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

Evaluating the safety of robotic total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer against the conventional laparoscopic approach: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Gastric cancer poses a significant global health challenge, necessitating effective surgical interventions. A critical gap in the literature exists, as most studies do not differentiate between various surgical approaches, i.e., total, distal, and subtotal gastrectomy, and level of lymphadenectomy, when comparing robotic to conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy. This leads to a lack of clear evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) specifically in the context of total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy.This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the safety of RTG with D2 lymphadenectomy compared to conventional laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG). A literature search was conducted up to November 1, 2024, following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included studies comparing RTG and LTG, focusing on anastomotic leakage, Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ III complications, conversion rates, mortality, overall complications, and reoperation rates. Data were synthesized using odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD), with statistical heterogeneity assessed using the I2 statistic. Five studies comprising 1131 patients (432 RTG, 700 LTG) were included. No significant differences were found in the following outcomes: anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.79 [95% CI: 0.35, 1.78], I2 = 0%, P = 0.57), Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ III complications (OR = 0.86 [95% CI: 0.51, 1.45], I2 = 0%, P = 0.56), conversion to open surgery (OR = 0.34 [95% CI: 0.10, 1.18], I2 = 0%, P = 0.09), mortality (OR = 1.78 [95% CI: 0.23, 13.48], I2 = 0%, P = 0.58), overall complications (OR = 0.84 [95% CI: 0.62, 1.14], I2 = 0%, P = 0.26), and reoperation rates (OR = 0.88 [95% CI: 0.29, 2.67], I2 = 0%, P = 0.82). Sensitivity analysis proves the robustness of the findings. The analysis shows no significant differences in safety outcomes between RTG and LTG for gastric cancer, indicating both techniques are comparable. RTG may be a viable alternative to LTG, especially in centers with appropriate robotic capabilities. Further research is warranted to investigate long-term outcomes and the learning curve of robotic surgery.PROSPERO Registration: CRD42024606570.

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.

Current clinical trials on gastric cancer surgery in China

Gastric cancer (GC) is the leading diagnosed malignancy worldwide, especially in China. Radical surgery is the cornerstone of GC treatment. We reviewed previous clinical trials and aimed to provide an update on the factors related to the surgical treatment of GC. The number of registered clinical trials in the field of GC surgery is rapidly increasing. With the development and popularization of endoscopic, laparoscopic, and robotic techniques, GC surgery has gradually entered a new era of precise minimally invasive surgery. Postoperative quality of life has become a major issue in addition to surgical oncological safety. Although great progress has been made in clinical research on GC in China, there are still deficiencies. Many studies enrolled large numbers of patients, but the research data were not of high quality. The characteristics of GC in China include a high incidence, large population, and large proportion of patients with advanced GC, which provides sufficient reason for studying this disease. There is still a need for well-designed, large, randomized clinical trials to improve our knowledge of the surgical treatment of GC.

Short-Term Outcomes Analysis Comparing Open, Lap-Assisted, Totally Laparoscopic, and Robotic Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Total gastrectomy (TG) is the cornerstone treatment for gastric cancer (GC). While open TG (OTG) with D2 lymphadenectomy remains the gold standard, alternative techniques such as lap-assisted TG (LATG), totally laparoscopic TG (TLTG), and robotic TG (RTG) have been reported with promising outcomes. The present analysis aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of different techniques for TG comprehensively in the setting of GC.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed. The primary outcomes were overall complications (OC), severe postoperative complications (SPCs), and anastomotic leak (AL). Pooled effect-size measures included risk ratio (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs).

RESULTS

Sixty-eight studies (44,689 patients) were included. Overall, 52.4% underwent OTG, 6.5% LATG, 39.2% TLTG, and 1.9% RTG. Both TLTG (RR 0.82; 95% CrI 0.73-0.92) and RTG (RR 0.75; 95% CrI 0.59-0.95) showed a reduced rate of postoperative OC compared to OTG. SPCs and AL RR were comparable across all techniques. Despite the longer operative time, LATG, TLTG, and RTG showed reduced intraoperative blood loss, time to first flatus, ambulation, liquid diet resumption, and hospital stay compared to OTG.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive approaches seem to be associated with improved OC and functional outcomes compared to OTG.

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.

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.

Short- and long-term comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients with BMI≥30 kg/m2: A propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gastric patients has gained popularity in recent decades, reports on the comparison of short and long clinical outcomes between robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer patients with BMI≥30 kg/m2 are still limited.

