Comparison of the long-term outcomes of robotic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer and conventional laparoscopic approach: a single institutional retrospective cohort study

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.

Predictive model for pancreatic fistula in minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is one of the potentially serious complications after gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC). Drain amylase level is a predictor of POPF in open and laparoscopic gastrectomy, but no study has focused on minimally invasive surgery (MIS), including robotic gastrectomy (RG). This study assesses the effect of drain amylase levels for POPF in MIS and develop a prediction model in the MIS era.

METHODS

This single-institutional retrospective study, conducted from January 2011 to December 2021, included 1,353 who underwent standard MIS for GC. We placed a drain in all patients undergoing MIS gastrectomy and measured the drain amylase level on the first postoperative day (D1Amy). The predictive accuracy of D1Amy for POPF was assessed. Additionally, the entire cohort was randomly categorized into the training (1,048 patients) and validation sets (305 patients) to establish the nomogram.

RESULTS

Of the 1353 patients, 530 underwent a robotic approach. POPF and intraabdominal infectious complications of Clavien-Dindo classification grade ≥ II were observed in 80 (5.9%) and 145 (10.7%) patients, respectively. Median D1Amy was 812 U/L. The receiver operating characteristic analysis of D1Amy for POPF revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.888. Multivariate analysis revealed age, tumor location, splenectomy, and D1Amy as significant risk factors for POPF. The AUC of the nomogram was 0.8960, validated with AUC of 0.9259.

CONCLUSIONS

We revealed the utility of D1Amy in predicting POPF in MIS gastrectomy. Furthermore, the nomogram, incorporating D1Amy and other clinical factors, was additionally used as a predictive model for POPF.

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.

Hinotori™ robotic esophagectomy: a feasibility cadaver study

This preclinical feasibility study investigates the potential of utilizing the hinotori™ robot system for esophagectomy. In three human cadaver models, the esophagus was successfully mobilized and resected using the hinotori™ system, with a mean thoracic procedure time of 57 minutes. The system allowed for precise dissection and radical lymphadenectomy without arm collision, attributed to its versatile design and docking-free trocars. Standard robot-specific patient positioning, including a 35° left lateral inclination, and trocar placement in a posterior axillary line configuration were employed. Notably, trocars suitable for both laparoscopy and the hinotori™ robot were utilized, providing flexibility in trocar selection. Unique features, such as the ergonomic console and pointer-based pivot point identification system, contributed to procedural success. While these findings highlight the promising potential of the hinotori™ system in advancing esophageal surgery, further clinical studies are warranted to validate its reproducibility and clinical utility. Additionally, enhancements to the pivot point identification system and evaluation of the arm base's features may further optimize surgical outcomes.

Impact of the endoscopic surgical skill qualification system on the oncological safety of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A single-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) performance of non-Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System (ESSQS)-qualified surgeons under the ESSQS-qualified surgeon guidance and compare oncological outcomes of gastric cancer to LG performed by the ESSQS-qualified surgeons.

METHODS

This study enrolled 1,030 patients diagnosed with both clinical and pathological stage ≤ III gastric cancer and undergoing LG from January 2009 to June 2019. ESSQS-qualified surgeons served as the operator or the instructive assistant in all LG procedures involving them. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to retrospectively compare the long-term outcomes between the ESSQS-qualified and non-ESSQS-qualified surgeons.

RESULTS

Each group included 315 pairs after propensity score matching. The 3-year recurrence-free survival rates were 84.4% and 81.7% in the non-ESSQS and ESSQS groups, respectively. The difference was 2.7% (95% confidence interval: - 3.20%-8.44%, P < 0.001), and the non-ESSQS group statistically demonstrated noninferiority as the lower 95% confidence limit was greater than the prespecified margin of -10%, indicating the achieved primary endpoint. No significant differences in 5-year recurrence-free survival (non-ESSQS: 78.5% vs. ESSQS: 77.4%, P = 0.627) and 5-year overall survival (non-ESSQS: 80.9% vs. ESSQS: 79.3%, P = 0.475) were found between the two groups. The oncological outcomes stratified according to the presence of pathological stage I, II, and III disease did not significantly differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LG performed by non-ESSQS-qualified surgeons achieved comparable oncological outcomes to the ESSQS-qualified surgeons, as long as ESSQS-qualified surgeons provided intraoperative instructions, in a high-volume center.

