Role of robot-assisted distal gastrectomy compared to laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy in suprapancreatic nodal dissection for gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:1547-1552. [PMID: 26169636 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4372-x]

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

THE REGISTERED NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

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

Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a high-volume center retrospective study with propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

Although neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) can benefit patient survival, few studies have compared the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for AGC after NAT.

METHODS

The clinical data of 321 AGC patients who received NATs and who underwent robotic gastrectomy (RG, n = 109) or laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG, n = 212) between May 2017 and September 2022 were collected and analyzed retrospectively at our center. After propensity score matching (PSM) for 1:1 matching to eliminate bias, both groups had 106 cases. Short-term clinical outcomes and long-term survival-related indicators were compared between the two groups of patients.

RESULTS

A total of 212 patients were included in the groups after matching. There were fewer overall complications (13.2% vs. 28.3%, P = 0.007) and surgical complications (8.5% vs. 17.9%, P = 0.043) in the RG group than in the LG group. Compared with the LG group, the RG group had more harvested overall lymph nodes (35.25 ± 4.99 vs. 31.45 ± 6.31, P < 0.001) and more suprapancreatic lymph nodes (13.12 ± 4.38 vs. 10.05 ± 4.13, P < 0.001). Patients in the RG group had significantly shorter surgery times (217.62 ± 47.49 vs. 267.25 ± 70.68, P < 0.001) and less blood loss (46.51 ± 27.02 vs. 70.75 ± 37.25, P < 0.001) than patients in the LG group. The RG group had significantly faster bowel function recovery, earlier liquid diet, and shorter hospital stay. Compared with LG, RG had a better 3-year RFS (75.5% vs. 62.3%, P = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

Compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery significantly increased the number of lymph node dissected, reduced intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative surgical complications rate. Although RG did not statistically improve 3-year overall survival, there was a significant improvement in RFS and could be an alternative surgical method for GC patients after NAC.

Development and external validation of nomogram associated with gastroparesis syndrome after subtotal gastrectomy depending on random forest and traditional model: does robotic surgery have advantages?

Postsurgical gastroparesis syndrome (PGS) significantly diminishes the quality of life for patients following surgery. With the evolution of robotic surgery, there is a debate on whether it can offer a novel treatment modality for gastric cancer and reduce the incidence of gastric paralysis syndrome. This study utilizes machine learning techniques and traditional logistic regression to construct and validate predictive models, with the aim of providing guidance for clinical practitioners. This study included two cohorts from one medical centers based on the surgical timing for division (Cohort 1: n = 619 for model building and internal validation; Cohort 2: n = 312 for external validation). In Cohort 1, a 3:1 ratio was used for training and validation in random forest and a 7:3 ratio for logistic regression. After analyzing the Receiver Operating Characteristic curves (ROC), we chose classical logistic regression to build the prediction model followed by evaluation with calibration and decision curve analysis (DCA). Finally, we performed external validation on Cohort 2. The model incorporated 7 factors including: Pre-operative TBIL (OR = 2.99), Pre-operative DBIL (OR = 2.35), Pre-operative potassium (OR = 6.8), Surgical type (OR = 3.76), Gastric tube removal time (OR = 3.48), Reconstruction mode (OR = 4.63) and Operative time (OR = 2.21). The model performed well in ROC, with AUC values of 0.892 in the training set, 0.858 in the inner validation set (Cohort 1), and 0.849 in the exterior validation set (Cohort 2). All three datasets' calibration curves revealed a high level of agreement between projected and actual probability. DCA suggested that the model had great clinical usefulness. We have established a more reliable predictive model for PGS which can provide guidance for clinical practitioners. Robotic surgery is also considered to be one of the factors that can reduce the occurrence of PGS.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

Enlightenment of robotic gastrectomy from 527 patients with gastric cancer in the minimally invasive era: 5 years of optimizing surgical performance in a high-volume center - a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Learning curves have been used in the field of robotic gastrectomy (RG). However, it should be noted that the previous study did not comprehensively investigate all changes related to the learning curve. This study aims to establish a learning curve for radical RG and evaluate its effect on the short-term outcomes of patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

The clinicopathological data of 527 patients who underwent RG between August 2016 and June 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Learning curves related to the operation time and postoperative hospital stay were determined separately using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. Then, the impact of the learning curve on surgical efficacy was analyzed.