METHODS

A total of 226 obese gastric cancer patients who underwent either RG (n = 81) or LG (n = 145) were enrolled in this study between October 2014 and September 2022. Propensity score matching (PSM) (1:1) was performed to reduce confounding bias. Short-term and long-term outcomes were compared between the RG and LG groups.

RESULTS

The clinicopathological characteristics of 156 patients in the RG group (n = 79) and LG group (n = 79) were well balanced after PSM. Compared with the LG group, the RG group had a significantly shorter operation time, less estimated blood loss, more harvested lymph nodes, a faster postoperative recovery course, reduced surgical morbidity, and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. The long-term outcomes were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RG is a safe and feasible approach for gastric cancer with a BMI≥30 kg/m2 and has better short-term clinical outcomes than LG. However, RG is similar to LG in terms of long-term prognosis.

Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer patients with situs inversus totalis: Two case reports and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Situs inversus totalis (SIT) is a rare condition in which the positions of abdominal and thoracic organs present a "mirror image" of the normal ones in the median sagittal plane. Although minimally invasive surgery has evolved to achieve laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC) patients with SIT, it is difficult to perform lymphadenectomy (LND) in such a transposed anatomical condition. Herein, we report the cases of two patients with SIT who successfully underwent laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) with D2 LND.

CASE SUMMARY

Case 1: A 65-year-old man was admitted for intermittent abdominal pain and distension, occasional belching, and acid reflux for 4 mo. He was diagnosed with GC (cT3N1-2M0) with SIT. Before surgery, he had undergone four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Then, the patient was evaluated as having a partial response, and laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 LND and Billroth II reconstruction were performed. The operation was performed successfully within 240 min with an estimated blood loss of 50 mL and no severe complications. The patient was discharged on postoperative day (POD) 9. Case 2: A 55-year-old man was admitted for upper abdominal distension with pain and discomfort after eating for 3 mo. He was diagnosed with GC (cT3N1M0) with SIT. He had a history of hypertension for more than 10 years; however, his blood pressure was well-controlled via regular medication. We performed laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy with D2 LND and Roux-en-Y reconstruction. The operation was performed successfully within 168 min with an estimated blood loss of 50 mL and no severe complications. The patient was discharged on POD 10.

CONCLUSION

LAG with D2 LND could be considered an accessible, safe, and curative procedure for advanced GC patients with SIT.

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.

Five-year long-term comparison of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a large single-center cohort study

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been reported to be technically feasible and safe for patients with gastric cancer. However, 5-year long-term survival and recurrence outcomes for advanced gastric cancer have rarely been reported. This study aimed to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes between RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

The general clinicopathological data of 1905 consecutive patients who underwent RG and LG were retrospectively collected at the Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital between November 2011 and October 2017. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match groups. The primary endpoints were 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

After PSM, a well-balanced cohort of 283 patients in the RG group and 701 patients in the LG group were included in the analysis. The 5-year cumulative DFS rates were 67.28% in the robotic group and 70.41% in the laparoscopic group. The 5-year OS rate was 69.01% in the robotic group and 69.58% in the laparoscopic group. No significant differences in Kaplan-Meier survival curves for DFS (HR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.83-1.39, Log-rank P = 0.557) and OS (HR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.78-1.34, Log-rank P = 0.850) were observed between the 2 groups. In the subgroup analyses for potential confounding variables, there were no significant differences in 5-year DFS and 5-year OS survival between the 2 groups (P > 0.05), except for patients with pathological stage III and pathological stage N3 (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

For patients with early gastric cancer, robotic and laparoscopic approaches have similar long-term survival. For patients with advanced gastric cancer, further studies need to be conducted to assess the long-term survival outcomes of RG.

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.

Comparison of short-term efficacy and safety between total robotic and total 3D laparoscopic distal radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol: a propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

