher proportion of patients with a medical history in the ALI group (p = 0.013). Clinicopathologic and perioperative outcomes were not significantly different between the groups. However, the operation time was significantly shorter in the ALI group (p = 0.026). No deaths occurred in either group. In conclusion, laparoscopic gastrectomy using ALIs was associated with comparable perioperative surgical outcomes and a shorter operation time compared to robotic gastrectomy in this prospective cohort study.

A comparison of the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic distal gastrectomy: A retrospective study using a nationwide inpatient database

BACKGROUND

Although the safety of robotic distal gastrectomy has been studied in several single-center trials, the nationwide outcomes of robotic distal gastrectomy that meet the requirements of Japanese national health insurance, such as facility case volume and skill level of the surgeon, are still not clear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robotic distal gastrectomy, which was covered by national health insurance, compared to laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

METHODS

We retrieved gastric cancer cases with cStage I to III who underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (15,539 patients) and robotic distal gastrectomy (1,312 patients) between April 2018 and March 2020 from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. We compared the frequency of postoperative complications, anesthesia time, and postoperative hospitalization days between laparoscopic distal gastrectomy and robotic distal gastrectomy using propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

The postoperative complication rate were not different between laparoscopic distal gastrectomy and robotic distal gastrectomy (odds ratio = 0.90, 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 1.23, P = .52). The anesthesia time (minutes) was significantly longer (coefficient = 70.2, 95% confidence interval: 63.8 to 76.7, P < .001) and postoperative hospitalization (days) was significantly shorter (coefficient = -0.89, 95% confidence interval: -1.48 to -0.31, P = .003) in robotic distal gastrectomy than laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic distal gastrectomy that met strict national health insurance coverage requirements in Japan was performed as safely as laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with reduced hospitalization days.

Robotic Gastrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Cohort Study of 5402 Patients in China

OBJECTIVE

A large-scale multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

RG is being increasingly used worldwide, but data from large-scale multicenter studies on the short- and long-term oncologic outcomes of RG versus LG are limited. The potential benefits of RG compared with LG for gastric cancer remain controversial.

METHODS

Data from eligible patients who underwent RG or LG for gastric cancer of 11 experienced surgeons from 7 centers in China between March 2010 and October 2019 were collected. The RG group was matched 1:1 with the LG group by using propensity score matching. The primary outcome was postoperative complications.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, a well-balanced cohort of 3552 patients was included for further analysis. The occurrence of overall complications (12.6% vs 15.2%, P = 0.023) was lower in the RG group than in the LG group. RG was associated with less blood loss (126.8 vs 142.5 mL, P < 0.001) and more retrieved lymph nodes in total (32.5 vs 30.7, P < 0.001) and in suprapancreatic areas (13.3 vs 11.6, P < 0.001).The long-term oncological outcomes were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this multicenter study demonstrate that RG is a safe and effective treatment for gastric cancer when performed by experienced surgeons, although longer operation time and higher costs are still concerns about RG. This study provides evidence suggesting that RG may represent an alternative surgical treatment to LG.

Advanced surgical tool: Progress in clinical application of intelligent surgical robot

Surgical robot is a revolutionary tool conceived in the progress of clinical medicine, computer science, microelectronics and biomechanics. It provides the surgeon with clearer views and more comfortable surgical postures. With the assistance of computer navigation during delicate operations, it can further shorten the patient recovery time via reducing intraoperative bleeding, the risk of infection and the amount of anesthesia needed. As a comprehensive surgical revolution, surgical robot technique has a wide range of applications in related fields. This paper reviews the development status and operation principles of these surgical robots. At the same time, we also describe their up-to-date applications in different specialties and discusses the prospects and challenges of surgical robots in the medical area.

Surgical and short-term outcomes in robotic and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer with enhanced recovery after surgery protocol: A propensity score matching analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) and robot-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) for gastric cancer (GC) with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of 202 patients undergoing radical distal gastrectomy; among them, 67 cases were assisted through RADG, while 135 cases were assisted through LADG along with ERAS. We retrospectively collected the medical records in succession from a database (January 2016-March 2019). We adopted propensity score matching to compare surgical and short-term outcomes of both groups.

