Robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison of surgical performance and short-term outcomes

Robotic vs. laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A propensity score-matched retrospective comparative study at a single institution

BACKGROUND

Although robotic surgery is becoming more widespread worldwide, it is still in its infancy. This study aimed to confirm the safety and feasibility of the induction of robotic-assisted gastric surgery at a local hospital.

METHODS

For five years, between 2016 and 2020, 42 laparoscopic and 71 robotic distal gastrectomies were performed at the same institution. Patients diagnosed with gastric cancer were retrieved from the database. Propensity score matching was performed based on covariates such as Age, Sex, BMI, the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status, Tumor Location, pT, and pN. Clinicopathological characteristics, surgical performance, postoperative outcomes, and pathological data were retrospectively collected and compared by the Chi-square test, the Fisher's exact test, the Student's t-test, and the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

Billroth II reconstruction was often selected for the robotic group more than the laparoscopic group (59.4% and 15.6%, respectively). In addition, the number of lymph nodes harvested after D2 dissection tended to be more significant in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (52.1 ± 7.6 and 29.1 ± 3.7, respectively; p = 0.00934). The mean operative time was 271.4 ± 10.5 min for the robotic group and 220.8 ± 12.3 min for the laparoscopic group (p = 0.00005). There were no differences in short-term clinical outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a single-center, small comparative study, the results showed that the robotic surgery group was not inferior to the laparoscopic group in feasibility and safety. Moreover, robotic surgery enables harvesting a higher number of lymph nodes, which may be more advantageous than laparoscopic surgery. This study also showed that as the surgeon gains experience with robotic surgery, its operative time becomes significantly shorter.

The inflammation score predicts the prognosis of gastric cancer patients undergoing Da Vinci robot surgery

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), calculated from peripheral blood immune-inflammatory cell counts, is considered a predictor of survival in various cancers. Nevertheless, there is a lack of research into the predictive value of NLR specifically in gastric cancer patients following surgery using the Da Vinci robot. Investigate the objectives of this research, confirm the positive predictive value of NLR in the prognosis of gastric cancer patients undergoing Da Vinci robotic-assisted surgery by comparing its prognostic ability with other inflammation markers and tumor biomarkers. In this retrospective analysis, information from 128 individuals diagnosed with gastric cancer and treated with da Vinci robot-assisted surgery was examined. The study examined various markers in the peripheral blood, including neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR), lymphocyte/monocyte ratio (LMR), systemic immune-inflammatory index (SII) prognostic nutrition index (PNI), cancer antigen 125 (CA125), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), carbohydrate antigen 72-4 (CA72-4), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP).To ascertain the prognostic ability and optimal cutoff values of each parameter, operating characteristic curves and the area under the curve were utilized in the analysis. For evaluation of independent prognostic factors, we utilized Kaplan-Meier curves and multifactorial Cox analysis. The variables from the multifactorial Cox analysis were used to construct a nomogram. NLR, LMR, CEA, AFP, primary location, largest tumor size and TNM stage were all found to be significant predictive elements for overall survival (OS). Multivariate Cox identified NLR (P = 0.005), LMR (P = 0.03) and AFP (P = 0.007) as the only separate predictive variables among hematological indicators. The nomogram built using NLR demonstrates excellent predictive performance at 1 year (AUC = 0.778), 3 years (AUC = 0.773), and 5 years (AUC = 0.781). Cross-validation demonstrates that this model has favorable predictive performance and discriminative ability. NLR is an uncomplicated yet potent marker for forecasting the survival result of individuals with gastric cancer following da Vinci robotic surgery, and it possesses considerable predictive significance. The nomogram based on NLR provides patients with a visual and accurate prognosis prediction.

Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this multicentre cohort study was to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

Patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy by robotic or laparoscopic approaches from 1 March 2010 to 31 December 2018 at 10 high-volume centres in China were selected from institutional databases. Patients receiving RG were matched 1 : 1 by propensity score with patients undergoing LG. The primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes were overall survival and disease recurrence.

RESULTS

Some 2055 patients who underwent RG and 4309 patients who had LG were included. The propensity score-matched cohort comprised 2026 RGs and 2026 LGs. Median follow-up was 41 (i.q.r. 39-58) months for the RG group and 39 (38-56) months for the LG group. The 3-year disease-free survival rates were 80.8% in the RG group and 79.5% in the LG group (log rank P = 0.240; HR 0.92, 95% c.i. 0.80 to 1.06; P = 0.242). Three-year OS rates were 83.9 and 81.8% respectively (log rank P = 0.068; HR 0.87, 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.068) and the cumulative incidence of recurrence over 3 years was 19.3% versus 20.8% (HR 0.95, 0.88 to 1.03; P = 0.219), with no difference between groups.

CONCLUSION

RG and LG in patients with gastric cancer are associated with comparable disease-free and overall survival.