RESULTS

Combining the CUSUM curve break points and technical optimization time points, the entire cohort was divided into three phases (patients 1-100, 101-250, and 251-527). The postoperative complication rate and postoperative recovery time tended to decrease significantly with phase advancement ( P <0.05). More extraperigastric examined lymph nodes (LN) were retrieved in phase III than in phase I (I vs. III, 15.12±6.90 vs. 17.40±7.05, P =0.005). The rate of LN noncompliance decreased with phase advancement. Textbook outcome (TO) analysis showed that the learning phase was an independent factor in TO attainment ( P <0.05).

CONCLUSION

With learning phase advancement, the short-term outcomes were significantly improved. It is possible that our optimization of surgical procedures could have contributed to this improvement. The findings of this study facilitate the safe dissemination of RG in the minimally invasive era.

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.

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.

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

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

Safety and efficacy of indocyanine green near-infrared fluorescent imaging-guided lymph node dissection during robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In Asia, particularly, robotic gastrectomy has grown in popularity as a treatment for stomach cancer. Indocyanine green (ICG) and near-infrared (NIR) fluorescent imaging technology has been reported for robotic gastrectomy. However, the clinical value still should be further evaluated. In this meta-analysis, we investigated the safety and efficacy of ICG near-infrared fluorescent imaging-guided lymph node (LN) dissection during robotic gastrectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Through July 2022, systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were conducted to find studies comparing ICG fluorescence imaging with conventional treatment in patients with gastric cancer. The current meta-analysis was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis guidelines. A pooled analysis was performed for the available data regarding the number of lymph node dissections, other operative outcomes and postoperative complications. R studio software 4.2.2 was used for this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

This analysis includes five studies with a total of 312 gastric cancer patients (128 in the ICG group and 184 in the non-ICG group). In this meta-analysis, the number of retrieved LNs in the ICG group was significantly higher (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 8.80, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 4.37-13.22, p < 0.05) than that in the non-ICG group with moderate heterogeneity (p < 0.0001, I2=53.3%). Intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complications were all comparable and without significant heterogeneity. Additionally, ICG near-infrared fluorescent imaging was associated with a reduced operative time (WMD= -11.85, 95% CI: -22.40 to -1.30, p < 0.05) with low heterogeneity (p = 0.027, I2= 2.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

ICG near-infrared fluorescent imaging-guided lymphadenectomy was considered to be safe and effective in robotic gastrectomy. ICG was used to increase the number of LNs harvested while reducing operative time without increasing intraoperative blood loss or postoperative complications.

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.

Pancreatic thickness as a predictor of postoperative pancreatic fistula after laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Despite technical advances in minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer, an increased incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) has been reported. POPF can cause infectious and bleeding complications, which could lead to surgery-related death; therefore, reduction of the post-gastrectomy POPF risk is crucial. This study aimed to investigate the importance of pancreatic anatomy as a predictor of POPF in patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy.

METHODS

Data were collected from 331 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The thickness of the pancreas anterior to the most ventral level of the splenic artery (TPS) was measured. The correlation between TPS and POPF incidence was investigated using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

The cutoff value of TPS was 11.8 mm, which predicted a high drain amylase concentration on postoperative day 1, and patients were categorized into thin (Tn group) and thick TPS groups (Tk group). There was no significant difference in the background characteristics between the two groups, except for sex (P = 0.009) and body mass index (P < 0.001). The incidences of POPF grade B or higher (2% vs. 16%, P < 0.001), all postoperative complications of grade II or higher (12% vs. 28%, P = 0.004), and postoperative intra-abdominal infections of grade II or higher (4% vs. 17%, P = 0.001) were significantly higher in the Tk group. Multivariable analysis identified that high TPS was the only independent risk factor for grade B or higher POPF and grade II or higher postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The TPS is a specific predictive factor for POPF and postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy. Careful pancreatic manipulation during suprapancreatic lymphadenectomy is necessary for patients with increased TPS (> 11.8 mm) to avoid postoperative complications.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

