What are the reasons for a longer operation time in robotic gastrectomy than in laparoscopic gastrectomy for stomach cancer?

Laparoscopic vs robot-assisted gastrectomy in gastric cancer patients with prior abdominal surgery: a propensity-matched analysis

No studies have compared the efficacy of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and robot-assisted gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer (GC) patients with a history of abdominal surgery (HAS). This is the first study in this field to identify complication-related factors and compare survival outcomes using propensity score matching (PSM) and a competing risk model (CRM). A retrospective cohort study was conducted on GC patients with HAS who underwent radical LG or RG. PSM was applied to achieve baseline balance. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify factors independently associated with complications. CRM adjusted by inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW) was used to analyze overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and disease-free survival (DFS) across different TNM stages. PSM with a 3:1 ratio ensured baseline balance while minimizing sample loss (LG n = 87, RG n = 29). RG was associated with a significantly longer surgery duration but a lower incidence of overall and Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade ≥ 2 complications. Multivariate analysis identified RG (OR, 95% CI: 0.02, 0.01-0.15), surgery duration (OR, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.00-1.01), and lymphadenectomy extent (OR, 95% CI: 2.81, 1.16-7.25) as independent factors associated with overall complications. Likewise, RG (OR, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.01-0.38), surgery duration (OR, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.00-1.02), and tumor size (OR, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.00-1.04) were independently associated with CD grade ≥ 2 complications. Kaplan-Meier analyses based on IPCW-adjusted CRM showed no significant differences in OS, CSS, and DFS between RG and LG across TNM stages. RG may efficiently reduce complications compared to LG but offers no survival benefit, suggesting a potential advantage in perioperative safety for GC patients with HAS.

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.

The outcomes of robotic ileocolic resection in Crohn's disease compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

This is the first review providing insights into the outcomes of robotic ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease, potentially guiding improved surgical decisions and patient outcomes and comparing outcomes with laparoscopic and open approaches.

METHODS

The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42024504839). A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central databases for studies on robotic ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease from inception to February 2024 was conducted. Eligible studies included participants over 18 years of age with Crohn's disease undergoing robotic ileocolic resection. Data were extracted according to PRISMA guidelines. For single-arm analyses, the random-effects model was used, while two-arm analyses employed the inverse variance and Mantel-Haenszel methods.

RESULTS

The analysis included eight studies with 5760 patients, among whom 369 underwent robotic ileocolic resection. The mean operative time for robotic procedures was 226 min. Postoperative complications included ileus in 12.50% and wound complications in 7.00%, while reoperations and readmissions occurred in 3.60% and 13.20% of patients, respectively. When compared with laparoscopic procedures, robotic procedures showed shorter length of hospital stay and longer operative times but similar total complication, reoperation, and conversion rates. In contrast, robotic procedures had fewer total postoperative complications compared with open surgeries, despite longer operative times.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease, while having a longer operative time, results in fewer postoperative complications compared with open surgery and shows comparable outcomes to laparoscopic procedures with shorter hospital stays.

A Narrative Review on the Role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Colorectal Cancer Management

The role of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and deep learning in medical practice in the management of colorectal cancer has gathered significant attention in recent years. Colorectal cancer, being the third most common type of malignancy, requires an innovative approach to augment early detection and advanced surgical techniques to reduce morbidity and mortality. With its emerging potential, AI improves colorectal cancer management by assisting with accuracy in screening, pathology evaluation, precision, and postoperative care. Evidence suggests that AI minimizes missed cases during colorectal cancer screening, plays a promising role in pathology and imaging diagnoses, and facilitates accurate staging. In surgical management, AI demonstrates comparable or superior outcomes to laparoscopic approaches, with reduced hospital stays and conversion rates. However, these outcomes are influenced by clinical expertise and other dependable factors, including expertise in implementing AI-based software and detecting possible errors. Despite these advancements, limited multicenter studies and randomized trials restrict the comprehensive evaluation of AI's true potential and integration into standard practice. We used Pubmed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases for this review. The final number of articles selected, depending on inclusion and exclusion criteria, is 122. We included papers published in the English language, literature published in the last 10 years, and adult patient populations above 35 years with colorectal cancer. We thoroughly included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, and case-control studies. The use of AI paves the way for the adoption of more personalized medicine. This review highlights the advantages of AI at various disease stages for colorectal cancer patients and evaluates its potential for cost-effective implementation in clinical practice.

Evaluating the Role of Robotic Surgery Gastric Cancer Treatment: A Comprehensive Review by the Robotic Global Surgical Society (TROGSS) and European Federation International Society for Digestive Surgery (EFISDS) Joint Working Group

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy (RAMIG) represents a significant advancement in the surgical management of gastric cancer, offering superior dexterity, enhanced visualization, and improved ergonomics compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). This review systematically evaluates the current evidence on perioperative outcomes, oncological efficacy, learning curves, and economic considerations, providing insights into RAMIG's potential role in modern gastric cancer surgery.

METHODS

A thorough analysis of retrospective, prospective, and meta-analytic studies was conducted to compare RAMIG with LG. Key outcomes, including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, lymph node retrieval, postoperative complications, learning curve duration, and cost-effectiveness, were assessed. Emphasis was placed on both short-term and long-term oncological outcomes to determine the clinical value of RAMIG.