The application of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol in gastrointestinal surgery has been widely accepted. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of ERAS in total robotic distal gastrectomy (TRDG) versus 3D total laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (3D-TLDG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 73 patients underwent TRDG and 163 patients who received 3D-TLDG. The propensity score was used for matching analysis according to a 1:1 ratio, so that there was no significant difference in the baseline data between the two groups. The short-term effect and safety of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The TRDG group had a less intraoperative bleeding (30.21 ± 13.78 vs. 41.44 ± 17.41 ml, P < 0.001), longer intraoperative preparation time (31.05 ± 4.93 vs. 15.48 ± 2.43 min, P < 0.001), shorter digestive tract reconstruction time (32.67 ± 4.41 vs. 39.78 ± 4.95 min, P < 0.001), shorter postoperative ambulation time (14.07 ± 8.97 vs. 17.49 ± 5.98 h, P = 0.007), shorter postoperative anal exhaust time (1.78 ± 0.79 vs. 2.18 ± 0.79 days, P = 0.003), shorter postoperative hospital stay (7.74 ± 3.15 vs. 9.97 ± 3.23 days, P < 0.001), lower postoperative pain score (P = 0.006) and higher hospitalization cost (89,907.15 ± 17,147.19 vs. 125,615.82 ± 11,900.80 RMB, P < 0.001) than the 3D-TLDG group.

CONCLUSION

TRDG and 3D-TLDG under ERAS protocol are safe and feasible. Compared with 3D-TLDG, the TRDG has better intraoperative bleeding control effect and greater advantages in digestive tract reconstruction. After the combination of ERAS protocol, TRDG also has certain advantages in the recovery process of patients after surgery.

Extended Lymphadenectomy for Gastric Cancer in the Neoadjuvant Era: Current Status, Clinical Implications and Contentious Issues

Despite its decreasing incidence, gastric cancer remains an important global healthcare problem due to its overall high prevalence and high mortality rate. Since the MAGIC and FNLCC/FFCD trials, the neoadjuvant chemotherapy has been recommended throughout Europe in gastric cancer. Potential benefits of preoperative treatments include a higher rate of R0 resection achieved by downstaging the primary tumor, a likely effect on micrometastases and isolated tumor cells in the lymph nodes, and, as a result, improved cancer-related survival. Nevertheless, distortion of anatomical planes of dissection, interstitial fibrosis, and sclerotic tissue changes may increase surgical difficulty. The collection of at least twenty-five lymph nodes after neoadjuvant therapy would seem to ensure removal of undetectable node metastasis and reduce the likelihood of locoregional recurrence. It is not what you take but what you leave behind that defines survival. Therefore, para-aortic lymph node dissection is safe and effective after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, in both therapeutic and prophylactic settings. In this review, the efficacy of adequate lymph node dissection, also in a neoadjuvant setting, has been investigated in the key studies conducted to date on the topic.

Effects of robotic and laparoscopic-assisted surgery on lymph node dissection and quality of life in the upper third of gastric cancer: A retrospective cohort study based on propensity score matching

Objective

The objective of this study was compare the effects of robot-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted surgery on lymph node dissection and quality of life in upper third gastric cancer patients undergoing radical total gastrectomy.

Methods

The clinical and follow-up data of 409 patients with upper third gastric cancer who underwent total gastrectomy from July 2016 to May 2021 were enrolled. The patients were divided into a robotic group (n = 106) and a laparoscopic group (n = 303). Age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor size and location, pathological type, cT, cN, and cTNM were adjusted to offset selection bias. The patient characteristics, operative procedures, surgical outcomes, oncologic and pathologic outcomes, number of lymph node dissections, quality of life assessment, and nutritional status were compared between the two groups.

Results

After propensity score matching, 61 cases were included in the robotic group and 122 cases were included in the laparoscopic group. The number of dissected lymph nodes (37.3 ± 13.5 vs. 32.8 ± 11.8, P = 0.022) significantly differed between the two groups. The number of lower mediastinal and subphrenic lymph nodes in the robotic group was greater than that in the laparoscopic group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Compared with the laparoscopic group, the total score of physical symptoms in the robotic group was significantly lower at 6 and 12 months after surgery (P = 0.03 and P = 0.001, respectively). The total social function score at 6 and 12 months after surgery was higher in the robotic group (P = 0.006 and P = 0.022). The quality of life scores were statistically significant only at 3 months after the operation (P = 0.047). A higher patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) score is when the score significantly correlated (P < 0.001) with a higher related physical symptoms score, lower social function score, and lower quality of life score.

Conclusion

Compared with laparoscopic radical gastrectomy, robotic radical gastrectomy is safe and feasible. Compared with laparoscopic radical gastrectomy, robotic radical gastrectomy was more refined, was associated with less surgical bleeding, and increased the quality of lymph node dissection. In addition, patients in the robotic group showed better postoperative quality of life.

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.