The Role of Robotic Visceral Surgery in Patients with Adhesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abdominal adhesions are a risk factor for conversion to open surgery. An advantage of robotic surgery is the lower rate of unplanned conversions. A systematic review was conducted using the terms "laparoscopic" and "robotic". Inclusion criteria were: comparative studies evaluating patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic surgery; reporting data on conversion to open surgery for each group due to adhesions and studies including at least five patients in each group. The main outcomes were the conversion rates due to adhesions and surgeons' expertise (novice vs. expert). The meta-analysis included 70 studies from different surgical specialities with 14,329 procedures (6472 robotic and 7857 laparoscopic). The robotic approach was associated with a reduced risk of conversion (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12-2.10, p = 0.007). The analysis of the procedures performed by "expert surgeons" showed a statistically significant difference in favour of robotic surgery (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03-2.12, p = 0.03). A reduced conversion rate due to adhesions with the robotic approach was observed in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.20-5.72, p = 0.02). The robotic approach could be a valid option in patients with abdominal adhesions, especially in the subgroup of those undergoing colorectal cancer resection performed by expert surgeons.

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.

Trends in clinical outcomes and long-term survival after robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a single high-volume center experience of consecutive 2000 patients

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is now a standard treatment for gastric cancer. Many retrospective studies have reported that robotic gastrectomy is safe and feasible, with similar short- and long-term outcomes as laparoscopic gastrectomy. However, no studies have reported the details of surgical and survival outcomes for robotic gastrectomy. This study aimed to evaluate the surgical trends and techniques of robotic gastrectomy and analyze the surgical outcomes of 2000 consecutive patients with gastric cancer who underwent robotic gastrectomy over 14 years.

METHODS

Between July 2005 and January 2019, 2000 consecutive robotic gastrectomies were performed. We evaluated short- and long-term outcomes as well as surgical trends after robotic gastrectomy.

RESULTS

There were 1,560 subtotal gastrectomies (78%), 324 total gastrectomies (16.2%), 83 proximal gastrectomies (4.2%), and 33 completion total gastrectomies (1.7%). The rates of major complications and mortality were 3.1% and 0.3%, respectively. In a subgroup analysis, there were no significant differences in the rate of complications over time (P = 0.696). Five-year overall survival rates were 97.6% for stage I, 91.9% for stage II, and 69.2% for stage III, with a total recurrence rate of 5.3%. Since its adoption in 2005, the proportion of robotic gastrectomies, as well as technically demanding procedures have increased over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Our 14 years' experience of 2000 robotic gastrectomies has shown the proportion, as well as the number of robotic gastrectomies, have tended to increase and trends toward to technically demanding procedures. Outcomes of robotic gastrectomy appear safe and feasible with acceptable short- and long-term outcomes.

Current Status and Trends of Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy in Korea

Since its introduction in the early 1990s, laparoscopic gastrectomy has been widely accepted for the treatment of gastric cancer worldwide. In the last decade, the Korean Laparoendoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery Study group performed important clinical trials and exerted various efforts to enhance the quality of scientific knowledge and surgical techniques in the field of gastric cancer surgery. Laparoscopic gastrectomy has shifted to a new era in Korea due to recent advances and innovations in technology. Here, we discuss the recent updates of laparoscopic gastrectomy—namely, reduced-port, single-incision, robotic, image-guided, and oncometabolic surgery.

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.

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

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

Comparison of the Postoperative Complications Between Robotic Total and Distal Gastrectomies for Gastric Cancer Using Clavien-Dindo Classification: A Propensity Score-matched Retrospective Cohort Study of 726 Patients

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to compare the postoperative complications after Robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) and robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) and to systematically evaluate the safety and feasibility of RTG for the treatment of gastric cancer (GC).