RESULTS

Evidence indicates that RAMIG is associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity rates, and a shorter learning curve, with proficiency achieved after 11-25 cases compared to 40-60 cases for LG. The robotic platform's articulated instruments and enhanced three-dimensional visualization enable more precise lymphadenectomy, particularly in complex anatomical regions. Despite these advantages, operative time remains longer, and costs remain higher due to system acquisition, maintenance, and consumable expenses. However, emerging data suggest a gradual narrowing of cost disparities. While short-term outcomes are favorable, further high-quality, multicenter studies are needed to validate long-term oncological efficacy and survival outcomes.

CONCLUSION

RAMIG offers significant technical and clinical advantages over conventional LG, particularly in terms of precision and learning efficiency. However, the long-term oncological benefits and economic feasibility require further validation. Future research should focus on cost optimization, advanced technological integration such as near-infrared fluorescence and artificial intelligence, and multicenter trials to solidify RAMIG's role as a standard approach for gastric cancer surgery.

Short-Term Outcomes of a Novel Hybrid Technique, Minimally Invasive Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery (MILAR) Using the da Vinci SP System for Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery may have shown advantages over conventional laparoscopic surgery, but the da Vinci SP system, which utilizes a single incision, has had limited use in gastric cancer surgery. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of a novel hybrid technique, minimally invasive laparoscopic and robotic surgery (MILAR), with the da Vinci SP system for gastric cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed 23 consecutive patients who underwent gastrectomy for gastric cancer using the MILAR technique with the da Vinci SP system between May and October 2024. Operative time, blood loss, and morbidity were analyzed.

RESULTS

The median operation time was 192 min (191 min for distal gastrectomy, 174 min for proximal gastrectomy, and 308 min for total gastrectomy). Blood loss was minimal, with a median of 13 mL and no patient exceeding 250 mL. Postoperative complications were also minimal; one patient developed a grade II intra-abdominal fluid infection and another had grade II enteritis. There were no anastomotic leakages or pancreatic fistulas, and no grade III or higher complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

MILAR using the da Vinci SP system is feasible and safe for gastric cancer surgery, with minimal blood loss and acceptable operative times. This is the first report from Japan showing the successful application of this system in gastric cancer, offering new prospects in minimally invasive surgery.

Comparison of short‑term outcomes and 3-year overall survival between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing use of robotic gastrectomy (RG) as an alternative to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in treating gastric cancer, controversy remains over the advantages of RG compared to LG and there is a paucity of studies comparing the two techniques regarding patient survival.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, 675 patients undergoing minimally invasive gastrectomy were recruited from January 2016 to January 2018 (LG: n = 567; RG: n = 108). A one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was applied to minimize the selection bias due to confounding factors, yielding 104 patients in each of the RG and LG groups. After matching, the short-term outcomes and 3-year overall survival were compared in the two groups.

RESULTS

The PSM cohort analysis showed a similar 3-year overall survival between RG and LG groups (p = .249). Concerning the short-term outcomes, the RG compared to LG resulted in lower blood loss (p = .01), lower postoperative complications (p = .001), lower postoperative pain (p = .016), earlier initiation of soft diet (p = .011), shorter hospital stay ‌(p = .012), but higher hospitalization expenses (p = .001).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that RG may offer advantages in terms of blood loss, surgical complications, recovery time, and pain management compared to LG while maintaining similar overall survival rates. However, RG is associated with higher hospital costs, potentially limiting its wider adoption. Further research, including large, multi-center randomized controlled trials with longer patient follow-up, particularly for advanced gastric cancer, is needed to confirm these findings.

Proficiency in bariatric surgery may shorten the learning curve for minimally-invasive D2 gastrectomy

INTRODUCTION

Evidence from Asian studies suggests that minimally-invasive gastrectomy achieves equivalent oncological but improved perioperative outcomes compared to open surgery. Oncological gastric resections are less frequent in European countries. Index procedures may play a role for the learning curve of minimally-invasive gastrectomy. The aim of our study was to evaluate if skills acquired in bariatric surgery allow a safe and oncologically adequate implementation of minimally-invasive gastrectomy in a cohort of european patients.

METHODS

In this single-center retrospective study, all patients who received primary bariatric surgery between January 2015 and December 2018 and minimally-invasive surgery for gastric cancer treated from June 2019 to January 2023 were evaluated. Primary endpoints were operation time, lymph node yield and lymph node fractions. Secondary endpoints included postoperative complications and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Learning curves for two surgeons with 350 bariatric procedures and 44 minimally-invasive gastrectomies were analyzed. For bariatric surgery, the mean operation time decreased from initially 82 ± 27 to 45 ± 21 min and 118 ± 28 to 81 ± 36 min for sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), while the complication rate remained within the international benchmark. For laparoscopic gastrectomy (n = 30), operation times decreased but then remained stable over time. Operation times for the robotic platform were longer (302 ± 60 vs. 390 ± 48 min; p < 0.001) with the learning curve remaining incomplete after 14 procedures. R0 status was achieved in 95.5% of patients; the mean number of lymph nodes retrieved was 37 ± 14 with no differences between the groups. Complete mesogastric excision was more frequently achieved during the later laparoscopic cases whereas it occurred earlier for the robotic group (p = 0.004). Perioperative morbidity was comparable to the European benchmark. Textbook outcome was achieved in 54.4% of the cases.

