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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Robotic gastrectomy is more beneficial for advanced than early-stage gastric cancer: a comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy using propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is the fifth most prevalent malignancy globally and the fourth major contributor to cancer-related mortality. The comparative effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy (RG) versus laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) at different stages of gastric cancer is unclear regarding surgical and survival outcomes. We compared surgical and survival outcomes between RG and LG in early-stage (cStage I) and advanced (cStage II/III) gastric cancers to elucidate the difference in the efficacy of RG across various stages of gastric cancer.

METHODS

We identified 299 patients (LG, 170; RG, 129) with cStage II/III disease and 569 (LG, 455; RG, 114) with cStage I disease who underwent either LG or RG. Following propensity score matching for RG and LG, 118 pairs were selected for cStage II/II and 113 pairs for cStage I. Surgical and survival outcomes of LG and RG were separately compared for cStage II/III and cStage I.

RESULTS

In cStage II/III, RG showed significantly fewer intra-abdominal complications of Clavien-Dindo (C.D.) Grade ≥ III in the RG group than in the LG group (LG = 8.5 vs. RG = 1.7%, P = 0.033). Multivariate analysis identified LG as an independent risk factor for intra-abdominal complications of C.D. Grade ≥ III (OR 5.69, 95% CI 1.17-27.70, P = 0.031). However, in cStage I, no difference in surgical outcomes between LG and RG was observed. No differences were observed in survival outcomes between LG and RG in both cStage I or cStage II/III.

CONCLUSIONS

The real benefit of RG was demonstrated in surgical outcomes, especially for advanced-stage gastric cancer.

Comparative outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic approaches to gastrectomy: a National Cancer Database study

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is associated with significant mortality worldwide. Radical gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy is considered the only curative option. Traditionally, these operations are associated with significant morbidity. Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and more recently robotic gastrectomy (RG) techniques have been developed to potentially decrease the perioperative morbidity. We sought to compare oncologic outcomes with laparoscopic and robotic techniques for gastrectomy.

METHODS

Utilizing the National Cancer Database we identified patients who underwent gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma. Patients were stratified by open, robotic or laparoscopic surgical technique. Open gastrectomy patients were excluded.

RESULTS

We identified 1,301 patients who underwent RG and 4,892 LG with median ages of 65 (20-90) and 66 (18-90) respectively, p = 0.02. The mean number of positive lymph nodes were higher in the LG 2.2 ± 4.4 vs RG 1.9 ± 3.8, p = 0.01. The R0 resections were higher in the RG at 94.5% vs 91.9% in LG, p = 0.001. Conversions to open were 7.1% in the RG and 16% in the LG group, p < 0.001. The median length of hospitalization was 8 (6-11) in both groups. There was no difference in the 30-day readmission (p = 0.65), 30-day mortality (p = 0.85) and 90-day mortality (p = 0.34) between groups. The median and overall 5-year survival was 71.3 mo and 56% in the RG and 66.1 mo and 52% in the LG, p = 0.03. Multivariate analysis revealed that age, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity scores, location of gastric cancer, histology grade, pathologic T-stage, pathologic N-stage, surgical margins, and facility volume were all predictors of survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic and laparoscopic techniques are both acceptable approaches to gastrectomy. However, conversions to open are higher and R0 resections rates are lower in the laparoscopic group. Additionally, a survival benefit is demonstrated in those undergoing robotic gastrectomy.

Textbook Outcome after Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer Is Associated with Improved Overall and Disease-Free Survival

(1) Background: The complexity of the perioperative outcome for patients with gastric cancer is not well reflected by single quality metrics. To study the effect of the surgical outcome on survival, we have evaluated the relationship between textbook outcome (TO)-a new composite parameter-and oncological outcome. (2) Methods: All patients undergoing total gastrectomy or trans-hiatal extended gastrectomy for gastric cancer with curative intent between 2017 and 2021 at our institution were included. TO was defined by negative resection margins (R0); collection of ≥25 lymph nodes; the absence of major perioperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3); the absence of any reintervention; absence of unplanned ICU re-admission; length of hospital stay < 21 days; absence of 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality. We evaluated factors affecting TO by multivariate logistic regression. The correlation between TO and long-term survival was assessed using a multivariate cox proportional-hazards model. (3) Results: Of the patients included in this study, 52 (52.5 %) achieved all TO metrics. Open surgery (p = 0.010; OR 3.715, CI 1.334-10.351) and incomplete neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.020, OR 4.278, CI 1.176-15.553) were associated with failure to achieve TO on multivariate analysis. The achievement of TO significantly affected overall survival (p = 0.015). TO (p = 0.037, OD 0.448, CI 0.211-0.954) and CCI > 4 (p = 0.034, OR 2.844, CI 1.079-7.493) were significant factors affecting DFS upon univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, CCI > 4 (p = 0.035, OR 2.605, CI 0.983-6.905) was significantly associated with DFS. (4) Conclusions: We identified patient- and procedure-related factors influencing TO. Importantly, achieving TO is strongly associated with improved long-term survival in gastric cancer patients and merits further focus on surgical quality improvement efforts.

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.

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.

Perioperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies and randomized controlled trials

Background

Da Vinci robotic surgery system, a novel type of surgery, was widespread in surgical field. However, the perioperative outcomes of robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) are still controversy, despite several observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT) had been reported. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched (PSM) and RCT studies to evaluated the perioperative feasibility and safety of RDG.