RESULTS

After the successful examination of 134 cases, including 67 receiving RADG and 67 undergoing LADG, the operative times were noted as 5.78 ± 0.96 h for the RADG group and 4.47 ± 1.01 h for the LADG group (P < 0.001). The blood loss was noted as 125.52 ± 101.18 ml in the RADG group and 164.93 ± 109.32 ml in the LADG group (P < 0.05). The shorter time to first flatus was 38.82 ± 10.56 h in the RADG group and 42.88 ± 11.25 h in the LADG group (P < 0.05). In contrast, shorter days of postoperative hospital stay were 5.94 ± 1.89 days in the RADG group and 6.64 ± 1.92 days in the LADG group (P < 0.05). Also, the RADG group (84483.03 ± 9487.37) was much more costly than the LADG group (65258.13 ± 8928.33) (P < 0.001). The postoperative overall complication rates, numbers of dissected lymph nodes, visual analogue scale (VAS), and time to start a liquid diet for the RADG group and the LADG group were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

In this research, we concluded that RADG provides surgical benefits and short-term outcomes compared to LADG for GC with ERAS.

What is necessary to shorten the operative time in initial introduction of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer?

INTRODUCTION

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is a good alternative to laparoscopic gastrectomy, as it improves treatment outcomes and reduces the burden of technical difficulties; however, prolonged operative time may be a disadvantage. This study aimed to identify measures to shorten the operative time during the initial introduction of RG at an institution.

METHODS

We assessed 33 patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical distal gastrectomy with Billroth-I reconstruction and divided them into three groups: laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG), robotic distal gastrectomy in the early phase (RDG-E), and in the late phase (RDG-L). Operative time, six technical steps, and junk time, including the roll-in/roll-out, docking/undocking, and instrument exchange times, were compared among the groups.

RESULTS

The median (range) overall operative times of LDG, RDG-E, and RDG-L were 248 (179-323), 304 (249-383), and 263 (220-367) min, respectively, but no significant differences were observed. For each surgical step of RG, RDG-L in suprapancreatic lymph node dissection was significantly shorter than that in RDG-E. The median (range) junk times of LDG, RDG-E, and RDG-L were 16.7 (12.7-26.4), 48.3 (38.6-67.7), and 42.0 (35.4-49.2) min, respectively. Junk time was significantly longer in RDG-L than in LDG (p = 0.003), but not significant between RDG-E and RDG-L. The learning curve effect of overall, console, and junk times were achieved in four cases of RDG.

CONCLUSION

Junk time is a major factor in prolonging RDG operative time. However, to reduce the time after initial introduction, measures to promote robot-specific standardization and more effective use of robotic instruments are essential.

Anatomy and assessment of a modified technique during totally robotic distal gastrectomy: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Robotic surgery has potential benefits in the management of gastric cancer patients. This study compares the outcomes between totally robotic distal gastrectomy (TRDG) with modified port placement and arm positioning technique and conventional totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (CTLDG).

Materials and methods

Fifty-two patients were enrolled into the study following a retrospective review of an in-patient database between January 2019 and June 2021. Patients who underwent gastric resection with the modified robotic technique were recruited into the study. Patients who did not receive treatment using the modified technique were excluded from the study. Data on demographic, clinical data and surgical outcomes were collected, analyzed, and presented. All statistical analyses were done using IBM SPSS statistical software.

Results

Nineteen patients were in the TRDG group, and their mean age was 60.42 ± 11.53 years. There were no differences in demographic characteristics (all p > 0.05); nonetheless, laparoscopic patients had a significantly higher preoperative albumin level (p = 0.000). The operative time was longer in the TRDG group (223min), but the difference was insignificant. The reconstruction time was significantly shorter for the laparoscopic group (p = 0.000). Except for a significantly higher value of postoperative albumin level (p-value = 0.005) in the robotic group, there were no significant differences in all other surgical outcomes between the two groups. One (5.3%) patient had a severe complication in the robotic group compared to four (12.1%) in the laparoscopic group. Nevertheless, the differences in complications were statistically insignificant.

Conclusion

The modified approach is a safe and feasible in totally robotic distal gastrectomy for the treatment of gastric cancer patients.