CONCLUSION

In summary, we could demonstrate a successful skill transfer from bariatric surgery to minimally-invasive laparoscopic oncological gastric surgery enabling safe and oncologically adequate minimally-invasive D2 gastrectomy in a central European patient collective.

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

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Robotic and Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy for Pheochromocytoma: An International Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Robotic adrenalectomy (RA) has attracted interest as an alternative to laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) for patients with pheochromocytoma, although its beneficial effects are uncertain. Our aim was to compare RA and LA outcomes for these patients.

METHODS

Data for patients who underwent RA or LA for pheochromocytoma in 46 international centers between 2012 and 2022 were reviewed. We analyzed baseline characteristics and postoperative complications at discharge, 90 d, and 1 yr. We conducted propensity score matching (PSM; 1:1 ratio) and multivariable analyses to evaluate outcomes and risk factors for the occurrence of complications and higher Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI).

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Of 1755 patients, 1613 (91.9%) underwent LA and 142 (8.1%) underwent RA. Estimated blood loss, conversion rate, complication rate, and CCI at discharge, 90 d, and 1 yr were similar between the groups. However, RA was associated with a longer operative time in comparison to LA (100 vs 123 min; p < 0.001), but not after PSM (p = 0.120). Multivariable analysis revealed that Charlson comorbidity index (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.29; p = 0.001), and tumor size per 1-cm increment (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.07-1.21; p < 0.001) were independently associated with the incidence of complications, but there was no significant difference in complication rates between the LA and RA groups (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.63-1.87; p = 0.767). After PSM, RA was associated with a lower rate of severe (grade ≥3a) complications in comparison to LA (p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

RA is a safe alternative to LA and yields similar outcomes for patients with pheochromocytoma. RA may be associated with a lower likelihood of severe complications. Further studies are warranted to determine the role of robotic surgery in pheochromocytoma.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Pheochromocytoma is a rare tumor in the adrenal gland and the gold-standard treatment is surgical removal. We assessed patient outcomes after robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopic surgery and found that outcomes are similar, but the rate of severe complications may be lower if a surgical robot is used.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus abdominal and laparoscopic myomectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Myomectomy is the preferred treatment for women with uterine fibroids and fertility requirements. There are three modalities are used in clinical practice for myomectomy: abdominal myomectomy (AM), laparoscopic myomectomy (LM), and robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (RLM).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of RLM, AM, and LM.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Clinical Trials for relevant literature published between January 2000 and January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all studies reporting peri- and postoperative outcomes of myomectomy in patients with uterine myomas. Surgical treatments were classified as RLM, LM, or AM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more authors selected studies independently, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We derived mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome, subgrouping trials by the patient characteristics and myoma characteristics. We used the I2 statistic to quantify heterogeneity and the random-effects model for meta-analysis when appropriate. We used the funnel plot to assess the publication bias.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 32 studies with 6357 patients were included, of which 1982 women had undergone RLM. The operating time was significantly longer (MD = 43.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 25.22-61.93, P < 0.001), and the incidence of cesarean section after myomectomy was significantly lower (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.10-0.78, P = 0.02) in RLM than in LM. Compared with AM, the operation time, blood loss, blood transfusion rate, complication rate, total cost, length of hospital stay, and pregnancy rate of patients with RLM were significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and effectiveness of RLM are superior to those of AM but inferior to those of LM.

Efficacy of Da Vinci Robot-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery in Children With Congenital Cystic Adenomatiod Malformation

BACKGROUND

Surgical intervention is advisable for both asymptomatic and symptomatic CCAM children. This study aims to compare and analyze the efficacy of thoracoscopic and Da Vinci robot-assisted procedures in the management of CCAM among pediatric patients.

METHODS

The clinical data of 188 pediatric patients diagnosed with CCAM and admitted to the Children's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, from April 2019 to April 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The Clavien-Dindo classification was employed for the systematic categorization of postoperative complications.

RESULTS

The demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients were comparable between the two groups. Postoperative outcomes, such as the chest tube indwelling rate (92.6% vs 36.2%, p < 0.001∗), chest tube duration (2.0 (2.0-3.0) days vs 1.0 (1.0-2.0) days, p < 0.001∗), and length of postoperative hospital stay (6.0 (5.0-7.0) days vs 5.0 (5.0-6.0) days, p < 0.001∗), favored RATS over VATS. Additionally, there was no significant difference in complications between the two group, but the p-value is in a critical state. Ⅲa complications (mainly composed of postoperative thoracentesis procedures) manifesting as a higher rate in the RATS, nearly double that observed in the VATS.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted thoracoscopic lung resection is demonstrated to be safe and feasible, with notable advantages in short-term postoperative clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, the practicality and long-term benefits of this technique necessitate further refinement and dedicated study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

LEVEL III.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Colon Cancer: Efficacy, Safety, and Outcomes-A Focus on Studies from 2020-2024

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of colon cancer has significantly advanced over the years. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the operative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of colon cancer, focusing on operative time, hospital stay, conversion rates, anastomotic leak rates, and total number lymph node harvested.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic search across four databases up to January 2024, registering our protocol with PROSPERO (CRD42024513326). We included studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgeries for colon cancer, assessing operative time, hospital length of stay, and other perioperative outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist. Statistical analysis utilized a mix of fixed and random-effects models based on heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 50,771 patients, with 21.75% undergoing robotic surgery and 78.25% laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery was associated with longer operative times (SMD = -1.27, p < 0.00001) but shorter hospital stays (MD = 0.42, p = 0.003) compared to laparoscopic surgery. Conversion rates were significantly higher in laparoscopic procedures (OR = 2.02, p < 0.00001). No significant differences were found in anastomotic leak rates. A higher number of lymph nodes was harvested by robotic approach (MD = -0.65, p = 0.04). Publication bias was addressed through funnel plot analysis and Egger's test, indicating the presence of asymmetry (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of surgical method should be individualized, considering factors such as surgeon expertise, medical facilities, and patient-specific considerations. Future research should aim to elucidate long-term outcomes to further guide the clinical decision-making.