Methods

Studies were systematically searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase database, and screened according to the defined limitations. The quality of PSM studies and RCT studies were respectively assessed by ROBINS-I and Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Extracted data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.4.

Results

7 PSM studies and 1 RCT with a total of 2763 patients were included in this analysis. The longer operative time (MD = 31.42, 95% CI [22.88, 39.96], p < 0.00001), less blood loss (MD = − 25.89, 95% CI [− 36.18, − 15.6], p < 0.00001), more retrieved lymph nodes (MD = 3.46, 95% CI [2.94, 3.98], p < 0.00001), shorter time to first flatus (MD = − 0.08, 95% CI [− 0.13, − 0.02], p = 0.006) and liquid intake (MD = − 0.13, 95% CI [− 0.22, − 0.05], p = 0.002) were observed in RDG group compared with LDG group. There are no statistically significant in time to start soft diet, postoperative hospital stays, overall complications, complications Grade I–II, complications Grade ≥ III, anastomotic leakage, bleeding, intra-abdominal bleeding, intraluminal bleeding, ileus, abdominal infection, delayed gastric emptying and wound complications.

Conclusions

RDG showed less blood loss and more retrieved lymph nodes, revealed less time to first flatus and liquid intake after operation. But the operative time was longer in RDG group than in LDG. The incidence rate of postoperative complications was comparable between RDG and LDG.

A Robotic Completely Intercorporeal Jejunal Pouch Reconstruction after Gastrectomy

Robotic surgery is increasingly gaining importance. While initial results suggest an advantage of the robotic over the minimally invasive approach in patients with gastric cancer, definitive proof of its superiority has yet to be provided. There are numerous approaches to recreate a gastric reservoir after a total gastrectomy. However, a major disadvantage of most conventional reconstructions are long term effects such as dumping syndrome, afferent loop syndrome and poor nutrition intake with severe impact on the patient quality of life. The jejunal pouch reconstruction is a beneficial reconstruction, which provides a larger reservoir capacity after gastrectomy and prevents anastomotic stenosis and dumping syndrome. The completely intercorporeal approach with a Pfannenstiel incision instead of an unfavorable midline incision can potentially decrease delayed complications such as incision hernias. With the increased deployment of robotic surgery, a complete intercorporeal reconstruction is now possible without major increase in operating time or further technical weak points. We provide for the first time a detailed technical explanation of the completely intercorporeal robotic jejunal pouch reconstruction after gastrectomy.

Surgical and oncological outcomes of robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score‑matched analysis of 1164 patients

BACKGROUND

Studies on surgical outcomes after robotic surgery are increasing; however, long-term oncological results of studies comparing robotic-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) are still limited. This study aimed to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of RADG and LADG for the treatment of AGC.

METHODS

A total of 1164 consecutive AGC patients undergoing RADG or LADG were enrolled between January 2015 and October 2021. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. The perioperative and oncological outcomes between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

Patient's characteristics were comparable between the two groups after PSM. RADG group represented a longer operative time (205.2 ± 43.1 vs 185.3 ± 42.8 min, P < 0.001), less operative blood loss (139.3 ± 97.8 vs 167.3 ± 134.2 ml, P < 0.001), greater retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) number (31.4 ± 12.1 vs 29.4 ± 12.3, P = 0.015), more retrieved LNs in the supra-pancreatic areas (13.4 ± 5.0 vs 11.4 ± 5.1, P < 0.001), and higher medical costs (13,608 ± 4326 vs 10,925 ± US $3925, P < 0.001) than LADG group. The overall complication rate was 13.7% in the RADG group and 16.6% in the LADG group, respectively; the difference was not significantly different (P = 0.242). In the subgroup analysis, the benefits of RADG were more evident in high BMI patients. Moreover, the 3-year overall survival (75.5% vs 73.1%, P = 0.471) and 3-year disease-free survival (72.9% vs 71.4%, P = 0.763) were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RADG appears to be a safe and feasible procedure and could serve as an alternative treatment for AGC in experienced centers.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Comparison of Long-Term and Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of PSM and RCT Studies

Background

To investigate the perioperative and oncological outcomes of gastric cancer (GC) after robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy (RG versus LG), we carried out a meta-analysis of propensity score matching (PSM) studies and randomized controlled study (RCT) to compare the safety and overall effect of RG to LG for patients with GC.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible PSM and RCT studies before July 2021. Data on perioperative and oncological outcomes were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, we identified 19 PSM studies and 1 RCT of RG versus LG, enrolling a total of 13,446 patients (6,173 and 7,273 patients underwent RG and LG, respectively). The present meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant differences in tumor size, proximal resection margin distance, distal resection margin distance, abdominal bleeding, ileus, anastomosis site leakage, duodenal stump leakage rate, conversion rate, reoperation, overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate between the two groups. Alternatively, comparing RG with LG, RG has a longer operative time (p < 0.00001), less blood loss (p <0.0001), earlier time to first flatus (p = 0.0003), earlier time to oral intake (p = 0.0001), shorter length of stay (p = 0.0001), less major complications (p = 0.0001), lower overall complications (p = 0.0003), more retrieved lymph nodes (P < 0.0001), and more cost (p < 0.00001).

Conclusions

In terms of oncological adequacy and safety, RG is a feasible and effective treatment strategy for gastric cancer but takes more cost in comparison with LG.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.