•

The modified approach has an acceptable operative time from the initial results.

•

The short reconstruction time in laparoscopic group is ascribed to the surgeon's experience.

•

The modified approach results in less blood loss, notwithstanding its statistical insignificance.

•

The modified approach produces minimal surgical stress response witnessed by the levels of postoperative albumin.

•

The modified technique produces less severe postoperative complications than conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) versus standard recovery for gastric cancer patients: The evidences and the issues

The significant advances that have been reached, in the last decades, in the treatment of gastric cancer, contributed to the concept of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) with the aim to reduce the surgical stress, accelerate postoperative recovery, and reduce the length of hospital stay. The most important items included in the ERAS protocols are the pre-operative patient education, early mobilization and immediate oral intake from the first postoperative day. The aim of this narrative review is to focus the attention on the possible advantages of ERAS program on perioperative functional recovery outcomes after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

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.

Clinical efficacy and safety of robotic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) is a new technique that is rapidly gaining popularity and may help overcome the limitations of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG); however, its safety and therapeutic efficacy remain controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RDG.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies that compared RDG and LDG and were published between the time of database inception and May 2021. We assessed the bias risk of the observational studies using ROBIN-I, and a random effect model was always applied.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 22 studies involving 5386 patients. Compared with LDG, RDG was associated with longer operating time (Mean Difference [MD] = 43.88, 95% CI = 35.17-52.60), less intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 24.84, 95% CI = - 41.26 to - 8.43), a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD = 2.41, 95% CI = 0.77-4.05), shorter time to first flatus (MD = - 0.09, 95% CI = - 0.15 to - 0.03), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = - 0.68, 95% CI = - 1.27 to - 0.08), and lower incidence of pancreatic fistula (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.07-0.79). Mean proximal and distal resection margin distances, time to start liquid and soft diets, and other complications were not significantly different between RDG and LDG groups. However, in the propensity-score-matched meta-analysis, the differences in time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups lost significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, RDG appears feasible and safe, shows better surgical and oncological outcomes than LDG and, comparable postoperative recovery and postoperative complication outcomes.

Effectiveness and safety of robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of 12,401 gastric cancer patients

Advanced minimally invasive techniques, such as robotic surgeries, are applied increasingly frequently around the world and are primarily used to improve the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Against that background, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy (RG). Studies comparing surgical outcomes between LG and RG patients were retrieved from medical databases, including RCTs and non-RCTs. The primary outcome of this study was overall survival, which was obtained by evaluating the 3-year survival rate and the 5-year survival rate. In addition, postoperative complications, mortality, length of hospital stay, and harvested lymph nodes were also assessed. We also conducted subgroup analyses stratified by resection type, body mass index, age, depth of invasion and tumour size. Ultimately, 31 articles met the criterion for our study through an attentive check of each text, including 1 RCT and 30 non-RCTs. A total of 12,401 patients were included in the analysis, with 8127 (65.5%) undergoing LG and 4274 (34.5%) undergoing RG. Compared with LG, RG was associated with fewer postoperative complications (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.71-0.93; P = 0.002), especially pancreas-related complications (OR 0.376; 95% CI 0.156-0.911; P = 0.030), increased harvested lymph nodes (WMD 2.03; 95% CI 0.95-3.10; P < 0.001), earlier time to first flatus (WMD - 0.105 days; 95% CI - 0.207 to - 0.003; P = 0.044), longer operation time (WMD 40.192 min, 95% CI 32.07-48.31; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD - 20.09 ml; 95% CI - 26.86 to - 13.32; P < 0.001), and higher expense (WMD 19,141.68 RMB; 95% CI 11,856.07-26,427.29; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding 3-year overall survival (OR 1.030; 95% CI 0.784-1.353; P = 0.832), 5-year overall survival (OR 0.862; 95% CI 0.721-1.031; P = 0.105), conversion rate (OR 0.857; 95% CI 0.443-1.661; P = 0.648), postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.368 days; 95% CI - 0.75-0.013; P = 0.059), mortality (OR 1.248; 95% CI 0.514-3.209; P = 0.592), and reoperation (OR 0.855; 95% CI 0.479-1.525; P = 0.595). Our study revealed that postoperative complications, especially pancreas-related complications, occurred less often with RG than with LG. However, long-term outcomes between the two surgical techniques need to be further examined, particularly regarding the oncological adequacy of robotic gastric cancer resections.