Long-term survival outcomes of robotic total gastrectomy for locally advanced proximal gastric cancer: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy is a safe and feasible approach for gastric cancer (GC); however, its long-term oncological efficacy remains unclear. The authors evaluated the long-term survival outcomes and recurrence patterns of patients with locally advanced proximal GC who underwent robotic total gastrectomy (RTG).

METHODS

This prospective study (FUGES-014 study) enrolled 48 patients with locally advanced proximal GC who underwent RTG between March 2018 and February 2020 at a tertiary referral teaching hospital. Patients who underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) in the FUGES-002 study were enrolled in a 2:1 ratio to compare the survival outcomes between RTG and LTG. The primary endpoint of the FUGES-014 study was postoperative 30-day morbidity and has been previously reported. Here, the authors reported the results of 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), 3-year overall survival (OS), and recurrence patterns.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 48 patients in the RTG and 96 patients in the LTG groups were included. The 3-year DFS rates were 77.1% (95% CI: 66.1-89.9%) for the RTG and 68.8% (95% CI: 60.1-78.7%) for the LTG groups ( P =0.261). The 3-year OS rates were not significantly different between the groups (85.4 vs. 74.0%, P =0.122). Recurrence occurred in nine patients (18.8%) in the RTG and 27 (28.1%) patients in the LTG groups ( P =0.234). Recurrence patterns and causes of death were similar between the groups ( P >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The oncological outcome of RTG was noninferior to that of LTG. Thus, RTG might be an alternative surgical treatment for locally advanced proximal GC.

Robotic distal gastrectomy using a novel pre-emptive supra-pancreatic approach without duodenal transection in the dissection of D2 lymph nodes for gastric cancer

Background

Robot-assisted surgery has shown remarkable progress as a minimally invasive procedure for gastric cancer. This study aimed to compare the pre-emptive suprapancreatic approach without duodenal transection and the conventional approach in terms of perioperative feasibility and short-term surgical outcomes.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent robotic distal gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection using the da Vinci Xi robotic system between December 2021 and April 2023 and categorized them into two groups for comparison. Patients treated using the pre-emptive suprapancreatic approach (observation group) were compared with those who received the conventional approach (control group). Employing one-to-one propensity score matching, we evaluated the postoperative morbidity and short-term outcomes in these two distinct groups to assess the efficacy and safety of the novel surgical technique.

Results

This study enrolled 131 patients: 70 in the observation group and 61 in the control group. After propensity score matching, the operative times were significantly longer in the control group than in the observation group (229.10 ± 33.96 vs. 174.84 ± 18.37, p <0.001). The mean blood loss was lower in the observation group than in the control group (25.20 ± 11.18 vs. 85.00 ± 38.78, p <0.001). Additionally, the observation group exhibited a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes, including suprapyloric, perigastric, and superior pancreatic lymph nodes (28.69 ± 5.48 vs. 19.21 ± 2.89, p <0.001; 4.98 ± 1.27 vs. 4.29 ± 1.21, p = 0.012; 10.52 ± 2.39 vs. 5.50 ± 1.62, p <0.001; 6.26 ± 2.64 vs. 5.00 ± 1.72, p = 0.029). Drain amylase levels in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group (30.08 ± 33.74 vs. 69.14 ± 66.81, p <0.001).

Conclusion

This study revealed that using the pre-emptive suprapancreatic approach without duodenal transection in the dissection of D2 lymph nodes for gastric cancer is a safe and feasible procedure in terms of surgical outcomes.