Establishing the Learning Curve of Laparoscopic and Robotic Distal Gastrectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal gastrectomy (MIDG) is non-inferior compared with open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. However, MIDG bears a learning curve (LC). This study aims to evaluate the number of cases required to surmount the LC (i.e. NLC) in MIDG.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to August 2022 for studies which reported NLC in MIDG. NLC on reduced-port/single-port MIDG only were separately analysed. Poisson mean (95% confidence interval (CI)) was used to determine NLC. Negative binomial regression was used to compare NLC between laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) and robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG).

RESULTS

A total of 45 articles with 71 data sets (LDG n=47, RDG n=24) were analysed. There were 7776 patients in total (LDG n=5516, RDG n=2260). Majority of studies were conducted in East Asia (n=68/71). Majority (76.1%) of data sets used non-arbitrary methods of analyses. The overall NLC for RDG was significantly lower compared to LDG (RDG 22.4 (95% CI: 20.4-24.5); LDG 46.7 (95% CI: 44.1-49.4); incidence rate ratio 0.48, p<0.001). The median number of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) cases prior was 0 (interquartile range (IQR) 0-105) for LDG and 159 (IQR 101-305.3) for RDG. Meta-regression analysis did not show a significant impact prior experience in LG, extent of lymphadenectomy and intracorporeal vs extracorporeal anastomosis had on overall NLC for LDG and RDG.

CONCLUSION

NLC for RDG is shorter compared to LDG, but this may be due to prior experience in LG and ergonomic advantages of RDG.

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.

Comparison of short term results following robotic and laparoscopic total gastrectomy and D2 lymph node dissection

INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, there has been a progressive shift from open to mini-invasive operative techniques for surgical resection of gastric cancer. Advanced equipment of surgical robots, with its 3D visualization, steady camera view, flexible instrument tips, attracts more and more practitioners in performing robotic gastrectomy with D2 dissection in gastric cancer patients. Thus, the comparison of some basic oncological as well as some surgical variables related to laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy is necessary.

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.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic gastrectomy guided by carbon nanoparticle suspension injection in gastric cancer

Background

The clinical application of robotic-assisted gastrectomy remains controversial, especially as clinical studies of this operation navigated by carbon nanoparticle suspension injection (CNSI) have not been conducted. This study aims to assess the perioperative safety and efficacy of CNSI-guided robotic-assisted gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer by focusing on short-term outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent CNSI-guided laparoscopic or robotic-assisted gastrectomy with a pathological diagnosis of gastric cancer was conducted. Data on demographics, surgical management, clinical-pathological results and short-term outcomes were compared among the groups.

Results

A total of 126 eligible patients were separated into the robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) group (n = 16) and the laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) group (n = 110) in total. The operation time of the RAG group is longer than the LG group (p = 0.0000). When it comes to perioperative and short-term complications, there exists no statistical difference between the two groups.

Conclusion

The time required for CNSI-guided robotic-assisted gastrectomy is longer than that for CNSI-guided laparoscopic gastrectomy. CNSI-guided robotic-assisted gastrectomy is safe and effective.

Postoperative outcomes in robotic gastric resection compared with laparoscopic gastric resection in gastric cancer: A meta‐analysis and systemic review

Background

Robotic gastrectomy is a commonly used procedure for early gastric cancer and it also overcomes the limitation of laparoscopic. However, the complications of robotic gastrectomy (RG) still need to be assessed. Our study was designed to compare postoperative complications of RG with laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

Materials and Methods

A meta‐analysis and systemic review were prospectively collected using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE database of published studies by comparing the RG and LG with gastric cancer up to December 2021. To evaluate the postoperative outcomes, odds ratios were calculated for Dichotomous data and the mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for continuous data, and measured by the random‐effect model.

Results

Thirty‐two retrospective studies describing 13,585 patients (4484 RG and 9101 LG) satisfied the inclusion criteria. A statistically significant result was in blood loss (MD = −17.97, 95% Cl: −25.61 to 10.32, p < 0.001), Clavien−Dindo grade Ⅲ (odds ratio (OR) = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.48−0.76, p < 0.01), and harvested lymph node (MD = 2.62, 95% CI: 2.14−3.11, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between robotic gastrectomy surgery (RGS) and laparoscopic gastrectomy surgery (LGS) regarding distal resection margin (DRM), proximal resection margin (PRM), conversion rate, anastomotic leakage, and overall complications.

Conclusion

Having significant outcomes in Clavien–Dindo grade III, and blood loss, harvested lymph nodes are more common in RGS, and they also help in increasing the quality of life.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Mega Meta-Analysis

Background

Laparoscopic gastrectomy and robotic gastrectomy are the most widely adopted treatment of choice for gastric cancer. To systematically assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis on short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy.

Methods

In order to find relevant studies on the efficacy and safety of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in the treatment of gastric cancer, numerous medical databases including PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, and China Journal Full-text Database (CNKI) were consulted, and Chinese and English studies on the efficacy and safety of RG and LG in the treatment of gastric cancer published from 2012 to 2022 were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.