The influence of prolonged instrument manipulation on gas leakage through trocars

BACKGROUND

During laparoscopic surgery, CO2 insufflation gas could leak from the intra-abdominal cavity into the operating theater. Medical staff could therefore be exposed to hazardous substances present in leaked gas. Although previous studies have shown that leakage through trocars is a contributing factor, trocar performance over longer periods remains unclear. This study investigates the influence of prolonged instrument manipulation on gas leakage through trocars.

METHODS

Twenty-five trocars with diameters ranging from 10 to 15 mm were included in the study. An experimental model was developed to facilitate instrument manipulation in a trocar under loading. The trocar was mounted to a custom airtight container insufflated with CO2 to a pressure of 15 mmHg, similar to clinical practice. A linear stage was used for prolonged instrument manipulation. At the same time, a fixed load was applied radially to the trocar cannula to mimic the reaction force of the abdominal wall. Gas leakage was measured before, after, and during instrument manipulation.

RESULTS

After instrument manipulation, leakage rates per trocar varied between 0.0 and 5.58 L/min. No large differences were found between leakage rates before and after prolonged manipulation in static and dynamic measurements. However, the prolonged instrument manipulation did cause visible damage to two trocars and revealed unintended leakage pathways in others that can be related to production flaws.

CONCLUSION

Prolonged instrument manipulation did not increase gas leakage rates through trocars, despite damage to some individual trocars. Nevertheless, gas leakage through trocars occurs and is caused by different trocar-specific mechanisms and design issues.

Fluorescence-guided Two-port Robotic Gastrectomy Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Gastrectomy: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial

Objective

To compare the number of retrieved lymph nodes between conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (CLG) and robotic gastrectomy integrated with fluorescence guidance and a two-port system (integrated robotic gastrectomy, IRG).

Background

The benefits of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer have not yet been established. Using built-in features of robotic system, further benefit can be provided to the patients with effective lymphadenectomy and enhanced recovery.

Methods

A nonrandomized controlled trial was performed by a single surgeon at single-center, tertiary referral hospital between January 2018 and October 2021. Overall, 140 patients scheduled to undergo minimally invasive subtotal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the number of retrieved lymph nodes. Secondary endpoints were complications, hospital stay, pain score, body image, and operative cost.

Results

This study analyzed 124 patients in the per-protocol group (IRG, 64; CLG, 60). The number of retrieved lymph nodes was higher in the IRG group than those in the CLG group (IRG vs CLG; 42.1 ± 17.9 vs 35.1 ± 14.6, P = 0.019). Moreover, other surgical parameters, such as hospital stay (4.1 ± 1.0 vs 5.2 ± 1.8, P < 0.001) and body image scale (better in 4 of the 10 questions), were significantly better in the IRG than in the CLG.

Conclusions

Robotic surgical procedures integrated with fluorescence guidance and a reduced-port system yielded more retrieved lymph nodes. In addition, the IRG group showed better perioperative surgical outcomes, particularly regarding the length of hospital stay and postoperative body image.

Trial registration

NCT03396354.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic radical distal gastrectomy

PURPOSE

The study's objectives were to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic radical distal gastrectomy (RDG) with laparoscopic radical distal gastrectomy (LDG) for patients with gastric cancer and investigate the learning curve of RDG.

METHODS

The cumulative sum (CUSUM) method was used to retrospectively analyze consecutive gastric cancer patients undergoing RDG between January 2019 and October 2021. The duration of surgery, clinical-pathological characteristics, and short-term outcomes were evaluated according to the two phases of the learning curve (learning period versus mastery period). We also compared the clinical-pathological characteristics and short-term outcomes between cases in the mastery period and LDG.

RESULTS

Data from 290 patients were included in this analysis, 135 RDG and 155 LDG cases. The learning period was 20 cases. There were no significant differences in clinical-pathological characteristics between the learning period and mastery period. Compared with the learning period, the mastery period had a significant reduction in total operation time, docking time, pure operation time, and estimated blood loss, and a significant increase in hospital costs (P=0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.003, and 0.026, respectively). Compared with LDG, robotic cases in mastery period had a longer operative time, shorter first postoperative flatus time, and more hospital costs (P=0.000, 0.005, and 0.000, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

RGD may fasten to recover gastrointestinal function faster after the operation, can be mastered easily after a reasonable number of cases, and was associated with safe and satisfactory short-term outcomes before and after the learning curve.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparison of Short-Term Surgical Outcomes of Two Types of Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Ultrasonic Shears Method Versus the Maryland Bipolar Forceps Method

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the impact and short-term surgical outcomes of two different main energy devices for robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The outcomes of robotic gastrectomy with ultrasonic shears and those of robotic gastrectomy with conventional forceps were compared.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 171 patients who underwent robotic distal gastrectomy or total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. We classified patients into the ultrasonic shears (US) and Maryland bipolar (MB) forceps groups according to the main energy device used for robotic gastrectomy.