Comparison of Short-term and Three-year Oncological Outcomes Between Robotic and Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Large Multicenter Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short-term and long-term outcomes between robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND

The clinical outcomes of RG over LG have not yet been effectively demonstrated.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 3599 patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy at eight high-volume hospitals in China from January 2015 to June 2019. Propensity score matching was performed between patients who received RG and LG. The primary end point was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

After 1:1 propensity score matching, 1034 pairs of patients were enrolled in a balanced cohort for further analysis. The 3-year DFS in the RG and LG was 83.7% and 83.1% ( P =0.745), respectively, and the 3-year overall survival was 85.2% and 84.4%, respectively ( P =0.647). During 3 years of follow-up, 154 patients in the RG and LG groups relapsed (cumulative incidence of recurrence: 15.0% vs 15.0%, P =0.988). There was no significant difference in the recurrence sites between the 2 groups (all P >0.05). Sensitivity analysis showed that RG had comparable 3-year DFS (77.4% vs 76.7%, P =0.745) and overall survival (79.7% vs 78.4%, P =0.577) to LG in patients with advanced (pathologic T2-4a) disease, and the recurrence pattern within 3 years was also similar between the 2 groups (all P >0.05). RG had less intraoperative blood loss, lower conversion rate, and shorter hospital stays than LG (all P >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For resectable gastric cancer, including advanced cases, RG is a safe approach with comparable 3-year oncological outcomes to LG when performed by experienced surgeons.

First clinical experiences of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer using the hinotori™ surgical robot system

BACKGROUND

Although the da Vinci™ Surgical System is the most predominantly used surgical robot worldwide, other surgical robots are being developed. The Japanese surgical robot hinotori™ Surgical Robot System was launched and approved for clinical use in Japan in November 2022. We performed the first robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer using hinotori in the world. Here, we report our initial experience and evaluation of the feasibility and safety of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer using hinotori.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective study was conducted. Between November 2022 and October 2023, 24 patients with gastric cancer underwent robotic gastrectomy with hinotori. Five ports, including one for an assistant, were placed in the upper abdomen, and gastric resection with standard lymphadenectomy and intracorporeal reconstruction were performed. The primary endpoint was the postoperative complication rate within 30 days after surgery. The secondary outcomes were surgical outcomes, including intraoperative adverse events, operative time, blood loss, and the number of dissected nodes.

RESULTS

Of the 24 patients, 16 (66.7%) were male. The median age and body mass index were 73.5 years and 22.9 kg/m2, respectively. Twenty-three patients (95.8%) had tumors in the middle to lower stomach. Sixteen (66.7%) and seven (29.2%) patients had clinical stage I and II diseases, respectively. Twenty-three (95.8%) patients underwent distal gastrectomy. No patient had postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo classification IIIa or higher, whereas two (8.3%) had the grade II complications (enteritis and pneumonia). No intraoperative adverse events, including conversion to other approaches, were observed. All patients received R0 resection. The median operative and console times were 400 and 305 min, respectively. The median blood loss was 14.5 mL, and the number of lymph nodes dissected was 51.5.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that robotic gastrectomy with standard lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer using hinotori can be safely performed.

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.

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.

Clinical advantage of standardized robotic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a single-center retrospective cohort study using propensity-score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Although recent studies have shown that robotic gastrectomy offers clinical advantages over laparoscopic gastrectomy in decreasing gastric cancer (GC) morbidity, studies focusing on robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) remain limited. The current study aimed to clarify whether the use of a robotic system could clinically improve short-term outcomes.

METHODS

Between January 2009 and June 2021, 371 patients diagnosed with both clinical and pathological Stage III or lower GC and underwent RTG or laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) were enrolled in this study. The primary outcome was the incidence of intra-abdominal infectious complications over Clavien-Dindo classification grade IIIa. Demographic characteristics of those who underwent the RTG and LTG were matched using propensity-score matching (PSM), after which short-term outcomes were compared retrospectively.

RESULTS

After PSM, 100 patients were included in each group. The RTG group had a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization following surgery [RTG 13 (11-16) days vs. LTG 14 (11-19) days; p = 0.032] and a greater number of dissected LNs [RTG 48 (39-59) vs. LTG 43 (35-54) mL; p = 0.025], despite having a greater total operative time [RTG 511 (450-646) min vs. LTG 448 (387-549) min; p < 0.001]. In addition, the RTG group had significantly fewer total complications (3% vs. 13%, p = 0.019) and intra-abdominal infectious complications (1% vs. 9%; p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study showed that robotic surgery might improve short-term outcomes following minimally invasive radical total gastrectomy by reducing intra-abdominal infectious complications.