Results

The meta-analysis inlcuded 48 literatures, with 20,151 gastric cancer patients, including 6,175 in the RG group and 13,976 in the LG group, respectively. Results of our meta-analysis showed that RG group had prololonged operative time (WMD = 35.72, 95% CI = 28.59–42.86, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 258.69 min ± 32.98; LG: mean ± SD = 221.85 min ± 31.18), reduced blood loss (WMD = −21.93, 95% CI = −28.94 to −14.91, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 105.22 ml ± 62.79; LG: mean ± SD = 127.34 ml ± 79.62), higher number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.99–3.63, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 35.88 ± 4.14; LG: mean ± SD = 32.73 ± 4.67), time to first postoperative food intake shortened (WMD = −0.20, 95% CI = −0.29 to −0.10, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 4.5 d ± 1.94; LG: mean ± SD = 4.7 d ± 1.54), and lower length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD = −0.54, 95% CI = −0.83 to −0.24, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 8.91 d ± 6.13; LG: mean ± SD = 9.61 d ± 7.74) in comparison to the LG group. While the other variables, for example, time to first postoperative flatus, postoperative complications, proximal and distal mar gin, R₀ resection rate, mortality rate, conversion rate, and 3-year overall survival rate were all found to be statistically similar at P > 0.05.

Conclusions

In the treatment of gastric cancer, robotic gastrectomy is a safe and effective procedure that has both short- and long-term effects. To properly evaluate the advantages of robotic surgery in gastric cancer, more randomised controlled studies with rigorous research methodologies are needed.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Less Severe Intra-Abdominal Infections in Robotic Surgery for Gastric Cancer Compared with Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer (GC) on the incidence of postoperative complication is debatable and unclear.

METHODS

This study enrolled 200 patients with GC who were surgically treated and consisted of 100 RG and 100 laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) cases using an ultrasonic scalpel. The short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. These outcomes were compared using a 1:1 propensity score (PS)-matching analysis.

RESULTS

After PS matching, 76 cases in each group were well matched. Mean surgical time was significantly longer in the RG group than in the LG group (393 vs. 342 min, p < 0.005), whereas mean blood loss during surgery was significantly lower in the RG group than in the LG group (30.1 vs. 50.1 mL, p = 0.023). The median number of surgeons who attend the main part of the surgery was significantly less in the RG group than in the LG group (2.0 vs. 3.0, p = 0.01). The rate of severe intra-abdominal infectious complication was significantly lower in the RG group than in the LG group (0% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.014). The duration from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy was significantly shorter in the RG group than in the LG group (29.6 ± 11.0 vs. 45.2 ± 27.8 days, p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

RG using an ultrasonic scalpel may be a viable alternative to LG because of the improvement in the rate of postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications after curative surgery for GC.

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.

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.

Robotic total gastrectomy for carcinoma in the remnant stomach: a comparison with laparoscopic total gastrectomy

Background

Total gastrectomy for carcinoma in the remnant stomach (CRS) remains a technically demanding procedure. Whether robotic surgery is superior, equal, or inferior to laparoscopic surgery in patients with CRS is unclear. This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) and laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) for the treatment of CRS.

Methods

In this cohort study, we retrospectively analysed the data from patients who underwent RTG or LTG for CRS at Southwest Hospital (Chongqing, China) between May 2006 and October 2019. The surgical outcomes, post-operative complications, and survival outcomes between the two groups were compared.

Results

Compared with LTG, RTG was associated with similar effective operation time (272.0 vs 297.9 min, P = 0.170), higher total costs (105,967.2 vs 81,629.5 RMB, P < 0.001), and less estimated blood loss (229.2 vs 288.8 mL, P = 0.031). No significant differences were found between the robotic and laparoscopic groups in terms of conversion rate, time to first flatus, time to first soft diet, post-operative hospital stay, post-operative complications, R0 resection rate, and number of retrieved lymph nodes (all P > 0.05). The 3-year disease-free survival and 3-year overall survival rates were comparable between the two groups (65.5% vs 57.5%, P = 0.918; 69.0% vs 60.0%, P = 0.850, respectively).

Conclusions

RTG is a safe and feasible procedure for the treatment of CRS and could serve as an optimal treatment for CRS.

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.

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

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

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for gastric cancer in Turkish population

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

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

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

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

Learning curve of robotic distal and total gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess the learning curve of robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) and robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

Data on consecutive patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer by five surgeons between March 2010 and August 2019 at two high-volume institutions were collected. The learning curve was determined based on the analyses of operation time and postoperative complications within 30 days. Cumulative sum analysis (CUSUM) and risk-adjusted-CUSUM (RA-CUSUM) were applied to identify the turning points (TPs).

RESULTS

A total of 899 consecutive patients were included. The mean number of patients needed to overcome the learning curve for operation time of RDG and RTG were 22 and 20, respectively. The number of patients needed to overcome the learning curve for postoperative complications after RDG and RTG were 23 and 18, respectively. The surgical outcomes in the post-TP group were better than in the pre-TP group and improved as surgeons' experience increased. Also, increased case numbers in RDG promoted the RTG learning process.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated a substantial influence of surgical cumulative volume on improved surgical outcomes in robotic gastrectomy. Increased experience in RDG may help surgeons to achieve proficiency faster in RTG.