CA19-9 in combination with P-CRP as a predictive marker of immune-related adverse events in patients with recurrent or unresectable advanced gastric cancer treated with nivolumab

Background

Immune-check point inhibitors (ICPIs) for treatment of cancer patients sometimes induce potentially life-threatening immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which predict ICPIs treatment efficacy. Prediction of irAEs would be useful for management of irAEs and prediction of ICPIs efficacy. This study aimed to determine predictors of irAEs in patients with recurrent or unresectable advanced gastric cancer (RUGC) treated with nivolumab.

Methods

Seventy-eight RUGC patients treated with nivolumab at nine institutions between January 2017 and April 2020 were included in this study. The usefulness of specific blood test results as predictors of irAEs was evaluated.

Results

We observed irAEs in 15 (19.2%) patients. The disease control rate was significantly higher in the patients with irAEs than in those without (86.7% vs. 42.9%; P < 0.001). The median progression-free survival was significantly longer for patients with irAEs than for patients without (4.9 vs. 2.6 months; P = 0.018). The median survival time was longer for patients with irAEs than for those without (9.4 vs. 5.8 months; P = 0.041). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for irAEs indicated that the area under the curve (AUC) of carbohydrate antigen 19–9 (CA19-9) was highest (0.692; P = 0.022), followed by that for the platelet count × serum C-reactive protein (P-CRP) value (0.680; P = 0.032). The AUC for the CA19-9 + P-CRP combination was 0.782, which was more useful than that for either component and significantly associated with overall survival of nivolumab-treated RUGC patients.

Conclusions

The CA19-9 + P-CRP combination was predictive of irAEs and prognosis in RUGC patients.

Open and minimally invasive gastrectomy in Eastern and Western patient populations: A review of the literature and reasons for differences in outcomes

Randomized trials in the East have established minimally invasive gastrectomy as possibly superior for short-term outcomes and noninferior for long-term survival. Smaller randomized studies from Western countries have supported these findings. However, there are marked disparities in morbidity, mortality, and overall survival noted between Eastern and Western studies. In this article, we review the literature comparing open and minimally invasive gastrectomy in the East and West, and describe the possible reasons for differences in outcomes.

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.

Assessment for the minimal invasiveness of laparoscopic liver resection by interleukin-6 and thrombospondin-1

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has been introduced as a minimally invasive technique for the treatment of various field. However, there are few reports that have scientifically investigated the minimally invasive nature of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

AIM

To investigate whether LLR is scientifically less invasive than open liver resection.

METHODS

During December 2011 to April 2015, blood samples were obtained from 30 patients who treated with laparoscopic (n = 10, 33%) or open (n = 20, 67%) partial liver resection for liver tumor. The levels of serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) and plasma thrombospondin-1 (TSP-1) were measured using ELISA kit at four time points including preoperative, immediate after operation, postoperative day 1 (POD1) and POD3. Then, we investigated the impact of the operative approaches during partial hepatectomy on the clinical time course including IL-6 and TSP-1.

RESULTS

Serum level of IL-6 on POD1 in laparoscopic hepatectomy was significantly lower than those in open hepatectomy (8.7 vs 30.3 pg/mL, respectively) (P = 0.003). Plasma level of TSP-1 on POD3 in laparoscopic hepatectomy was significantly higher than those in open hepatectomy (1704.0 vs 548.3 ng/mL, respectively) (P = 0.009), and have already recovered to preoperative level in laparoscopic approach. In patients with higher IL-6 Levels on POD1, plasma level of TSP-1 on POD3 was significantly lower than those in patients with lower IL-6 Levels on POD1. Multivariate analysis showed that open approach was the only independent factor related to higher level of IL-6 on POD1 [odds ratio (OR), 7.48; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.28-63.3; P = 0.02]. Furthermore, the higher level of serum IL-6 on POD1 was significantly associated with lower level of plasm TSP-1 on POD3 (OR, 5.32; 95%CI: 1.08-32.2; P = 0.04) in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

In partial hepatectomy, laparoscopic approach might be minimally invasive surgery with less IL-6 production compared to open approach.

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.

Extent of gastrectomy and lymphadenectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma

Gastric adenocarcinoma is one of the most common and lethal cancers worldwide and is associated with a high frequency of nodal metastasis. The value of multimodality therapy is well-established, but gastric resection and locoregional lymph node dissection are important mainstays in potentially curative therapy. However, there has been considerable regional variation in surgical approach and debate regarding the ideal extent of gastric resection, gastric reconstruction, and extent of lymphadenectomy. This chapter outlines the current evidence in the surgical management of gastric adenocarcinoma. The advent of minimally invasive approaches to gastric operations is also discussed.