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.

Robotic Distal Gastrectomy Reduces Drain Amylase Values in Patients With a Small Pancreas-left Gastric Artery Angle

PURPOSE

Pancreatic fistula is a severe complication after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG). We previously evaluated the pancreas-left gastric artery angle (PLA) as a risk indicator for developing a pancreatic fistula after LDG. This study evaluated the incidence of pancreatic fistula with robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) in comparison to LDG from the view of the PLA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An association between the PLA and the incidence of pancreatic fistula in 165 patients who underwent either RDG (n=45) or LDG (n=120) was investigated retrospectively.

RESULTS

RDG patients had significantly lower drain amylase values (postoperative day 2) than LDG patients. As opposed to LDG patients, drain amylase values were similar for patients with small (PLA <62 degrees) and large (PLA ≥62 degrees) PLA in RDG patients.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery may reduce the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula in patients with a small PLA.

Modern surgical therapy for gastric cancer-Robotics and beyond

The surgical paradigm for gastric cancer has been changed from extended surgery to minimally invasive surgery. Laparoscopic surgery is a practical method for minimally invasive surgery for early gastric cancer, and the indication is expanding to advanced gastric cancer. In recent years, robotic gastrectomy has been highlighted as a breakthrough to overcome the drawbacks of laparoscopic gastrectomy. Here, we discuss the recent updates of modern surgical therapy for gastric cancer-robotics and beyond.

Safe implementation of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer under the requirements for universal health insurance coverage: a retrospective cohort study using a nationwide registry database in Japan

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has increased since being covered by universal health insurance in 2018. However, to ensure patient safety the operating surgeon and facility must meet specific requirements. We aimed to determine whether RG has been safely implemented under the requirements for universal health insurance in Japan.

METHODS

Data of consecutive patients with primary gastric cancer who underwent minimally invasive total or distal gastrectomy-performed by a surgeon certified by the Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery (JSES) endoscopic surgical skill qualification system (ESSQS) between October 2018 and December 2019-were extracted from the gastrointestinal surgery section of the National Clinical Database (NCD). The primary outcome was morbidity over Clavien-Dindo classification grade IIIa. Patient demographics and hospital volume were matched between RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) using propensity score-matched analysis (PSM), and the short-term outcomes of RG and LG were compared.

RESULTS

After PSM, 2671 patients who underwent RG and 2671 who underwent LG were retrieved (from a total of 9881), and the standardized difference of all the confounding factors reduced to 0.07 or less. Morbidity rates did not differ between the RG and LG patients (RG, 4.9% vs. LG, 3.9%; p = 0.084). No difference was observed in 30-day mortality (RG, 0.2% vs. LG, 0.1%; p = 0.754). The reoperation rate was greater following RG (RG, 2.2% vs. LG, 1.2%; p = 0.004); however, the duration of postoperative hospitalization was shorter (RG, 10 [8-13] days vs. LG, 11 [9-14] days; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Insurance-covered RG has been safely implemented nationwide.

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.

The safe performance of robotic gastrectomy by second-generation surgeons meeting the operating surgeon's criteria in the Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery guidelines

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer (GC) has gradually gained nationwide prominence following 2011 guidelines from the Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery (JSES), including the surgeons' criteria and the proctor system. In this retrospective study, we examined the short-term outcomes of the initial series of RGs performed by second-generation operating surgeons trained within our institute.

METHODS

Between January 2017 and April 2020, five surgeons each performed RG in 20 patients with clinical stage III or lower GC in accordance with the JSES guidelines. We evaluated both the rate of Clavien-Dindo grade II or higher morbidities and the console time required to reach the learning plateau via cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis.

RESULTS

We observed no mortality and 3% of morbidity following RG. Both the operative time (430 vs 387.5 min, P = 0.019) and console time (380 vs . 331.5 min, P = 0.009) were significantly shorter in the second 10 cases than in the initial 10 cases. We observed a remarkable trend in cases of distal gastrectomy (DG), in which the total operative time and console time were significantly shorter in the later cases. Our CUSUM analysis revealed that seven cases were required to achieve a learning plateau in RG when confined to DG.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-expert RG surgeons meeting the operating surgeon's criteria from the JSES who had trained under an expert RG surgeon safely performed RG in an initial 20 cases.