A meta-analysis of robotic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy in gastric cancer treatment

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) shows potential as an alternative to open gastrectomy (OG), the gold standard in the surgical management of gastric cancer (GC). This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the short-term efficacy and safety of RG versus OG for GC.A systematic literature search was conducted on RG with OG for GC in randomized and semi-randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Published materials and conference papers in English and trace references included in the literature were manually searched. The retrieval period was set to end in February 2021. The quality of the included studies was evaluated, and meta-analysis was conducted using the software STATA 15.1. Eleven studies with 6693 patients were included. Major blood loss (weighted mean differences (WMD) = -114.63, 95 % CI, -182.37-46.88, P = 0.001), hospital stay (WMD = -2.21, 95 % CI, -4.32-0.09, P = 0.041), and postoperative complications (odds ratio (OR) = OR = 0.57, 95 % CI, 0.35-0.93, P = 0.025) were fewer in the RS group, and R0 resection (odds ratio (OR) = 6.26, 95 % CI, 2.733-14.35, P = 0.000) occurred more frequently in the RG group than in the OG group. But positive lymph nodes (WMD = -2.09, 95 % CI,-3.73-0.45, P = 0.012) occurred less frequently in the RG group than in the OG group, and operative time was longer in the RG group than in the OG group (WMD = 83.21, 95 % CI, 19.88-146.55, P = 0.010). RG not only provides a technique for the treatment of GC but is also safe and feasible. This finding needs to be verified by multicenter, large-sample randomized controlled trials in the future.

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.

Comprehensive Learning Curve of Robotic Surgery: Discovery From a Multicenter Prospective Trial of Robotic Gastrectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the complication-based learning curve and identify learning-associated complications of robotic gastrectomy.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

With the increased popularity of robotic surgery, a sound understanding of the learning curve in the surgical outcome of robotic surgery has taken on great importance. However, a multicenter prospective study analyzing learning-associated morbidity has never been conducted in robotic gastrectomy.

METHODS

Data on 502 robotic gastrectomy cases were prospectively collected from 5 surgeons. Risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis was applied to visualize the learning curve of robotic gastrectomy on operation time and complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-five cases, on average, were needed to overcome complications and operation time-learning curve sufficiently to gain proficiency in 3 surgeons. An additional 23 cases were needed to cross the transitional phase to progress from proficiency to mastery. The moderate complication rate (CD ≥ grade II) was 20% in phase 1 (cases 1-25), 10% in phase 2 (cases 26-65), 26.1% in phase 3 (cases 66-88), and 6.4% in phase 4 (cases 89-125) (P < 0.001). Among diverse complications, CD ≥ grade II intra-abdominal bleeding (P < 0.001) and abdominal pain (P = 0.01) were identified as major learning-associated morbidities of robotic gastrectomy. Previous experience on laparoscopic surgery and mode of training influenced progression in the learning curve.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study suggesting that technical immaturity substantially affects the surgical outcomes of robotic gastrectomy and that robotic gastrectomy is a complex procedure with a significant learning curve that has implications for physician training and credentialing.

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.

ICG-NIR-guided lymph node dissection during robotic subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. A single-centre experience

BACKGROUND

Near-infrared (NIR) fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green (ICG) allows intraoperative visualisation of the lymph nodes (LNs) draining the tumour.

METHODS

We included in our study 20 patients who underwent robotic subtotal gastrectomy + D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer. In 10 cases, intraoperative ICG-guided lymphography has been used (Group A). We compared the number of LNs retrieved with the use of NIR imaging and the number of LNs retrieved without the use of this technique (Group B, historical group).

RESULTS

No complications related to ICG injection or near-infrared imaging were observed. The mean number of overall LNs retrieved was significantly greater in Group A than in group B (40 vs. 24). No statistically significant difference in operative time was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

ICG-guided fluorescent lymphography can help in performing a more accurate locoregional lymphadenectomy during robotic subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. This technique represents a precious contribution to gastric cancer surgery.