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.

Effect of Surgical Approach on Node Harvest in Gastrectomy: Analysis of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

Gastrectomy is the cornerstone of treatment for gastric cancer. Recent studies demonstrated significant surgical outcome advantages for patients undergoing minimally invasive versus open gastrectomy. Lymph node harvest is an indicator of adequate surgical resection, and greater harvest is associated with improved staging and patient outcomes. This study evaluated lymph node harvest based on surgical approach.

METHODS

Gastric adenocarcinoma patients were identified from NCDB who underwent gastrectomy between 2010 and 2016. Patients were classified by surgical approach into three cohorts: robotic, laparoscopic, or open gastrectomy. Clinical and demographic data were collected. Lymph node harvest was compared with univariate analysis and multivariable generalized linear mixed model. Univariate analysis with propensity matching was also performed to control for differences in patient population across cohorts.

RESULTS

We identified 10,690 patients that underwent gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma, with 68% males and median age of 66 (IQR 5774) years. 7161 (67%) underwent open, 2841 (26.6%) laparoscopic, and 688 (6.4%) robotic gastrectomy. Multivariable analysis revealed robotic was associated with a significantly higher median node harvest (18, IQR 1326) compared to laparoscopic (17, IQR 1125) and open gastrectomy (16, IQR 1023). Laparoscopic was also associated with significantly higher node harvest then open gastrectomy. Propensity-matched analysis (6950 patients) showed robotic gastrectomy was still associated with significantly higher node harvest (18, IQR 1226) compared to laparoscopic (17, IQR 1125) and open (17, IQR 1124); however, laparoscopic and open were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Robotic approach is associated with increased node harvest compared to laparoscopic and open approach in gastrectomy patients.

Incidence and risk factors of postoperative complications after robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an analysis of 817 cases based on 10-year experience in a large-scale center

BACKGROUND

In this study, we investigated the incidence and risk factors for postoperative complications after robotic gastrectomy (RG) in patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

A total of 817 patients who underwent RG for gastric cancer between March 2010 and August 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Postoperative complications were categorized according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, and possible risk factors were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 817 patients who underwent RG, overall, severe, local and systemic complication rates were 13.8, 4.2, 7.0 and 6.9%, respectively. Multivariable analysis revealed that an age of 70 years or older (P < 0.001) and multiorgan resection (P = 0.031) were independent risk factors for the occurrence of overall complications. Multivariable analysis showed that an age of 70 years or older (P = 0.005) and surgeons' experience ≤ 25 cases (P = 0.004) were independent risk factors for severe complications. Regarding local complications, an age of 70 years or older (P < 0.001), multiorgan resection (P = 0.010) and surgeons' experience ≤ 25 cases (P = 0.005) were identified as independent risk factors. An age of 70 years or older (P < 0.001), a BMI of 25 or higher (P = 0.045) and the presence of comorbidity (P = 0.029) were identified as independent risk factors for systemic complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated that RG is a safe and feasible procedure for the treatment of gastric cancer, and it has an acceptable postoperative morbidity. Elderly patients and insufficient surgeon experience were two major risk factors for the occurrence of complications following RG. We suggest that surgeons choose patients in good condition during their RG learning phase to reduce learning-associated morbidity.

Robotic Gastrectomy Compared with Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Clinical Stage I/II Gastric Cancer Patients: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been developed to address the drawbacks of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG); however, whether or not RG is superior to conventional LG remains to be seen. The present study aimed to clarify the impact of RG on clinical stage I/II gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

The present study included 1208 patients with clinical stage I/II gastric cancer who had minimally invasive gastrectomy from January 2012 to March 2020 at the Shizuoka Cancer Center. The short- and long-term outcomes of RG and LG were compared after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

This study involved 835 LG and 345 RG patients. After propensity score matching, there were 342 patients each in the RG and LG groups, with an improved balance of confounding factors between the two groups. RG was associated with a significantly longer operative time and lower amylase concentration in the drainage fluid on the first postoperative day than LG. Furthermore, the incidence of intra-abdominal infectious complications in the RG was lower than that in the LG (4.4% vs. 9.4%; P = 0.015). The survival of the RG and LG groups was equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

RG reduced the risk of intra-abdominal infectious complications in comparison with LG in the propensity score-matched analysis. Patients treated by the two approaches showed equivalent survival.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis of 1170 patients

BACKGROUND

The robotic surgical system has several technical advantages over laparoscopic instruments. The technical feasibility and safety of robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer have been reported by increasing number of studies. However, the long-term survival and recurrence outcomes after RG for locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) have seldom been reported. This study aimed to compare long-term oncologic outcomes for patients with locally AGC after RG or laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

METHODS

This study comprised 1170 patients underwent RG or LG, respectively, for locally AGC between March 2010 and February 2017. The primary outcome was the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary endpoint included 3-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence patterns. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce confounding bias. The outcomes were compared in PSM cohort.