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.

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

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

Comparison of Long- and Short-term Outcomes in 845 Open and Minimally Invasive Gastrectomies for Gastric Cancer in the United States

BACKGROUND

Few Western studies have evaluated the long-term oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches to gastrectomy for gastric cancer. This study aimed to compare the outcomes between minimally invasive and open gastrectomies and between laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies at a high-volume cancer center in the United States.

METHODS

The study analyzed data for all patients undergoing curative gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma from January 2007 to June 2017. Postoperative complications and disease-specific survival (DSS) were compared between surgical approaches.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period for the 845 patients in this study was 38.5 months. The stage-stratified 5-year DSS did not differ significantly between open surgery (n = 534) and MIS (n = 311). The MIS approach resulted in significantly fewer complications, as confirmed by adjusted comparison (odds ratio [OR], 0.70; range, 0.49-1.00; p = 0.049). After adjustment, the two groups did not differ in terms of DSS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; range, 0.55-1.25; p = 0.362). The robotic operations (n = 190) had fewer conversions to open procedure (p = 0.010), a shorter operative time (212 vs 240 min; p < 0.001), more dissected nodes (27 vs 22; p < 0.001), fewer Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (5.8% vs 13.2%; p = 0.023), and a shorter postoperative stay (5 vs 6 days; p = 0.045) than the laparoscopic operations (n = 121). The DSS rate did not differ between the laparoscopic and robotic groups.

CONCLUSION

The study findings demonstrated the long-term survival and oncologic equivalency of MIS gastrectomy and the open approach in a Western cohort, supporting the use of MIS at centers that have adequate experience with appropriately selected patients.

Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes

The use of the robotic platform for gastrointestinal surgery was introduced nearly 20 years ago. However, significant growth and advancement has occurred primarily in the last decade. This is due to several advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery allowing for more complex dissections and reconstructions. Several randomized controlled trials and retrospective reviews have demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery with improved short-term outcomes. Unfortunately, there are currently no universally accepted or implemented training programs for robotic surgery and robotic surgery experience varies greatly. Additionally, several limitations to the robotic platform exist resulting in a distinct learning curve associated with various procedures. Therefore, implementation of robotic surgery requires a multidisciplinary team approach with commitment and investment from clinical faculty, operating room staff and hospital administrators. Additionally, there is a need for wider distribution of educational modules to train more surgeons and reduce the associated learning curve. This article will focus on the implementation of the robotic platform for surgery of the pancreas, stomach, liver, colon and rectum with an emphasis on the associated learning curve, educational platforms to develop proficiency and perioperative outcomes.

Robotic Distal Gastrectomy With a Novel "Preemptive Retropancreatic Approach" During Dissection of Suprapancreatic Lymph Nodes for Gastric Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Abrogating contact with the pancreas in suprapancreatic lymph nodes dissection for gastric cancer can prevent pancreatic fistula because of postoperative pancreatic damage. Our novel "Preemptive retropancreatic approach" is a useful technique that minimizes pancreatic compression during robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) with multijointed forceps. Here, we report the usefulness of RDG for gastric cancer surgery using our novel "Preemptive retropancreatic approach".

MATERIALS

"Preemptive retropancreatic approach": initial dissection of the bilateral retropancreatic space, the adherence between the retroperitoneum surface and the pancreas (fusion fascia) is released, providing a good operative field and hindering contact with the pancreas in suprapancreatic lymph nodes dissection during RDG. We herein reported consecutive 30 patients with gastric cancer who underwent RDG at Hokkaido University from September 2014 to March 2020.

RESULTS

All operations were performed by a single surgeon (Y.E.). The median operating time was 281 minutes (132 to 415). The median intraoperative bleeding was 0 ml of blood (0 to 255). There were 2 incidences of postoperative complications (≥Clavien-Dindo classification II), and there were no cases of postoperative pancreas-related complications. The median length of hospital stay after the surgery was 10 days (6 to 33).