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.

Application of robots in general surgery

Background: Application of robotic surgery in the field of general surgery has been increasing. This paper is an overview of the current uses and future perspectives of robotic surgery in four major divisions—endocrine, upper gastrointestinal, hepato-biliary-pancreatic (HBP), and colorectal surgery.Current Concepts: In endocrine surgery, cosmetic advantage is the highest priority when selecting a surgical approach for thyroidectomy. Currently, the transaxillary route is the most common approach. The introduction of the single-port system could maximize the advantages of this technique. In upper gastrointestinal surgery, the use of robots has the advantage of better retrieval of lymph nodes, less bleeding, earlier discharge, and less complications than the laparoscopic approach. However, a more prospective comparative trial is required to confirm those findings. In the HBP field, the indications of robotic surgery have expanded, starting with cholecystectomy to more challenging procedures, such as donor hepatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. Meticulous dissection using robots could provide benefits to patients. In colorectal surgery, robotic surgery is an excellent technical tool for minimally invasive surgeries for rectal cancers, especially in male patients with narrow, deep pelvises. However, further studies are required to confirm the impact of robotic surgery on rectal cancers.Discussion and Conclusion: Robots are used to provide optimal surgical outcomes. Investigating new technologies and innovative surgical procedures is the highly important for a surgeon in the era of minimally invasive surgery.

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.

Robotic-assisted proximal gastrectomy using the double-flap technique for early gastric cancer with situs inversus totalis: a case report

Background

The robotic system has been applied in the treatment of gastric cancer (GC), and the procedure has been found to be safe and feasible. Situs inversus totalis (SIT) is a relatively rare autosomal recessive congenital anomaly. We successfully performed robot-assisted proximal gastrectomy (RAPG) and handsewn double-flap esophagogastrostomy for GC in a patient with SIT.

Case presentation

A 71-year-old woman was referred to us with an asymptomatic ulcerative lesion in the upper body of the stomach. Computed tomography revealed that she had SIT. She was diagnosed with cT1bN0M0, cStageIA gastric cancer. RAPG with lymph node dissection and handsewn double-flap esophagogastrostomy was performed. Robotic surgery enabled the surgeon to perform the surgery without changing his position and experiencing any confusion resulting from the patient’s reversed anatomy. It took 448 min, and no intraoperative complications occurred. Her postoperative course was uneventful; she was discharged on postoperative day 10. The final pathologic report showed pT1b1N0M0, pStage IA.

Conclusions

This is the first case describing RAPG with handsewn double-flap esophagogastrostomy for a SIT patient with early GC.

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.

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.

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: 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.

Application of da Vinci robot with the"3 + 2" mode in radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer

The aim of this study is to investigate the feasibility and advantages of the da Vinci robotic system with the "3 + 2" mode (3 robotic arms and 2 assistants) in radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer.The clinical data of 65 patients who underwent da Vinci robotic gastrectomy with the "3 + 2" mode from July 2016 to October 2019 were grouped into an observation group. An additional 65 patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy under the classic mode during the same period were grouped into a control group. The short-term surgical outcomes were compared between 2 different groups.Compared with the control group, the observation group had a significantly shorter operative time (176.18 ± 15.49 vs 203.85 ± 12.77 minutes, P < .001) and lower operation costs ($2761.19 ± $191.91 vs $3690.91 ± $162.82; P < .001). No statistical differences in other outcomes were observed (P > .05).We show that robotic gastrectomy with "3 + 2" mode is a safe and beneficial surgical procedure in new robotic surgery institutions.

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.

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.

Totally Robotic Distal Gastrectomy: A Safe and Feasible Minimally Invasive Technique for Gastric Cancer Patients Who Undergo Distal Gastrectomy

PURPOSES

To explore the safety and feasibility of totally robotic distal gastrectomy (TRDG) for gastric cancer patients who undergo distal gastrectomy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with gastric cancer who underwent TRDG (TRDG group) and robotic-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) (RADG group) were systematically reviewed at the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University from October 2015 to August 2018. Data were collected and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 161 consecutive patients were included in this study: 84 cases in the TRDG group and 77 in the RADG group. Clinical characteristics and pathological results were mostly similar in both groups. The TRDG group had a significantly longer anastomotic time (20.6 ± 3.3 vs. 17.5 ± 4.0 min, p ˂ 0.001) but showed no difference in total operating time (167.0 ± 18.0 vs. 162.9 ± 17.6 min, p = 0.159). The postoperative hospitalization in the TRDG group was shorter than that in the RADG group (6.7 ± 1.2 vs. 7.2 ± 1.7 days, p = 0.019). Conversion rate, estimated blood loss, and postoperative complications were similar in both groups. There were no statistical differences in the estimated 2-year disease-free survival and overall survival rate between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although our current results need to be verified in further studies, TRDG represents a safe and feasible approach to distal gastrectomy and embodies the theory of minimally invasive surgery.