RESULTS

After PSM, a well-balanced cohort of 816 patients (408 in each group) were included in the analysis. The 3-year DFS rate was 76.2% in the robotic group and 70.1% in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.076). The 3-year OS rates was 76.7% in the robotic group and 73.3% in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.246). In the subgroup analyses for potential confounding variables, neither 3-year DFS nor 3-year OS survival were significantly different between the two groups (all P > 0.05). The two groups showed similar recurrence patterns within 3 years after surgery (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

For patients with locally AGC, RG can result in comparable long-term survival outcomes without an increase in recurrence rate.

Pooled analysis of the oncological outcomes in robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Aim:

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is more and more widely used in the treatment of gastric cancer. However, the long-term oncological outcomes of RG have not been well evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in the treatment of gastric cancer.

Materials and Methods:

PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Cochrane Library and EMBASE electronic databases were searched until August 2019. Eligible studies were analysed for comparison of oncological outcomes between RG and LG in patients with gastric cancer.

Results:

Eleven retrospective comparative studies, which included 1347 (32.52%) patients in the RG group and 2795 (67.48%) patients in the LG group, were selected for the analysis. Meta-analysis of the 11 included studies showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the OS between the RG and LG groups (hazard ratios [HRs] = 0.97, 95% confidence intervals [CIs] = 0.80–1.19, P = 0.80). Six studies evaluated disease-free survival (DFS), and pooled analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference in DFS between RG group and LG group (HR = 0.94, 95% CIs = 0.72–1.23, P = 0.65). According to the odds ratio (OR) analysis, there was no significant difference in 3-year OS, 5-year OS, 3-year DFS and 5-year DFS between the RG and LG groups. Nine articles reported the recurrence rate, and the meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the RG and LG groups (OR = 0.88, 95% CIs = 0.69–1.12, P = 0.31).

Conclusions:

This meta-analysis indicated that the long-term oncological outcomes in the RG group were similar to that in the LG group.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy for early-stage gastric cancer: Case series of initial experience

Background

In the last decade's robotic gastrectomy (RG) has increasingly widespread as a valid minimally invasive option for treatment of gastric cancer. In literature, evidence of its routine use is not yet well established. The aims of this study are to report our initial experience and to present possible advantages of our hybrid operative technique for subtotal gastrectomy.

Materials and methods

Retrospectively, we analyzed data from 41 patients (22 male and 19 female) who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (RALG) with D2 lymphadenectomy using the da Vinci XI robotic system. Inclusion criteria were gastric cancer in the middle or lower portion of the stomach amenable of radical subtotal gastrectomy without preoperative suspicion of positive lymph-nodes or other organs involving and distant metastasis. All the procedures were performed by attending surgeons.

Results

The mean operative time was 270 min with one case of conversion to open surgery. The mean age was 71.4 (IQR 68.2-76.8) with 43.9% of patients classified as ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score ≥3. The median of lymph-nodes retrieved was 25 (IQR 19-35). No intra-operative complications occurred. Time to resume a soft diet was 5 days. Patients were hospitalized a median of 7 days. According to pathological AJCC-TNM, 21 patients were classified as advanced gastric cancer. Post-operative morbidity was recorded in 9 patients (21.9%) with major complications requiring surgical operation in 4 patients (9.8%). Elevated ASA score, fewer lymph-nodes retrieved and ICU recovery requirements were significant increased in patients with major complications.

Conclusion

The preliminary results demonstrated that robot-assisted laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy is safe and feasible. In particular, we found that the da Vinci platform improves surgeon abilities to perform an adequate lymphadenectomy and digestive reconstruction. Further studies are necessary to better clarify the role of this high-cost technology in minimally invasive treatment of gastric cancer.

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

Background

To date, robotic surgery has been widely used worldwide. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) in gastric cancer patients to determine whether RG can replace laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was applied to perform the study. Pubmed, Cochrane Library, WanFang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP databases were comprehensively searched for studies published before May 2020 that compared RG with LG. Next, two independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The quality of the literature was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and the data analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Random effects or fixed effects models were applied according to heterogeneity.

Results

A total of 19 studies including 7275 patients were included in the meta-analyses, of which 4598 patients were in the LG group and 2677 in the RG group. Compared with LG, RG was associated with longer operative time (WMD = −32.96, 95% CI −42.08 ~ −23.84, P < 0.001), less blood loss (WMD = 28.66, 95% CI 18.59 ~ 38.73, P < 0.001), and shorter time to first flatus (WMD = 0.16 95% CI 0.06 ~ 0.27, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference between RG and LG in terms of the hospital stay (WMD = 0.23, 95% CI −0.53 ~ 0.98, P = 0.560), overall postoperative complication (OR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 ~ 1.25, P = 0.430), mortality (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 ~ 1.90, P = 0.450), the number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = −0.96, 95% CI −2.12 ~ 0.20, P = 0.100), proximal resection margin (WMD = −0.10, 95% CI −0.29 ~ 0.09, P = 0.300), and distal resection margin (WMD = 0.15, 95% CI −0.21 ~ 0.52, P = 0.410). No significant differences were found between the two treatments in overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 ~ 1.18, P = 0.640), recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 ~ 1.21, P = 0.530), and recurrence rate (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 ~ 1.21, P = 0.500).