CONCLUSION

As RDG for gastric cancer is still in its early introductory phase, its superiority has yet to be definitively established. However, we believe that "Preemptive retropancreatic approach" may reduce postoperative pancreatic-related complications in suprapancreatic lymph nodes dissection.

Reduction in postoperative complications by robotic surgery: a case-control study of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer

Background

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is being increasingly performed globally; it is considered an evolved type of conventional laparoscopic surgery with excellent dexterity and precision, but higher costs and longer operation time. Thus, there is a need to identify the benefits from RG and its specific candidates.

Methods

This retrospective study analyzed data from a prospectively collected clinical database at our center. Data of patients with primary gastric cancer undergoing either robotic or laparoscopic radical gastrectomy from June 2014 to June 2020 were reviewed. Surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups, and multivariable analyses were performed to elucidate the relevant factors for postoperative complications in several subgroups.

Results

A total of 1172 patients were divided into those who underwent RG (n = 152) and those who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) (n = 1020). Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups, except the RG group included more patients undergoing total/proximal gastrectomy (TG/PG) and patients at clinical stage III. Compared with the LG group, the RG group had lower incidences of postoperative complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade III (2/152 (1.3%) versus 72/1020 (7.1%); P = 0.004), and intraabdominal complications ≥ grade II (6/152 (3.9%) versus 119/1020 (11.7%); P = 0.004). Multivariable analysis revealed that RG was a significant relevant factor for reducing overall postoperative complications (≥ grade III) (odds ratio (OR) 0.16, P = 0.013), and intraabdominal complications (≥ grade II) (OR 0.29, P = 0.002). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that this tendency was enhanced in patients undergoing TG/PG (OR 0.29, P = 0.021) or at clinical stage II/III (OR 0.10, P = 0.027).

Conclusions

RG reduces the incidence of postoperative complications compared with conventional LG and this tendency may be enhanced in technically complicated procedures with demanding anastomosis or D2 lymphadenectomy. Patients requiring such procedures would most benefit from RG.

Efficacy of minimally invasive distal gastrectomy for elderly patients with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer: a propensity-score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Phase III trials have shown the non-inferiority of minimally invasive distal gastrectomy (MIDG) comparison with open distal gastrectomy (ODG) in patients with gastric cancer; however, it remains unclear whether MIDG is also effective in the elderly. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy of MIDG in elderly gastric cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study included 316 patients older than 75 years with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer who underwent distal gastrectomy from August 2008 to December 2016 at the Shizuoka Cancer Centre. The long-term outcomes between MIDG and ODG were compared after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, there were 97 patients each in the MIDG and ODG groups, with an improved balance of confounding factors between the two groups. MIDG was associated with significantly longer operative time and a lower level of blood loss than ODG. The incidence of complications was comparable between the two groups. Survival outcomes were better in the MIDG group than in the ODG group (overall survival; P = 0.034, relapse-free survival; P = 0.027). In the multivariable analysis, ODG [hazard ratio (HR) 1.971, P = 0.046], being 80 years or older (HR 2.285, P = 0.018), male sex (HR 2.428, 95% P = 0.024), and poor physical status (HR 2.324, P = 0.022) were identified as independent prognostic factors for overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that MIDG showed better efficacy than ODG in elderly gastric cancer patients. MIDG is an acceptable option for elderly patients.

Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Adenocarcinoma in the USA: Insights and Oncologic Outcomes in 220 Patients

BACKGROUND

While multiple Asian and a few Western retrospective series have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer, its reliability for thorough resection, especially for locoregional disease, has not yet been firmly established, and reported learning curves vary widely. To support wider implementation of robotic gastrectomy, we evaluated the learning curve for this approach, assessed its oncologic feasibility, and created a selection model predicting the likelihood of conversion to open surgery in a US patient population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data on all consecutive patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy at a high-volume institution between May 2012 and March 2019.