The Advantages of Robotic Gastrectomy over Laparoscopic Surgery for Gastric Cancer

Background

We compared short- and long-term clinical outcomes including inflammatory marker levels between robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) to define the advantages of RG over LG.

Methods

We enrolled 209 patients with gastric cancer who underwent curative distal gastrectomy. We compared short- and long-term clinical outcomes including inflammatory marker levels between RG and LG to define the advantages of RG over LG. C-reactive protein (CRP) levels; the CRP-to-albumin, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte, and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratios; and the prognostic nutritional index were compared as systemic inflammatory markers.

Results

RG was associated with a longer operative time. The incidence of postoperative infectious complications of grade II or higher according to the Clavien-Dindo classification was not significantly different between the two groups. Amylase levels in drainage fluid on postoperative days 1 and 3 were significantly lower in the RG group than in the LG group. The incidence of pancreatic fistula in the RG group (4.3%) was lower than that in the LG group (7.5%), albeit without significance. There were no significant differences in inflammatory marker levels either before or after surgery between the two groups. The 3-year overall survival rate did not significantly differ between the RG and LG groups (91.1% vs. 91.1%). Similar results were observed regarding the 3-year disease-specific survival rate (100% vs. 97.1%).

Conclusion

RG might be feasible and safe for treating gastric cancer from both surgical and oncological perspectives. The use of robotic assistance is associated with decreased amylase levels in drainage fluid, which may reduce the risk of pancreatic fistula and prevent pancreatic injury.

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.

Chinese surgical robot micro hand S: A consecutive case series in general surgery

BACKGROUND

A Phase I clinical study of a Chinese surgical robot, Micro Hand S, was completed recently. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the Micro Hand S surgical robot in the clinical application of general surgery.

METHODS

March 2014 to January 2019, 81 cases of robotic surgery were performed at Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University. Clinical characteristics, operative outcomes, and postoperative results were collected and analyzed. Patients were followed up with for one month.

RESULTS

The results of 81 patients were as follows. The range of operation times was 100-495 min. The range of blood loss was 20-1200 ml, and the docking time range was 7-54 min. The range of first flatus times was 1-7 d, the range of fluid diet times was 1-13 d, and the range of hospital stays was 4-30 d. Three patients (3.7%) required conversion to laparoscopic or open-laparotomy surgery. Two patients (2.5%) needed intraoperative blood transfusions, and one patient (1.2%) required a postoperative blood transfusion. Intraoperative complications occurred in two patients (2.5%), which were bladder injury and ureteral injury. Three patients (3.7%) had postoperative complications, including anastomotic leakage, anastomotic hemorrhage, and wound infection. There were no reoperations during hospitalization, and all 81 patients were discharged smoothly. No readmission or death occurred within 30 d after surgery.

CONCLUSION

The Micro Hand S surgical robot is reliable and safe for the clinical application of general surgery.

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.

Comparison of surgical outcomes between integrated robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for distal gastrectomy: a propensity score matching analysis

This study was aimed to compare the surgical outcomes between conventional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (CLDG) and integrated robotic distal gastrectomy (IRDG) which used both Single-Site platform and fluorescence image-guided surgery technique simultaneously. Retrospective data of 56 patients who underwent IRDG and 152 patients who underwent CLDG were analyzed. Propensity score matching analysis was performed to control selection bias using age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and body mass index. Fifty-one patients were selected for each group. Surgical success was defined as the absence of open conversion, readmission, major complications, positive resection margin, and inadequate lymph node retrieval (<16). Patients characteristics and surgical outcomes of IRDG group were comparable to those of CLDG group, except longer operation time (159.5 vs. 131.7 min; P < 0.001), less blood loss (30.7 vs. 73.3 mL; P = 0.004), higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) (50.4 vs. 41.9 LNs; P = 0.025), and lower readmission rate (2.0 vs. 15.7%; P = 0.031). Surgical success rate was higher in IRDG group compared to CLDG group (98.0 vs. 82.4%; P = 0.008). In conclusion, this study found that IRDG provides the benefits of higher number of retrieved LNs, less blood loss, and lower readmission rate compared with CLDG in patients with early gastric cancer.