METHODS

Patients with GC who underwent RTG or RDG for curative intent between March 2010 and August 2019 were analyzed. We used propensity score matching (PSM) to reduce selection bias. The morbidity and mortality within 30 days after surgery between the RTG and the RDG groups were compared.

RESULTS

According to Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification, the morbidity and mortality of the RTG group were comparable to those of the RDG group. Subgroup analyses showed no significant difference between the RTG and RDG groups in all stratified parameters (all P > .05). Multivariate analysis revealed that age ≥70 years (P = .002) and surgeons' experience ≤25 cases (P = .013) were independent risk factors for overall complication. Surgeons' experience ≤25 cases (P = .010) was identified as an independent risk factor for severe complication.

CONCLUSION

RTG is a safe and feasible surgical procedure for the treatment of GC with acceptable morbidity and mortality. More complications were observed for RTG, indicating that RTG is more invasive than RDG.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy of Da Vinci robotic or laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy has been used for treating gastric cancer since 2002. This meta-analysis was conducted to systematically evaluate the efficacy of Da Vinci robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy (RDG) or laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy (LDG) in patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

We conducted searches in domestic and foreign databases, and collected literature in Chinese and English on the efficacy of RDG and LDG for gastric cancer that have been published since the inception of the database. RevMan 5.4.1 was used for meta-analysis and drawing and Stata14.0 was used for publication bias analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 3293 patients in 15 studies were included, including 1193 patients in the RDG group and 2100 patients in the LDG groups respectively. The meta-analysis showed that intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower and the number of resected lymph nodes was higher in the RDG group compared to that in the LDG group. In addition, the times to first postoperative food intake and postoperative hospital stay were shortened, and there was a longer length of distal resection margin and prolonged duration of operation. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups with respect to the first postoperative anal exhaust time, length of proximal resection margin, total postoperative complication rate, postoperative anastomotic leakage rate, incidence of postoperative gastric emptying disorder, pancreatic fistula rate, recurrence rate, and mortality rate.

CONCLUSION

RDG is a safe and feasible treatment option for gastric cancer, and it is non-inferior or even superior to LDG with respect to therapeutic efficacy and radical treatment.

Assessment of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the short-term outcomes of patients with GC who received RDG or LDG.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Despite the increasing use of RDG in patients with GC, its safety and efficacy compared to those of LDG have not been elucidated in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Three hundred patients with cT1-4a and N0/+ between September 2017 and January 2020 were enrolled in this randomized controlled trial at a high-volume hospital in China. The short-term outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The modified intention-to-treat analysis included data from 283 patients (RDG group: n = 141) and (LDG group: n = 142). Patients in the RDG group exhibited faster postoperative recovery, milder inflammatory responses, and reduced postoperative morbidity (9.2% vs 17.6%, respectively, P = 0.039). Higher extraperigastric lymph nodes (LNs) were retrieved in the RDG group (17.6 ± 5.8 vs 15.8 ± 6.6, P = 0.018) with lower noncompliance rate (7.7% vs 16.9%, respectively, P = 0.006). Additionally, patients in the RDG group were more likely to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy earlier [median (interquartile range) postoperative days: 28 (24-32) vs 32 (26-42), P = 0.003]. Although total hospital costs were higher in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group, the direct cost was lower for RDG than for LDG (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RDG is associated with a lower morbidity rate, faster recovery, milder inflammatory responses, and improved lymphadenectomy. Additionally, faster postoperative recovery in the RDG group enables early initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy. Our results provide evidence for the application of RDG in patients with GC.

Surgical Merits of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Gastrectomy Techniques with D2 Lymphadenectomy in Obese Patients with Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been widely adopted for complex procedures to overcome technical limitations of open or laparoscopic methods. However, evidence of any subsequent benefit is lacking. This study was undertaken to compare open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy in technically demanding procedure-D2 dissection in obese patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

Data collected between 2010 and 2018 on D2 gastrectomy in obese patients with gastric cancer were used to conduct retrospective analysis, comparing short- and long-term outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic techniques.