RESULTS

Of the 220 patients with gastric cancer selected to undergo curative-intent robotic gastrectomy, surgery was completed using robotics in 159 (72.3%). The median number of removed lymph nodes was 28, and ≥ 15 lymph nodes were removed in 94% of procedures. Surgical time decreased steadily over the first 60-80 cases. Complications were generally minor: 7% of patients experienced complications of grade 3 or higher, with an anastomotic leak rate of 2% and mortality rate 0.9%. Factors predicting conversion to open surgery included neoadjuvant chemotherapy, BMI ≥ 31 kg/m2, and tumor size ≥ 6 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the safety and oncologic feasibility of robotic gastrectomy for selected patients with gastric cancer. Proficiency can be achieved by 20 cases and mastery by 60-80 cases. Ideal candidates for this approach are patients with few comorbidities, BMI < 31 kg/m2, and tumors < 6 cm.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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

Aim:

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

Materials and Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

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.

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 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.

Postoperative pancreatic fistula after gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Postoperative pancreatic fistula is one of the most severe complications after gastric cancer surgery, and can cause critical patient conditions leading to surgery-related death. Fortunately, the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula after gastrectomy seems to be decreasing with changes in operative procedures. The rate was reported at about 30% after open gastrectomy with Appleby's method in 1997, but lately has improved below 1% for robotic gastrectomy in 2019. For the diagnosis of postoperative pancreatic fistula, drain amylase concentration has been demonstrated to be beneficial and some reports have proposed the optimal cut-off values of drain amylase to predict major postoperative pancreatic fistula. There have been many reports identifying risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula, including overweight patients, pancreatic anatomy, blunt trauma from compression of the pancreas, and thermal injuries caused by the continuous use of energy devices. And importantly, laparoscopic gastrectomy has been shown to be more often associated with postoperative pancreatic fistula than open gastrectomy in the prospective national clinical database in Japan. Hence, further sophistication of surgical techniques to reduce pancreas compression would have great promise in reducing postoperative pancreatic fistula after laparoscopic gastrectomy.

The Hepatic Left Lateral Segment Inverting Method Offering a Wider Operative Field of View During Laparoscopic Proximal Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

In laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy, the hepatic left lateral segment often obstructs the operative field of view, especially around the esophageal hiatus. Therefore, a safe retraction method is needed. The present study aimed to determine the effectiveness of inverting the hepatic left lateral segment in laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of 81 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy. Patients were divided into two groups, i.e., the Nathanson liver retractor group (n = 41) and hepatic left lateral segment inverting group (n = 40). The unedited video recordings of the procedures and the patients' medical records were reviewed and compared.

RESULTS

The hepatic left lateral segment inverting method provided a more satisfactory view of the operative fields and a wider working space around the esophageal hiatus than the Nathanson liver retractor. No intraoperative hepatic congestion and significantly improved postoperative liver enzyme elevations were observed with hepatic left lateral segment inverting method compared with the Nathanson liver retractor method.

CONCLUSIONS

In laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy, the hepatic left lateral segment inverting method appears to provide improvements in both the operative field of view and liver protection compared with the Nathanson liver retractor method.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

Non-robotic minimally invasive gastrectomy as an independent risk factor for postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications: A single-center, retrospective and propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer (GC) has gained widespread use as a safe curative procedure especially for early GC.

AIM

To determine risk factors for postoperative complications after minimally invasive gastrectomy for GC.

METHODS

Between January 2009 and June 2019, 1716 consecutive patients were referred to our division for primary GC. Among them, 1401 patients who were diagnosed with both clinical and pathological Stage III or lower GC and underwent robotic gastrectomy (RG) or laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) were enrolled. Retrospective chart review and multivariate analysis were performed for identifying risk factors for postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

Morbidity following minimally invasive gastrectomy was observed in 7.5% of the patients. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that non-robotic minimally invasive surgery, male gender, and an operative time of ≥ 360 min were significant independent risk factors for morbidity. Therefore, morbidity was compared between RG and LG. Accordingly, propensity-matched cohort analysis revealed that the RG group had significantly fewer intra-abdominal infectious complications than the LG group (2.5% vs 5.9%, respectively; P = 0.038), while no significant differences were noted for other local or systemic complications. Multivariate analyses of the propensity-matched cohort revealed that non-robotic minimally invasive surgery [odds ratio = 2.463 (1.070-5.682); P = 0.034] was a significant independent risk factor for intra-abdominal infectious complications.