Conclusions

The results of this study suggested that RG is as acceptable as LG in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. RG can be performed as effectively and safely as LG. Moreover, more randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques with rigorous study designs are still essential to evaluate the value of the robotic surgery for gastric cancer.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s12957-020-02080-7.

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: single Western center results

A robotic approach to abdominal surgery procedures may improve postoperative outcomes compared to either open or laparoscopic approaches. The role of robotics for gastric surgery, however, is still being evaluated. A retrospective review of the prospectively maintained database for robotic gastric surgery at University of Siena between 2011 and 2020 was conducted. Data regarding surgical procedures, early postoperative outcomes, and long-term follow-up were analyzed. 38 patients underwent robotic partial or total gastrectomy. Conversion to open occurred in two patients (5.2%) due to locally advanced disease as well as difficult identification of primary lesion. Postoperative morbidity was 13.1% while no postoperative mortality was registered. The mean length of operation was 358.6 (220–650) minutes and the mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was 35.8 (range: 5–73). The median OS of all population was 70.9 months. The median 5-year OS for the patients with positive nodes was worse than that of patients without metastatic lymph nodes [51.4 months (95% CI 35.5–67.4) vs. 79.5 months (95% CI 67.1–91.8); p = 0.079]. The interesting results including postoperative morbidity as well as mortality rate, the surgical outcomes, and the 5-year OS, were to be acceptable considering the data recorded by previous studies on robotic gastrectomy. This study demonstrated that robotic gastrectomy is feasible and can be safely performed. However, further follow-up and randomized clinical trials are required to confirm the role of a robotic approach in gastric cancer surgery.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Totally minimally invasive radical gastrectomy with the da Vinci Xi® robotic system versus straight laparoscopy for gastric adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the outcomes of pure minimally invasive techniques of radical gastrectomy are scarce. We aimed to compare short-term post-operative outcomes in patients undergoing totally minimally invasive radical gastrectomy with the da Vinci Xi^® robotic system versus straight laparoscopy for gastric adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Between December 2013 and March 2018, robotic and laparoscopic radical gastrectomy performed in two centres were included. Both groups were compared with respect to perioperative short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients were included in the study. Anticoagulant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy use were higher in the robotic group (p = 0.02, p = 0.02). There were conversions in the laparoscopy group whereas no conversions occurred in the robotic group (p = 0.052). Operating time in the robotic group was longer (p = 0.001). The number of harvested lymph nodes in the laparoscopic group was higher (p = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

Totally robotic technique with the da Vinci Xi^® robotic system provides similar short-term results compared to laparoscopic surgery in radical gastrectomy.

Morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a large cohort study

BACKGROUND

Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of gastric cancer in recent year. However, whether RDG could reduce the morbidity when compared to laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes of RDG and LDG for gastric cancer and identify the related risk factors.

METHODS

Between March 2010 and August 2019, consecutive patients undergoing RDG or LDG (519 and 957 patients, respectively) at our institution were included in this study. Postoperative complications were stratified according to the Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification. We performed one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, and evaluated postoperative morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes in PSM 1032 patients undergoing RDG or LDG.

RESULTS

After PSM, the two groups were well-balanced. The mean blood loss of the RDG group was about 27 mL less than that of the LDG group (112.1 vs 139.0 mL, P < 0.001). The RDG group had more retrieved lymph nodes than that in the LDG group (32.7 v 30.2, P < 0.001). The RDG group showed a similar overall (9.9% vs 10.7%, P = 0.682), severe (2.7% vs 3.7%, P = 0.376), local (5.6% vs 5.2%, P = 0.783), and systemic complication rates (5.4% vs 6.0%, P = 0.688). There were no significant differences in mortality between the two groups (RDG 0% vs LDG 0.2%, P = 1.000). Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in most stratified parameters. Age > 65 years and ASA III were identified as two major risk factors for complications.

CONCLUSION

RDG could be a safe and feasible in treating gastric cancer compared to LDG. However, we did not observe significant reduction in postoperative complications of RDG compared with LDG, although the use of robotic system is assumed to provide a technically superior operative environment.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Outcomes of Gastric Resection in the Establishment of a Comprehensive Oncologic Robotic Program

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy is increasingly utilized for the treatment of gastric malignancies. However, the benefits of robotic surgery have been questioned. This study describes short-term outcomes in the establishment of a comprehensive robotic program for gastric malignancies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic-assisted gastric resections between 2013 and 2018 were studied. Preoperative measures and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Finally we studied and analyzed robotic and open gastrectomy for the management of gastric adenocarcinoma (GC) at the same institution between 2000 and 2018 for quality benchmarking.