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.

The incidence and risk factors for surgical site infection in older adults after gastric cancer surgery: A STROBE-compliant retrospective study

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a well-known complication in older adults. However, there have been no studies on SSI after gastrectomy in older adults. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of SSIs after gastrectomy in older adults.We performed a retrospective cohort study of older adults, aged 65 years or older, who underwent gastrectomy between January 2015 and December 2015 at the Severance Hospital in Seoul, Korea. The incidence and outcomes of SSIs after gastrectomy were evaluated, and the risk factors for SSI were identified using multivariate analyses.We identified 353 older adults who underwent gastrectomy. Of these, 25 patients (7.1%) developed an SSI. Multivariate analysis indicated that open surgery (odds ratio, 2.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-6.51; P = .03) and a longer operation time (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.01; P = .04) were independent risk factors for SSI after gastrectomy. In the SSI group, the incidence of postoperative fever (84.0% vs 51.8%; P < .001), length of postoperative hospital stay (13 days vs 6 days; P < .001), and re-admission rates within 30 days postoperatively (32.0% vs 3.4%; P < .001) were significantly higher than those in the non-SSI group.The risk factors for SSI in older adults after gastrectomy were open surgery and a longer operation time. When an SSI occurred, the postoperative hospital stay was prolonged and the chances of having a postoperative fever and being re-admitted within 30 days increased.

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.

Similar Operative Outcomes between the da Vinci Xi® and da Vinci Si® Systems in Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Purpose

The robotic system for surgery was introduced to gastric cancer surgery in the early 2000s to overcome the shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery. The more recently introduced da Vinci Xi^® system offers benefits allowing four-quadrant access, greater range of motion, and easier docking through an overhead boom rotation with laser targeting. We aimed to identify whether the Xi^® system provides actual advantages over the Si^® system in gastrectomy for gastric cancer by comparing the operative outcomes.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy as treatment for gastric cancer from March 2016 to March 2017. Patients' demographic data, perioperative information, and operative and pathological outcomes were collected and analyzed.

Results

A total of 109 patients were included in the Xi^® group and 179 in the Si^® group. Demographic characteristics were similar in both groups. The mean operative time was 229.9 minutes in the Xi^® group and 223.7 minutes in the Si^® group. The mean estimated blood loss was 72.7 mL in the Xi^® group and 62.1 mL in the Si^® group. No patient in the Xi^® group was converted to open or laparoscopy, while 3 patients in the Si^® group were converted, 2 to open surgery and 1 to laparoscopy, this difference was not statistically significant. Bowel function was resumed 3 days after surgery, while soft diet was initiated 4 days after surgery.

Conclusions

We found no difference in surgical outcomes after robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer between the da Vinci Xi^® and da Vinci Si^® procedures.

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.

Curative effect of Da Vinci robot assisted radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer

AIM

To assess the value of Da Vinci robot in radical gastrec-tomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

The information of patients who underwent Da Vinci robot assisted radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer at the Department of General Surgery, Lanzhou General Hospital of the Chinese People's Liberation Army from December 2016 to April 2017 was collected. The information of patients who received laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer was also obtained. The information on surgical treatment, postoperative recovery, hospital expenses, and prognosis was statistically analyzed between the two groups.

RESULTS

Compared with the laparoscopic group, the Da Vinci group had less bleeding during operation (P < 0.05), more complete lymph node dissection (P < 0.05), and safer incision margin (P < 0.05), but the operative time was increased (P < 0.05). In the postoperative recovery of patients of the two groups, the time to first food intake, the time to the recovery of the digestive tract, and the incidence of complications were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05), but surgical cost was significantly increased (P < 0.05). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in patients who received Da Vinci robot assisted radical gastrectomy than in the laparoscopy group (P < 0.05), but this difference was not found in patients who underwent distal radical gastrectomy (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in long-term survival between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Da Vinci robot assisted radical gastrectomy has certain advantages over laparoscopic radical gastrectomy in the treatment of gastric cancer, but it is still necessary for practitioners to improve their skills and be cautious.