RESULTS

In a total of 185 patients, there were 69 open, 62 laparoscopic, and 54 robotic gastrectomy procedures. Median ages for respective surgical groups were 66 (interquartile range [IQR]: 61-64 years), 63 (IQR: 59-63), and 59 years (IQR: 56-60 years) (p = 0.009). Early-stage gastric cancer ranked proportionately higher in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.005), but operative times were similar among groups. Estimated blood loss (p < 0.001) and drainage volumes (p = 0.001) were higher in the open group, relative to others. Although a robotic approach performed best in overall compliance and in mean number of retrieved lymph node, observed rates of early or late complications did not differ by technique. The open group experienced significantly poorer overall (p = 0.039) and relapse-free (p < 0.001) survival compared with the laparoscopic or robotic group. Robotic surgery emerged from multivariable Cox regression as a protective factor for relapse-free survival (HR = 0.314, 95% CI 0.116-0.851).

CONCLUSIONS

In obese patients with gastric cancer, robotic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy proved comparable to open or laparoscopic technique short-term, yielding better long-term outcomes.

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.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREA COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

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.

Robotic versus open oncological gastric surgery in the elderly: a propensity score-matched analysis

Although there is no agreement on a definition of elderly, commonly an age cutoff of ≥ 65 or 75 years is used. Even if robot-assisted surgery is a validated option for the elderly population, there are no specific indications for its application in the surgical treatment of gastric cancer. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted gastrectomy and to compare the short and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted (RG) versus open gastrectomy (OG). Patients aged ≥ 70 years old undergoing surgery for gastric cancer at the Department of Surgery of San Donato Hospital in Arezzo, between September 2012 and March 2017 were enrolled. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed according to the following variables: age, Sex, BMI, ASA score, comorbidity, T stage and type of resection performed. 43 OG were matched to 43 RG. The mean operative time was significantly longer in the RG group (273.8 vs. 193.5 min, p < 0.01). No differences were observed in terms of intraoperative blood loss, an average number of lymph nodes removed, mean hospital stay, morbidity and mortality. OG had higher rate of major complications (6.9 vs. 16.3%, OR 2.592, 95% CI 0.623–10.785, p = 0.313) and a significantly higher postoperative pain (0.95 vs. 1.24, p = 0.042). Overall survival (p = 0.263) and disease-free survival (p = 0.474) were comparable between groups. Robotic-assisted surgery for oncological gastrectomy in elderly patients is safe and effective showing non-inferiority comparing to the open technique in terms of perioperative outcomes and overall 5-year survival.

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.

Robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer based on propensity score matching: short-term outcomes at a high-capacity center

Reports in the field of robotic surgery for gastric cancer are increasing. However, studies only on patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) are lacking. This retrospective study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) and laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC. From December 2014 to November 2019, 683 consecutive patients with AGC underwent mini-invasive assisted distal gastrectomy. Propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to reduce patient selection bias. Short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. The clinical features were well matched in the PSM cohort. Compared with the LADG group, the RADG group was associated with less operative blood loss, a lower rate of postoperative blood transfusion, less volume of abdominal drainage, less time to remove abdominal drainage tube, retrieved more lymph node, and lower rates of surgical complications and pancreatic fistula (P <0.05). However, the time to recovery bowel function, the length of postoperative stay, the rates of other subgroups of complications and unplanned readmission were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05). This study suggests that RADG is a safe and feasible technique with better short-term outcomes than LADG for AGC.

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.

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.

Severity and incidence of complications assessed by the Clavien-Dindo classification following robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a retrospective and propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC), and many advantages over laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) have been reported. However, its postgastrectomy complications still under investigation and the results remain controversial. This study aimed to objectively assess the incidence and severity of complications following RAG vs. LAG using Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification and to identify risk factors related to complications.

METHODS

Five hundred and twenty-seven patients with AGC who underwent RAG or LAG between January 2016 and May 2018 were enrolled in this study. Complications were categorized according to the C-D classification. The complications following RAG and LAG were compared using one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis and subgroup analyses. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors related to complications.