RESULTS

We extracted 58 patients from the US group and 58 patients from the MB forceps groups using propensity score matching. The total console time (310 min [interquartile range (IQR), 253-369 min] and 332 min, [IQR, 294-429 min]; p = 0.022) and the console time to gastrectomy (222 min [IQR, 177-266 min] and 247 min [IQR, 208-321 min]; p = 0.004) were significantly shorter in the US group than in the MB forceps group. Less blood loss occurred in the US group than in the MB forceps group (20 mL [IQR, 10-40 mL] and 30 mL [IQR, 16-80 mL]; p = 0.014). The postoperative complication rate and postoperative hospital stay length were similar between groups. A multivariate multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated that the use of an ultrasonically activated device was one an independent factor that reduced the operative time of robotic gastrectomy.

CONCLUSION

Using ultrasonic shears as the main energy device may contribute to better surgical outcomes after robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

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.

Surgical Outcomes, Technical Performance, and Surgery Burden of Robotic Total Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Prospective Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short-term outcomes, surgery burden, and technical performance of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) and laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) for gastric cancer (GC).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The impact of robotic systems on total gastrectomy remains obscure.

METHODS

This prospective study included 50 patients with advanced proximal GC underwent RTG combined with spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy between March 2018 and February 2020. Patients who underwent LTG in the FUGES-002, http://links.lww.com/SLA/C929 study were enrolled to compare the outcomes between RTG and LTG.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 48 patients in the RTG group and 96 patients in the LTG group were included in the analysis. The RTG group had a lower volume of intraoperative blood loss than the LTG group (38.7 vs 66.4 mL, P = 0.042). Significantly more extraperigastric lymph nodes were retrieved in the RTG group than in the LTG group (20.2 vs 17.5, P = 0.039). The average number of errors was lower in the RTG group than in the LTG group (43.2 vs 53.8 times/case, P < 0.001). The RTG group had a higher technical skill score (30.2 vs 28.4, P < 0.001) and a lower surgery task load index (33.2 vs 39.8, P < 0.001) than the LTG group. No significant difference was found in terms of postoperative morbidity between the 2 groups (14.6% vs 16.7%, P = 0.748).

CONCLUSIONS

In complex total gastrectomy for GC, compared with traditional laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery provides a technically superior operative environment and reduces surgeon workload at high-volume specialized institutions.

Robotic spleen-preserving total gastrectomy shows better short-term advantages: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery may be advantageous for complex surgery. We aimed to compare the intraoperative and postoperative short-term outcomes of spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy (SPSHL) during robotic and laparoscopic total gastrectomy.

METHODS

From July 2016 to December 2020, the clinicopathological data of 115 patients who underwent robotic total gastrectomy combined with robotic SPSHL (RSPSHL) and 697 patients who underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy combined with laparoscopic SPSHL (LSPSHL) were retrospectively analyzed. A 1:2 ratio propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the differences between the two groups to compare their outcomes. The Generic Error Rating Tool was used to evaluate the technical performance.

RESULTS

After PSM, the baseline preoperative characteristics of the 115 patients in the RSPSHL and 230 patients in the LSPSHL groups were balanced. The dissection time of the region of the splenic artery trunk (5.4 ± 1.9 min vs. 7.8 ± 3.6 min, P < 0.001), the estimated blood loss during SPSHL (9.6 ± 4.8 ml vs. 14.9 ± 7.8 ml, P < 0.001), and the average number of intraoperative technical errors during SPSHL (15.1 ± 3.4 times/case vs. 20.7 ± 4.3 times/case, P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the RSPSHL group than in the LSPSHL group. The RSPSHL group showed higher dissection rates of No. 10 (78.3% vs. 70.0%, P = 0.104) and No. 11d (54.8% vs. 40.4%, P = 0.012) lymph nodes and significantly improved postoperative recovery results in terms of times to ambulation, first flatus, and first intake (P < 0.05). The splenectomy rates of the two groups were similar (1.7% vs. 0.4%, P = 0.539), and there was no significant difference in morbidity and mortality within postoperative 30 days (13.0% vs. 15.2%, P = 0.589).

CONCLUSION

Compared to LSPSHL, RSPSHL has more advantages in terms of surgical qualities and postoperative recovery process with similar morbidity and mortality. For complex SPSHL, robotic surgery may be a better choice.

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.

Initial Learning Curve and Stereotypical Use of Extra Arm During da Vinci Chest Procedures of McKeown Esophagectomy

Objective: McKeown esophagectomy facilitates extensive lymphadenectomy for the optimal management of esophageal cancer. Robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE) was introduced in an attempt to reduce the incidence of postoperative complications. The da Vinci System has 3 active robotic arms in addition to the camera scope, and an extra robotic arm (ERA) is generally used to maintain a fine and stable operative field. However, the optimal use of an ERA has not been documented. In addition, the learning curve of the RAE using the da Vinci System remains controversial. In this study, we aimed to determine the optimal use of an ERA in association with the initial learning curve of robotic McKeown esophagectomy with extremely extensive lymphadenectomy. Methods: We reviewed 81 consecutive patients who underwent RAE. To determine whether stereotypical use of an ERA after establishment of its optimal use accounted for the learning curve, we measured the duration of 14 steps and the duration when performed with optimal use of an ERA in the corresponding step by reviewing video-recorded procedures. We then calculated the ratio as the degree of stereotypical use of the ERA during the da Vinci chest procedures. Results: The cumulative sum method showed that the learning curve required 27 cases of RAE. In addition, stereotypical use of the ERA was significantly associated with the learning curve of RAE. Conclusions: Establishment of optimal use of an ERA could help to accelerate the learning curve in da Vinci chest procedures during McKeown esophagectomy with extensive lymphadenectomy.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A comparative study on perioperative outcomes between robotic versus laparoscopic D2 total gastrectomy