RESULTS

Forty six patients (pts.) underwent robotic-assisted gastric resections. 26 (56.5%) were male, with a median age of 62 y (range: 29-87). Pathology included GC, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, neuroendocrine tumors, metastatic lesions, and benign processes. 19 pts. underwent total gastrectomy, 16 distal gastrectomy, four subtotal gastrectomy, and seven wedge resection. Pts. undergoing distal gastrectomy and wedge resection experienced shorter operative times and length of stay than total gastrectomy (P < 0.01; P < 0.01). Four operations (8.8%) were converted to open and 13 pts (28.3%) had postoperative complications, including an 8.7% readmission rate. Median lymph nodes retrieved during total, subtotal, and distal gastrectomy were 20 (13-46), 12.5 (0-26), and 16.5 (0-34), respectively. All pts. underwent margin negative resection. Median follow-up for GC was 21 mo, and 60% of pts. received adjuvant therapy at a median of 59d (range: 23-106).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic gastrectomy is a feasible alternative to open gastrectomy. Our results will help establish benchmarks to improve perioperative outcomes, especially length of stay and time to initiation of therapy.

Short-Term Clinical Outcomes After Laparoscopic and Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: a Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

The different advantages of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and robotic gastrectomy (RG), two new minimally invasive surgical techniques for gastric cancer, remain controversial.

PURPOSE

To compare the short-term clinical outcomes of LG and RG.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center comparative study of 1044 patients (LG = 750, RG = 294) was conducted. Patients undergoing LG and RG were matched (2:1 ratio) according to sex, age, BMI, extent of gastric resection, and pathologic stage. The primary outcomes were morbidity and mortality and perioperative recovery parameters; major types of complications were also analyzed.

RESULTS

After matching, 798 patients (LG = 532, RG = 266) were included. Both the LG and RG groups showed similar overall complication rates (LG = 12.8% vs RG = 12.4%) and operative mortality (LG = 0.4% vs RG = 0.4%). Compared to those who underwent LG, patients undergoing RG had significantly longer operative times (236.92 ± 57.28 vs 217.77 ± 65.00 min, p < 0.001), higher total costs (US$16,241.42 vs US$12,497, p < 0.001), less operative blood loss (77.07 ± 64.37 vs 103.68 ± 86.92 ml, p < 0.001), higher numbers of retrieved lymph nodes (32.0 vs 29.9, p < 0.001), and higher rates of retrieving more than 16 lymph nodes (94.0 vs 85.5%; p < 0.001). No significant differences between groups were noted in terms of the rate of reoperation, time until a soft diet was consumed, or length of hospital stay. The major complication and readmission rates were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

RG and LG produced similar short-term clinical outcomes, indicating that RG is a safe and beneficial surgical procedure.

Oncological Robot-Assisted Gastrectomy: Technical Aspects and Ongoing Data

Robotic surgery through the da Vinci Surgical System has been widely spread for many procedures across the globe for several years. At the same time, robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC) remains mostly available only in specialized centers in minimally invasive surgery and stomach neoplasm. The robotic platform has been introduced to overcome possible drawbacks of the laparoscopic approach. The safety and the feasibility of robotic radical gastrectomy have been reported in many retrospective case series and nonrandomized prospective studies. However, the superiority of robotic gastrectomy over the laparoscopic access has not yet been proven. This study aimed to report the technical aspects of robot-assisted gastrectomy for GC as well as the latest evidence on this subject.

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.

Precision medicine in gastric cancer

Gastric cancer (GC) is a complex disease linked to a series of environmental factors and unhealthy lifestyle habits, and especially to genetic alterations. GC represents the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Its onset is subtle, and the majority of patients are diagnosed once the cancer is already advanced. In recent years, there have been innovations in the management of advanced GC including the introduction of new classifications based on its molecular characteristics. Thanks to new technologies such as next-generation sequencing and microarray, the Cancer Genome Atlas and Asian Cancer Research Group classifications have also paved the way for precision medicine in GC, making it possible to integrate diagnostic and therapeutic methods. Among the objectives of the subdivision of GC into subtypes is to select patients in whom molecular targeted drugs can achieve the best results; many lines of research have been initiated to this end. After phase III clinical trials, trastuzumab, anti-Erb-B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (commonly known as ERBB2) and ramucirumab, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (commonly known as VEGFR2) monoclonal antibodies, were approved and introduced into first- and second-line therapies for patients with advanced/metastatic GC. However, the heterogeneity of this neoplasia makes the practical application of such approaches difficult. Unfortunately, scientific progress has not been matched by progress in clinical practice in terms of significant improvements in prognosis. Survival continues to be low in contrast to the reduction in deaths from many common cancers such as colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate cancers. Although several target molecules have been identified on which targeted drugs can act and novel products have been introduced into experimental therapeutic protocols, the overall approach to treating advanced stage GC has not substantially changed. Currently, surgical resection with adjuvant or neoadjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy are the most effective treatments for this disease. Future research should not underestimate the heterogeneity of GC when developing diagnostic and therapeutic strategies aimed toward improving patient survival.