RESULTS

RAG was performed in 251 patients (47.6%) and LAG in 276 patients (52.4%). Before PSM, the RAG group had a smaller tumour size (P = 0.004) and less patients with previous abdominal operation (P = 0.013). After PSM, a well-balanced cohort of 446 patients (223 in each group) was further analyzed. Of interest, the incidence of overall and severe complications (C-D grade ≥ IIIa) following the RAG group were significantly fewer than the LAG group (overall, 24.5% vs. 18.8%, P < 0.001; severe, 8.9% vs. 17.5%, P = 0.002). Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant difference were also observed in most stratified parameters. Multivariable analysis identified age ≥ 65 years, total gastrectomy, stage T3-T4a, stage II-III, and operation time ≥ 250 min as independent predictors of overall complications. Additionally, age ≥ 65 years, stage II-III, and operation time ≥ 250 min were confirmed as independent risk factors for severe complications.

CONCLUSIONS

RAG with D2 lymphadenectomy is feasible and safe for the treatment of AGC in terms of the lower incidence and severity of complications.

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.

Comparison of Surgical Outcomes Between Robotic and Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for cT1 Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of patients are treated by robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG); however, it remains unclear whether RDG is clinically comparable with conventional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG). This study aimed to clarify the feasibility of RDG from safety aspects.

METHODS

The study included 109 cT1 gastric cancer patients who underwent RDG at Shizuoka Cancer Center from January 2012 to April 2015. Short-term outcomes were compared with 160 cT1 gastric cancer patients who underwent LDG during the same period.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were well matched. The RDG patients experienced longer operative times (323 min) than LDG patients (285 min; P < 0.001), although all other surgical outcomes were comparable between the groups. Drain amylase levels on POD 1 were significantly lower in the RDG group compared to LDG cases (median 452 U/L and 892 U/L; P < 0.001). The incidence of all complications was similar across the study patients, although intra-abdominal infectious complications tended to be lower in the RDG group than in the LDG group (2.8 and 8.1%; P = 0.112).

CONCLUSIONS

RDG was comparable to LDG in terms of feasibility for cT1 gastric cancer. RDG has the potential to reduce pancreas damage and thus to decrease intra-abdominal infectious complications.

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.

Outcome of Discharge Within 72 Hours of Robotic Gastrectomy Using Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Programs

AIMS

To evaluate the safety and outcome of discharge within 72 hours of a robotic gastrectomy together with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 108 consecutive patients received elective robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer from April 2017 to September 2017. All patients attended ERAS programs, which do not routinely use nasogastric tubes but include early feeding, early ambulation, and standard discharge criteria, among other items.

RESULTS

The mean age was 58.7 ± 10.4 years old, and the mean body mass index was 22.9 ± 2.8 kg/m². The mean postoperative length of hospital stay was 5.6 ± 8.0 days, and 13 patients (12.0%) exhibited a complication within 30 days with no mortality. A total of 38 patients (35.2%) were discharged within 72 hours of surgery. Patients were grouped based on being discharged within or after 72 hours. The rate of complications was significantly lower in patients discharged within 72 hours than patients discharged after 72 hours (1/38, 2.6% versus 12/70, 17.1%, P = .028). Although patients discharged within 72 hours showed lower readmission numbers, this difference was not statistically significant (1/38, 2.6% versus 8/70, 11.4%, P = .116). One month after surgery, loss of weight, loss of total protein, loss of albumin, and loss of prealbumin in patients discharged within 72 hours were less than those of patients discharged after 72 hours.

CONCLUSION

Complication and readmission rates are low in patients discharged within 72 hours of robotic gastrectomy when ERAS programs and standard discharge criteria are used.

Robotic oesophago-gastric cancer surgery

A postoperative complications rate of nearly 50% has compelled oesophago-gastric practice to adopt minimally invasive techniques such as robotic surgery

Successful Robotic Gastrectomy Does Not Require Extensive Laparoscopic Experience

Purpose

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

Materials and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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