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.

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.

Effectiveness and safety of robotic versus traditional laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Gastrectomy is considered the gold standard treatment for gastric cancer patients. Currently, there are two minimally invasive surgical methods to choose from, robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Nevertheless, it is still unclear which is superior between the two. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of RG and LG for gastric cancer. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases until September 2018 in studies that compared RG and LG in gastric cancer patients. Operative and postoperative outcomes analyzed were assessed. The quality of the evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. Twenty-four English studies were analyzed. The meta-analysis revealed that the RG group had a significantly longer operation time, lower intraoperative blood loss, and higher perioperative costs compared to the LG group. However, there were no differences in complications, conversion rate, reoperation rate, mortality, number of lymph nodes harvested, days of first flatus, postoperative hospitalization time, and survival rate between the two groups. RG was shown to be associated with decreased intraoperative blood loss and increased perioperative cost and operation time compared to LG. Several higher-quality original studies and prospective clinical trials are required to confirm the advantages of RG.

Effect of Surgical Approach on Node Harvest in Robotic Gastrectomy

There has been increasing utilization of minimally invasive surgical approaches. This study evaluates the effect of surgical approach on total lymph node harvest in gastrectomy. Patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma between 2007 and 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Data collected included age, gender, race, BMI, neoadjuvant therapy, tumor stage, surgical approach, and total number of lymph nodes harvested. The total number of harvested lymph nodes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test for univariate analysis and a Poisson regression model for multivariable analysis. One hundred four patients were identified. Median node harvest for open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches were 16, 17, and 36, respectively. Multivariable analysis controlling for gender, BMI, pathological T stage, and year of operation demonstrates that surgical approach is statistically significantly associated with lymph node harvest ( F = 83.4, P < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, robotic approach was associated with greater lymph node harvest than both open ( P < 0.0001) and laparoscopic ( P < 0.0001) approaches, whereas laparoscopic approach was associated with greater lymph node harvest than open ( P < 0.0001) approach. These data demonstrate that for patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma at our institution, robotic approach is associated with greater lymph node harvest than both laparoscopic and open approaches.

Enhanced recovery after surgery for gastric cancer (ERAS-GC): optimizing patient outcome

Significant advances were achieved, in last decades, in the management of surgical patients with gastric cancer. This has led to the concept of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) with the objective of reducing the length of hospital stay, accelerating postoperative recovery and reducing the surgical stress. The ERAS protocols have many items, including the pre-operative patient education, early mobilization and feeding starting from the first postoperative day. This review aims to highlight possible advantages on postoperative functional recovery outcomes after gastrectomy in patients undergoing an ERAS program, current lack of evidences and future perspectives.

Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Gastrectomy among Gastric Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Short-Term Analysis from a Single Institution in China

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci robotic system was considered an effectively alternative treatment option for early gastric cancer patients in recent years. The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted gastrectomy in our center.

METHODS

This study included 33 patients who underwent robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) and 88 patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) between January 2016 and April 2018. Clinicopathological characteristics, surgical parameters, postoperative recovery, and the learning curves of RAG were evaluated.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics between two groups were well balanced. The operation time of RAG was longer than that of LAG (333.1 ± 61.4 min vs. 290.6 ± 39.0 min, p = 0.001), and the estimated blood loss was 62.4 ± 41.2 ml in the RAG group and 77.7 ± 32.3 ml in the LAG group (p = 0.005), respectively. The mean number of examined lymph nodes in RAG was less than that in LAG (30.3 ± 10.2 vs. 37.4 ± 13.7, p = 0.008). However, RAG had an advantage in the dissection of No. 9 lymph nodes (3.4 ± 2.1 vs. 2.5 ± 1.6, p = 0.039). The incidence of postoperative complications was similar in both groups (p = 0.735). There were no significant differences in terms of postoperative recovery between the two groups. The learning curve of RAG showed that the CUSUM value decreased from the 8th case, which suggested a rapid learning curve among experienced surgeons on LAG operations.