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

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

Surgical outcomes and learning curve analysis of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Multidimensional analysis compared with three‑dimensional high‑definition laparoscopic gastrectomy

The present ambispective cohort study was performed to compare the short‑term surgical outcomes, including financial cost and surgeons' acceptance, of robotic versus three‑dimensional high‑definition (3D‑HD) laparoscopic gastrectomy for patients with gastric cancer (GC). Between 2011 and 2017, 517 patients with GC were enrolled for treatment with either robotic gastrectomy [408 patients, including 73 treated by one of the authors (LC)] or 3D‑HD laparoscopic gastrectomy (109 patients, including 71 treated by LC). The cumulative summation method was developed to analyze the learning curves of robotic and 3D‑HD laparoscopic gastrectomy performed by LC. In the analysis of all 517 patients, there were no significant differences in the clinicopathological characteristics between the two treatment groups, with the exception of smoking status (P<0.001). The robotic group had a shorter operative time (OT; 209 vs. 228 min, P=0.004), fewer postoperative days (PODs) to first flatus (3 vs. 4 days, P=0.025), more PODs to removal of the drainage and nasogastric tubes (12 vs. 9 days, P=0.001; 6 vs. 4 days, P=0.001, respectively), and more postoperative complications (21.3 vs. 9.2%, P=0.003). Comparison of these short‑term outcomes of robotic and 3D‑HD laparoscopic gastrectomy performed by LC (144 patients) revealed that only the number of retrieved lymph nodes (27 in the robotic group vs. 33 in the 3D‑HD group; P=0.038) and PODs to removal of the nasogastric tube (5 days in the robotic group vs. 3 days in the 3D‑HD group; P<0.001) were significantly different. The OT stabilized after around 21 robotic gastrectomy procedures and 19 3D‑HD laparoscopic gastrectomy procedures. The cost‑effectiveness analysis revealed that robotic gastrectomy had a significantly higher total cost than 3D‑HD laparoscopic gastrectomy (124,907 vs. 94,395 RMB, P<0.001). With comparable surgical outcomes, lower financial cost and higher surgeons' acceptance, 3D‑HD laparoscopic gastrectomy is highly recommended as a minimally invasive surgical method for patients with GC prior to the popularization of robotic surgery.

Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer: short-term outcomes at a mono-institution

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted surgery, a developed technology, is becoming more and more accepted by surgeons. However, the comparison between robotic-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) and conventional laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is seldom reported, or usually the sample sizes reported are small. The current research was designed to compare the short-term outcomes of RATG and LATG with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC in a mono-institution from China.

METHODS

A total of 205 patients from June 2015 to October 2018 were included in this study. Among them, 106 patients underwent LATG, and 99 patients underwent RATG. The patients' clinicopathological characteristics, surgical performance and short-term outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The clinicopathological characteristics showed no difference between the LATG group and the RATG group. However, compared with the LATG group, the operation time was longer (P = 0.000), and the operative blood loss (P = 0.000) and the volume of abdominal drainage was less (P = 0.000) in the RATG group. Moreover, the RATG took less time to remove abdominal drainage tube than LATG (P = 0.000). The plasma levels of CRP at 72 h post-operation was lower (P = 0.000), and the number of retrieved lymph nodes was more (P = 0.000) in the RATG group. Nevertheless, the postoperative length of stay (P = 0.890), the time to first flatus (P = 0.448), the postoperative complication (P = 0.915) and the visual analogue pain score at 24 h post-operation (P = 0.457) were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RATG with D2 lymphadenectomy shows safety and feasibility for AGC and could be served as an alternative treatment for AGC in the future.

Comparative analysis of robotic gastrectomy and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in terms of their long-term oncological outcomes: a meta-analysis of 3410 gastric cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the long-term oncological outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) are limited despite the increased commonality of this method as an alternative for gastric cancer treatment. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes of RG in comparison to that of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

METHODS

The PubMed, ISI Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were comprehensively searched for studies that compared RG and LG in terms of their long-term survival outcomes. The hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and relapse-free survival (RFS) were obtained, while the odds ratio (OR) was recorded for the recurrence rate. A sensitivity analysis was performed. Egger's test and Begg's test were applied to evaluate publication bias.

RESULTS

Eight studies were identified and involved 3410 gastric cancer patients (RG, 1009; LG, 2401). The two groups had no significant differences in OS (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.80-1.20; P = 0.81), DFS (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.33-5.59; P = 0.67), RFS (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.19; P = 0.53), or recurrence rate (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.71-1.19; P = 0.53). Moreover, the two techniques were comparable in length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative complication rate, 30-day mortality rate, and rate of conversion to open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term oncological outcomes, expressed as OS, DFS, RFS, and recurrence rate, were similar between RG and LG. However, more randomized controlled trials with rigorous study designs and patient cohorts are needed to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of RG in patients with gastric cancer.

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.