OBJECTIVE

Robotic surgery has been increasingly used worldwide owing to its advanced features. However, the significant benefits of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) over laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) have yet to be demonstrated. We conducted a prospective cohort study to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC.

METHODS

Between March 26, 2018 and July 30, 2021, 155 patients between 18 and 80 years of age with locally advanced gastric cancer (cT2-4a, N0/+, M0) were enrolled. The perioperative outcomes within 30 days after surgery were compared between the RTG (n = 69) and LTG (n = 73) groups on a per-protocol (PP) basis. Postoperative complications were evaluated according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

The overall postoperative morbidity rate was 21.74% in the RTG group and 28.77% in the LTG group with no significant difference (P = 0.44), RTG was associated with a lower incidence of pneumonia (4.35% vs. 15.07%, P = 0.047). No mortality was observed in either group. There was no significant difference in the total operative time (284.48 vs. 271.73 min, P = 0.171), but RTG was associated with a lower estimated volume of blood loss (110 vs. 150 ml, P < 0.001) and more total retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) (41.36 vs 35.1, P = 0.019), more extraperigastric LNs (14.91 vs. 12.19, P = 0.024) and more LNs in the suprapancreatic areas (14.68 vs. 11.82, P = 0.017). The laboratory data (amylase, inflammatory, Albumin and T lymphocyte levels) of the RTG group were better than those of the LTG group.

CONCLUSION

According to the results of this prospective cohort study, for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer, Robotic surgery has advantages over laparoscopic surgery for radical total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy performed by well-trained doctors.

Early experience with total robotic D2 gastrectomy in a low incidence region: surgical perspectives

Background

Few European centers have reported on robotic gastrectomy for malignancy. We report our early experience with curative-intent total robotic gastrectomy.

Materials and methods

The Intuitive Surgery Da Vinci Surgical System Xi 4 armed robot was used. Routine D2 lymphadenectomy was applied.

Results

Some 27 patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 18), hereditary cancer susceptibility (n = 8) and premalignancy (n = 1) were allocated to robotic gastrectomy, three were excluded due to inoperability during surgery. Median (range) age was 66 (18–87) years, 14 (58.3%) were females and body mass index was 25.5 (22.1–33.5) kg/m². Total gastrectomy was performed in 19 (79.2%) and subtotal in five (20.8%) patients. One (4.2%) procedure was converted to laparotomy. Procedural time was 273 (195–427) minutes. Three (12.5%) patients were reoperated within 30 days, one (4.2%) died. Serious complications (Clavien Dindo IIIb or more) occurred in three (12.5%) patients. Postoperative hospital stay was 10 (6–43) days. Fourteen of 16 (87.5%) patients with adenocarcinoma/premalignancy received radical resections. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 20 (11–34). Eleven (73.3%) patients with adenocarcinoma had T3/T4 tumors and 6 (40%) had TNM stage III or more.

Conclusion

Total robotic D2 gastrectomy appears feasible and safe during early introduction in a low incidence region.

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.

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.

Disparities in Utilization and Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Techniques for Gastric Cancer Surgery in the United States

Background

This study investigated national implementation patterns and perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive gastrectomy (MIG) in gastric cancer surgery in the United States.

Methods

The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried for patients who underwent elective gastrectomy for gastric cancer from 2008-2018. The MIG versus open gastrectomy approach was correlated with hospital factors, patient characteristics, and complications.

Results

There was more than a fivefold increase in MIG from 5.8% in 2008 to 32.9% in 2018 (nptrend < 0.001). Patients undergoing MIG had a lower Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (p = 0.001). On risk adjusted analysis, black patients (AOR = 0.77, p = 0.024) and patients with income below 25th percentile (AOR = 0.80, p = 0.018) were less likely to undergo MIG. When these analyses were limited to minimally invasive capable centers only, these differences were not observed. Hospitals in the upper tertile of gastrectomy case volume, Northeast, and urban teaching centers were more likely to perform MIG. Overall, MIG was associated with a 0.7-day decrease in length of stay, reduced risk adjusted mortality rates (AOR = 0.58, p = 0.05), and a $4,700 increase in total cost.