CONCLUSION

The findings showed that robotic surgery might improve short-term outcomes following minimally invasive radical gastrectomy by reducing intra-abdominal infectious complications.

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.

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy compared with open resection: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis

In the last decade, there have clearly been important changes in the surgical approach of gastric cancer treatment due to an increased interest in the minimally invasive surgical approach (MIS). The higher cost of robotic surgery procedures remains an important issue of debate. The objective of the study is to compare the main operative and clinical outcomes and to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the two techniques. This is a prospective cost-effectiveness and clinical study when comparing the robotic gastrectomy (RG) technique with open gastrectomy (OG) in gastric cancer. Outcome parameters included surgical and post-operative costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The incremental utility was 0.038 QALYs and the estimated ICER for patients was dominated by robotic approach. The probability that the robotic approach was cost effective was 94.04% and 94.20%, respectively, at a WTP threshold of 20,000€ and 30,000€ per QALY gained. RG for gastric cancer represents a cost-effective procedure compared with the standard OG.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Robotic radical lymphadenectomy without touching the pancreas during gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Laparoscopic lymph node dissection around the peripancreatic area for gastric cancer (GC) remains challenging because of drawbacks in laparoscopic surgery including the limited range of movement, amplification of hand tremors, and inconvenient surgical positioning. In some cases of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), therefore, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurs. Robotic surgery, on the other hand, plays an essential role in ergonomics and offers advantages, such as motion scaling, less fatigue, tremor filtering, 7 degrees of motion in the robotic instruments assisted by the wrist-like instruments tips, and three-dimensional vision. Robotic gastrectomy (RG) may enable surgeons to overcome the drawbacks associated with laparoscopic surgery. This study compares the safety and feasibility of short-term surgical outcomes of RG and LG for patients with GC.This was a single-center retrospective study of 659 consecutive patients with GC who received minimally invasive surgery. LG (n = 639) was performed between 2013 and 2017 and RG (n = 20) was performed in 2017. Lymphadenectomy without touching the pancreas was basically performed during RG using assisting articulating forceps.Overall incidence of postoperative complications higher than Clavien-Dindo grade 2 was not significantly different (LG group 5.9%, RG group 5.0%). In RG group, POPF, intra-abdominal abscess, and anastomotic leakage were not found, but postoperative bleeding requiring interventional catheter embolization occurred in 1 patient. In LG, POPF was found in 4.7%. Amylase levels in drainage fluid on postoperative day 1 were significantly lower in the RG group (238.5 IU/L) than in the LG group (884.5 IU/L) (P = .028).Regarding short-term surgical outcomes, RG is feasible, safe, and ideal treatment procedure for GC. Our robotic procedure without touching the pancreas may be associated with decreased incidence of POPF.

Clinical advantages of robotic gastrectomy for clinical stage I/II gastric cancer: a multi-institutional prospective single-arm study

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer (GC) has been increasingly performed for a decade; however, evidence for its use as a standard treatment has not yet been established. The present study aimed to determine the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of RG for GC.

METHODS

This multi-institutional, single-arm prospective study, which included 330 patients from 15 institutions, was designed to compare morbidity rate of RG with that of a historical control (conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy, LG). This trial was approved for Advanced Medical Technology ("Senshiniryo") B. The included patients were operable patients with cStage I/II GC. The primary endpoint was morbidity (Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ IIIa). The specific hypothesis was that RG could reduce the morbidity rate to less than half of that with LG (6.4%). A sample size of 330 was considered sufficient (one-sided alpha 0.05, power 80%).

RESULTS

Among the 330 study patients, the protocol treatment was suspended in 4 patients. Thus, 326 patients fully enrolled and completed the study. The median patient age and BMI were 66 years and 22.4 kg/m2, respectively. Distal gastrectomy was performed in 253 (77.6%) patients. The median operative time and estimated blood loss were 313 min and 20 mL, respectively. No 30-day mortality was seen, and morbidity showed a significant reduction to 2.45% with RG (p = 0.0018).

CONCLUSIONS

RG for cStage I/II GC is safe and feasible. It may be effective in reducing morbidity with LG.

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a European perspective

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