CONCLUSIONS

RAG was safe and feasible for gastric cancer patients, with superiority in the dissection of No. 9 lymph nodes.

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.

Robotic vs open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis on short- and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was compare short- and long-term outcomes between robotic (RG) and standard open gastrectomy (OG).

METHODS

This is a single-center propensity score-matched study including patients who underwent RG or OG for gastric cancer between 2008 and 2018.

RESULTS

In total, 191 patients could be included for analysis. Of 60 RG patients, 49 could be matched. After matching, significant differences in baseline characteristics were no longer present. Operative time was significantly longer (451 min, IQR: 392-513) in the RG group than in the OG (262 min, IQR: 225-330) (P < .0001). No significant differences in postoperative complications between RG (n = 15, 30.6%) and OG (n = 15, 30.6%) were seen (P = 1.000). Overall survival was comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RG is feasible and safe. With regard to long-term oncologic outcomes, survivals in the RG group were similar to those in OG group.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resection surgery: Short-term outcomes and complications: A retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

The safety of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) remains a concern. This study aimed to compare the complications after RAS versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery (LAS) for rectal cancer using the Clavien-Dindo classification and to identify risk factors related to the complications.

METHOD

Between March 2010 and June 2016, 556 rectal cancer patients who underwent successful RAS and 1029 patients who received LAS were enrolled in this study. The complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, and the possible risk factors related to the complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

The overall postoperative complication rate was 14.9%, with a 5% rate of severe complications that were classified as grade III or above in RAS group compared with 17.1% and 4.4% in LAS group. However, no significant difference was found (P = 0.608). A high ASA score was identified as an independent risk factor for overall and severe complications in both groups. The use of more than 3 staples in each operation and the anastomotic site of the anal verge at less than 5 cm were independent risk factors for complications.

CONCLUSIONS

RAS for rectal cancer is technically safe and it does not significantly improve the complication rate. The incidence of overall complications is still related to tumor location, the general condition of the patients, and the surgical approach.

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a European perspective

Gastrectomy is the mainstay treatment for gastric cancer. To reduce the associated patient burden, minimally invasive gastrectomy was introduced in almost 30 years ago. The increase in the availability of surgical robotic systems led to the first robotic-assisted gastrectomy to be performed in 2002 in Japan. Robotic gastrectomy however, particularly in Europe, has not yet gained significant traction. Most reports to date are from Asia, predominantly containing observational studies. These cohorts are commonly different in the tumour stage, location (particularly with regards to gastroesophageal junctional tumours) and patient BMI compared to those encountered in Europe. To date, no randomised clinical trials have been performed comparing robotic gastrectomy to either laparoscopic or open equivalent. Cohort studies show that robotic gastrectomy is equal oncological outcomes in terms of survival and lymph node yield. Operative times in the robotic group are consistently longer compared to laparoscopic or open gastrectomy, although evidence is emerging that resectional surgical time is equal. The only reproducibly significant difference in favour of robot-assisted gastrectomy is a reduction in intra-operative blood loss and some studies show a reduction in the risk of pancreatic fistula formation.

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.

Gastric Cancer Etiology and Management in Asia and the West

Regional variation in treatment paradigms for gastric adenocarcinoma has attracted a great deal of interest. Between Asia and the West, major differences have been identified in tumor biology, implementation of screening programs, extent of surgical lymphadenectomy, and routine use of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant treatment strategies. Minimally invasive techniques, including both laparoscopic and robotic platforms, have been studied in both regions, with attention to safety, feasibility, and long-term oncologic outcomes. The purpose of this review is to discuss advances in the understanding of the etiology and underlying biology of gastric cancer, as well as the current state of management, focusing on the differences between Asia and the West.

Robotic Developments in Cancer Surgery

Indications for robotic surgery have been rapidly expanding since the first introduction of the robotic surgical system in the US market in 2000. As the robotic systems have become more sophisticated over the past decades, there has been an expansion in indications. Many new tools have been added with the aim of optimizing outcomes after oncologic surgery. Complex abdominal cancers are increasingly operated on using robot-assisted laparoscopy and with acceptable outcomes. In this article, the authors discuss robotic developments, from the past and the future, with an emphasis on cancer surgery.