Conclusions

In this national retrospective study, we observe socioeconomic differences in patients undergoing MIG, which is explained by hospital level factors in MIG utilization. We demonstrate that MIG is associated with a lower mortality compared with open gastrectomy. Establishing MIG as a safe approach to gastric cancers and understanding regional differences in implementation patterns can inform delivery of equitable high-quality health care.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Potential advantages of robotic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective comparative cohort study

Laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) is a highly technical surgery that can lead to postoperative complications. Whether the recently introduced robotic surgery overcomes the drawbacks of laparoscopic surgery in total gastrectomy remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to elucidate the potential benefits of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) and compare the short-term outcomes of RTG and LTG. We retrospectively analyzed 56 patients with primary gastric or esophagogastric junction cancer who underwent RTG or LTG between June 2017 and July 2021. The groups were compared in terms of operative outcomes and postoperative complications. Potential risk factors associated with postoperative complications were assessed by performing multivariable analysis using logistic regression models via the exact method. Operation time was significantly longer, and postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the robotic group (550 vs. 466 min, P < 0.001; 13 vs. 18 days, P = 0.013, respectively). The incidence of overall postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ II was 18.5% and 24.1% in the RTG and LTG groups, respectively. Pancreatic fistulas were not observed, but other local complications were observed in 0% and 17.2% of the RTG and LTG groups, respectively (P = 0.052). In the multivariable analysis, the independent risk factors for local complications were laparoscopic surgery (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 8.542 [1.065-∞], P = 0.045) and esophagogastric junction cancer (16.646 [2.559-∞], P = 0.005). Compared with LTG, RTG was associated with fewer local complications (mainly anastomotic leakage), especially in cases of esophagogastric junction cancer with high anastomotic sites.

Hybrid Robotic and Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Comparison with Conventional Laparoscopic Gastrectomy

Purpose

The benefits of robotic gastrectomy remain controversial. We designed this study to elucidate the advantages of a hybrid robot and laparoscopic gastrectomy over conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Materials and Methods

A total of 176 patients who underwent gastrectomy for gastric cancer were included in this study. We compared 88 patients treated with hybrid robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy (HRLG) and 88 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (CLG). In HRLG, suprapancreatic lymph node (LN) dissection was performed in a robotic setting. Clinicopathological characteristics, operative details, and short-term outcomes were analyzed for the patients.

Results

The number of LNs retrieved from the suprapancreatic area was significantly greater in the HRLG group (11.27±5.46 vs. 9.17±5.19, P=0.010). C-reactive protein levels were greater in the CLG group on both postoperative day (POD) 1 (5.11±2.64 vs. 4.29±2.38, P=0.030) and POD 5 (9.86±6.51 vs. 7.75±5.17, P=0.019). In addition, the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio was significantly greater in the CLG group on both POD 1 (7.44±4.72 vs. 6.16±2.91, P=0.031) and POD 5 (4.87±3.75 vs. 3.81±1.87, P=0.020). Pulmonary complications occurred only in the CLG group (4/88 [4.5%] vs. 0/88 [0%], P=0.043).

Conclusions

HRLG is superior to CLG in terms of suprapancreatic LN dissection and postoperative inflammatory response.

Short-term Outcomes of Robotic Gastrectomy vs Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Patients With Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer may be associated with decreased incidence of intra-abdominal infectious complications, including pancreatic fistula, leakage, and abscess. Prospective randomized clinical trials comparing laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and RG are thus required.

Objective

To compare the short-term surgical outcomes of RG with those of LG for patients with gastric cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this phase 3, prospective superiority randomized clinical trial of RG vs LG regarding reduction of complications, 241 patients with resectable gastric cancer (clinical stages I-III) were enrolled between April 1, 2018, and October 31, 2020.

Interventions

LG vs RG.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was the incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications. Secondary end points were incidence of any complications, surgical results, postoperative courses, and oncologic outcomes. The modified intention-to-treat population excluded patients who had been randomized and met the postrandomization exclusion criteria. There was also a per-protocol population for analysis of postoperative complications.

Results

This study enrolled 241 patients, with 236 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population (150 men [63.6%]; mean [SD] age, 70.8 [10.7] years). There was no significant difference in the incidence of intra-abdominal infectious complications (per-protocol population: 10 of 117 [8.5%] in the LG group vs 7 of 113 [6.2%] in the RG group). Of 241 patients, 122 were randomly assigned to the LG group, and 119 patients were randomly assigned to the RG group. Two of the 122 patients (1.6%) in the LG group converted from LG to open surgery, and 4 of 119 patients (3.4%) in the RG group converted from RG to open or laparoscopic surgery, with no significant difference. Finally, 117 patients in the LG group completed the procedure, and 113 in the RG group completed the procedure; these populations were defined as the per-protocol population. The overall incidence of postoperative complications of grade II or higher was significantly higher in the LG group (23 [19.7%]) than in the RG group (10 [8.8%]) (P = .02). Even in analysis limited to grade IIIa or higher, the complication rate was still significantly higher in the LG group (19 [16.2%]) than in the RG group (6 [5.3%]) (P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found no reduction of intra-abdominal infectious complications with RG compared with LG for gastric cancer.

Trial Registration

umin.ac.jp/ctr Identifier: UMIN000031536.

Robotic Subtotal Gastrectomy with Small Remnant Stomach for Gastric Cancer in the Upper Stomach

BACKGROUND

Robotic subtotal gastrectomy (RsTG) with a small remnant stomach for treatment of gastric cancer (GC) in the upper stomach may have advantages over robotic TG (RTG). These may affect postoperative complications and postoperative nutritional status.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective study of 46 consecutive patients with GC who underwent RsTG (n = 10) and RTG (n = 36). The indication for RsTG included tumor located in the upper body of the stomach, in which the distance between the upper edge of the tumor and the junction was 2 cm or more and less than 5 cm, and no clinical evidence of lymph node metastasis.

RESULTS

Operation time was significantly longer (384 min) and intraoperative blood loss was significantly larger (38 ml) in the RTG group than in the RsTG group (299.5 min, P = 0.021, and 25 ml P = 0.002). Two patients (5.6%) in the RTG group had complications, while no postoperative complications of higher than grade II were observed in the RsTG group. Serum albumin levels at 3 months after surgery were significantly higher in the RsTG group (3.85 g/dl) than in the RTG group (3.2 g/dl, P = 0.001). Postoperative recovery of bodyweight at 6 months after surgery was significantly better in the RsTG group (91.3%) than in the RTG group (84.25%, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

RsTG for treatment of patients with GC in the upper body of the stomach is safe and feasible, and may enable improved postoperative nutritional status compared with RTG.

Review on Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Robotic Gastrectomy for Cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive gastrectomy is currently considered a valid option to treat gastric cancer and is gaining increasing acceptance. Recent reports have suggested that the application of robots may confer some advantages over conventional laparoscopy, but the role of robotic surgery in clinical practice is still uncertain. We aimed to critically review the relevant evidence comparing robotic to standard laparoscopic surgery in performing radical gastrectomy.

METHODS

The Pubmed/Medline electronic databases were searched through February 2021. Paper conference and the English language was the only restriction applied to our search strategy.

RESULTS

According to the existing data, robotic gastrectomy seems to provide some benefits in terms of blood loss, rate of conversion, procedure-specific postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay. Robotic gastrectomy is also associated with a longer duration of surgery and a higher economic burden as compared to its laparoscopic counterpart. No significant differences have been disclosed in terms of long-term survivals, while the number of lymph nodes retrieved with robotic gastrectomy is generally higher than that of laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The current literature suggests that robotic radical gastrectomy appears as competent as the conventional laparoscopic procedure and may provide some clinical advantages. However, due to the relative paucity of high-level evidence, it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions.

Comparison of short-term surgical outcomes using da Vinci S, Si and Xi Surgical System for robotic gastric cancer surgery

When compared with the second/third generation da Vinci S/Si, the fourth generation Xi surgical system may allow for greater efficiency and result in shorter operation times during robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer (GC). We directly compare surgical outcomes between the conventional S/Si and the newer Xi robotic platform for the treatment of GC. This is a single-center retrospective study of 148 consecutive patients with GC who underwent RG. Of these patients, 20 patients were treated with the S, 30 patients with the Si, and 98 patients with the Xi. The overall operation time was significantly longer in the S group (386.5 min) than in the other groups (Si group: 292 min; Xi group: 297 min) (S vs. Si: P = 0.010; S vs. Xi: P = 0.001). We observed no difference, however, between the newer Xi and Si systems in operation time. Intraoperative blood loss was similar across the three groups. The overall postoperative complication rate in the Xi group (8.2%) was lower than that of the S group (10%) and the Si group (13.3%), but the difference was not significant. The newer Xi system did not provide significant intraoperative or early postoperative advantages over the Si system.

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.

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.

Robotic gastric surgery: a monocentric case series and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

The technical complexity of D2 lymphadenectomy and esophago-jejunal anastomosis are the main factors that limit the application of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer. Robotic assisted gastric surgery provides potential technical advantages over conventional laparoscopy but an improvement in clinical outcomes after robotic surgery has not been demonstrated yet.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Data from 128 consecutive patients who had undergone robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer at our center institution from April 2017 to June 2020 where retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively updated database. A narrative review was then carried out on PubMed, Embase and Scopus using the following keywords: "gastric cancer," "robotic surgery," "robotic gastrectomy" and "robotic gastric surgery".

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Ninety-eight patients underwent robotic distal gastrectomy and 30 underwent robotic total gastrectomy. The mean value of estimated blood loss was 99.5 ml. No patients required conversion to laparoscopy or open surgery. The median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 42. No tumor involvement of the proximal or distal margin was found in any patient. The median time to first flatus and first oral feeding was on postoperative day 3 and 5, respectively. We registered 6 leakages (4.6%), namely, 1 duodenal stump leakage and 5 anastomotic leakages. No 30-day surgical related mortality was recorded. The median length of hospital stay was 10.5 days (range 4-37).

CONCLUSIONS

Published data and our experience suggest that the robotic approach for gastric cancer is safe and feasible with potential advantages over conventional laparoscopy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Advantages of the Left-handed Ultrasonic Shears Technique for Robotic Gastrectomy

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate advantages of the left-handed ultrasonic shears technique in robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 67 consecutive gastric cancer patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy. Fifty-six patients underwent gastrectomy with the left-handed ultrasonic shears technique (the left hand group), and 11 patients underwent surgery with the conventional approach (the conventional group). Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Operative blood loss, morbidity, and mortality were similar between the 2 groups. We observed a trend toward a shorter operation time and higher number of retrieved lymph nodes in the left hand group compared with the conventional group. Console time (docking-gastrectomy) in the left hand group was significantly shorter than in the conventional group (192.20 vs. 218.36 min, P<0.05). In robotic distal gastrectomy, both operation time and console time in the left hand group were significantly shorter than in the conventional group (276.10 vs. 354.80 min, 176.43 vs. 209.20 min, P<0.05 for both). The postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complication (Clavien Dindo≥1) rate in the left hand group was significantly lower than that in the conventional group (0% vs. 20%, P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the left-handed ultrasonic shears technique is safe and provides a technically superior operative environment with satisfactory postoperative results.

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 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.

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.

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.