Pancreatic Complications After Conventional Laparoscopic Radical Gastrectomy Versus Robotic Radical Gastrectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent reports have suggested that the use of the robot might reduce the rate of pancreatic complications following minimally invasive radical gastrectomy.

METHODS

By meta-analyzing the available literature, we aimed to elucidate possible differences between conventional laparoscopic and robotic radical gastrectomy on pancreatic morbidity.

RESULTS

More than 2000 patients from eight studies were eventually included in the analysis. The overall incidence of postoperative pancreatic complications was 2.2%, being 1.7% and 2.5% following robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), respectively. In particular, pancreatic fistula occurred in 2.7% of patients receiving robotic gastrectomy (RG) and 3.8% of patients receiving laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the robot showed a trend toward better outcomes compared with laparoscopy, despite the presence of more advanced disease and higher body mass index. The meta-analysis resulted in an odd ratio of 0.8 favoring RG over LG on pancreatic morbidity, although without statistical significance.

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.

Successful Robotic Gastrectomy Does Not Require Extensive Laparoscopic Experience

Purpose

We evaluated the learning curve and short-term surgical outcomes of robot-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) performed by a single surgeon experienced in open, but not laparoscopic, gastrectomy. We aimed to verify the feasibility of performing RADG without extensive laparoscopic experience.

Materials and Methods

Between July 2012 and December 2016, 60 RADG procedures were performed by a single surgeon using the da Vinci^® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical). Patient characteristics, the length of the learning curve, surgical parameters, and short-term postoperative outcomes were analyzed and compared before and after the learning curve had been overcome.

Results

The duration of surgery rapidly decreased from the first to the fourth case; after 25 procedures, the duration of surgery was stabilized, suggesting that the learning curve had been overcome. Cases were divided into 2 groups: 25 cases before the learning curve had been overcome (early cases) and 35 later cases. The mean duration of surgery was 420.8 minutes for the initial cases and 281.7 minutes for the later cases (P<0.001). The console time was significantly shorter during the later cases (168.6 minutes) than during the early cases (247.1 minutes) (P<0.001). Although the volume of blood loss during surgery declined over time, there was no significant difference between the early and later cases. No other postoperative outcomes differed between the 2 groups. Pathology reports revealed the presence of mucosal invasion in 58 patients and submucosal invasion in 2 patients.

Conclusions

RADG can be performed safely with acceptable surgical outcomes by experts in open gastrectomy.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of robot-assisted versus laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) has been used for gastric cancer since 2002. This meta-analysis was carried out to evaluate whether RAG is safer and more effective than conventional laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

We performed a manual search for these 2 types of operations (RAG and LAG) in the PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases up to April 30, 2016. Twelve nonrandomized controlled trials that reported on RAG and LAG for gastric cancer were included. Outcomes evaluated included operation time, number of retrieved lymph nodes, blood loss, length of the resection margin, complications, and postoperative hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 3744 patients in 12 studies were included (1134 patients in the RAG group and 2610 patients in the LAG group). The operation time was significantly shorter in the LAG group [weighted mean difference (WMD) 42.0 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI 28.11-55.89) minutes; P < .00001], while the loss of blood volume was lower in the RAG group (P = .01). The number of retrieved lymph nodes, duration of postoperative stay, length of the proximal resection margin, length of the distal resection margin, and postoperative complications were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that RAG is a safe and appropriate treatment for gastric cancer patients in comparison to LAG. Nevertheless, RAG is not superior to LAG. Future research on RAG should focus on comparing the differences in retrieved lymph nodes in different tiers, evaluating the postoperative recovery and reducing the cost of the treatment.

Combat with esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A critical review of the literature

Esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage (EJAL) is considered to be one of the most serious complications after total gastrectomy (TG), despite improvements in surgical instruments and technique. The occurrence of EJAL would cause poorer quality of life, prolonged hospital stay, and increased surgery-related costs and mortality. Although there is ever-increasing knowledge about EJAL, the optimal management is controversial. In the present review, we aim to demonstrate the effective management by focus on the possible risk factors, potentially useful preventive strategies, and several kinds of treatments in esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer.