A meta-analysis of robotic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy in gastric cancer treatment

Comparing the Effectiveness of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Gastrectomy in the United States: A Retrospective Analysis of Perioperative, Oncologic, and Survival Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is increasingly used in the surgical management of gastric cancer; however, its adoption lags that of other cancers. Most randomized controlled trials comparing MIS to open gastrectomy have been conducted in Asia, with limited data from the United States. This study aimed to compare perioperative, oncologic, and survival outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy in a large US cohort.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database, we identified patients with gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent open, laparoscopic, or robotic gastrectomy between 2010 and 2020. Multivariate regression models were used to examine the association between surgical approach and various outcomes, including 30-d readmission, length of stay (LOS), surgical margin status, lymph node yield, 30- and 90-d mortality, and overall survival (OS). The interaction between surgical approach and tumor location (distal versus proximal or gastroesophageal junction [GEJ]) was also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 34,937 included patients, 64.8% underwent open gastrectomy, 25.7% underwent laparoscopic surgery, and 9.5% underwent robotic surgery. MIS was associated with lower odds of 30-d readmission (laparoscopic: odds ratio [OR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.89; robotic: OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.92), positive margins (laparoscopic: OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.93; robotic: OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.90), 30-d mortality (laparoscopic: OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55-0.85; robotic: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44-0.95), and 90-d mortality (laparoscopic: OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.87; robotic: OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47-0.84), as well as improved OS (laparoscopic: hazard ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.87; robotic: hazard ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.69-0.83) compared to open surgery. Considering the interaction of approach with tumor location, for proximal/GEJ tumors, the associated outcome improvements with MIS were attenuated. We observe that the odds for 30-d readmission, 90-d mortality, and OS are similar to those for open operations. However, regardless of tumor location, robotic gastrectomy was associated with decreased LOS and yielded a higher lymph node count than laparoscopic or open approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large US cohort, MIS gastrectomy was associated with improved perioperative, oncologic, and survival outcomes compared to open surgery for distal gastric cancers. However, the associated benefits of MIS were attenuated for proximal/GEJ tumors, with higher odds of readmission, mortality, and worse OS. Notably, robotic gastrectomy was associated with superior lymph node yield and LOS compared to laparoscopic and open approaches, even for proximal/GEJ tumors. These findings underscore the need for further research, especially randomized controlled trials conducted in Western populations, to definitively determine the efficacy of MIS for distal and proximal/GEJ tumors and guide surgical decision-making for gastric adenocarcinoma.

A systematic review on the effectiveness of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy (RAMIG) is increasingly used as a surgical approach for gastric cancer. This study assessed the effectiveness of RAMIG and studied which stages of the IDEAL-framework (1 = Idea, 2A = Development, 2B = Exploration, 3 = Assessment, 4 = Long-term follow-up) were followed.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, Embase, Pubmed, and Web of Science were searched for studies on RAMIG up to January 2023. Data collection included the IDEAL-stage, demographics, number of participants, and study design. For randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and long-term studies, data on intra-, postoperative, and oncologic outcomes, survival, and costs of RAMIG were collected and summarized.

RESULTS

Of the 114 included studies, none reported the IDEAL-stage. After full-text reading, 18 (16%) studies were considered IDEAL-2A, 75 (66%) IDEAL-2B, 4 (4%) IDEAL-3, and 17 (15%) IDEAL-4. The IDEAL-stages were followed sequentially (2A-4), with IDEAL-2A studies still ongoing. IDEAL-3 RCTs showed lower overall complications (8.5-9.2% RAMIG versus 17.6-19.3% laparoscopic total/subtotal gastrectomy), equal 30-day mortality (0%), and equal length of hospital stay for RAMIG (mean 5.7-8.5 days RAMIG versus 6.4-8.2 days open/laparoscopic total/subtotal gastrectomy). Lymph node yield was similar across techniques, but RAMIG incurred significantly higher costs than laparoscopic total/subtotal gastrectomy ($13,423-15,262 versus $10,165-10,945). IDEAL-4 studies showed similar or improved overall/disease-free survival for RAMIG.

CONCLUSION

During worldwide RAMIG implementation, the IDEAL-framework was followed in sequential order. IDEAL-3 and 4 long-term studies showed that RAMIG is similar or even better to conventional surgery in terms of hospital stay, lymph node yield, and overall/disease-free survival. In addition, RAMIG showed reduced postoperative complication rates, despite higher costs.

Experience sharing on perioperative clinical management of gastric cancer patients based on the "China Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery Guidelines"

BACKGROUND

With the popularization of robotic surgical systems in the field of surgery, robotic gastric cancer surgery has also been fully applied and promoted in China. The Chinese Guidelines for Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery was published in the Chinese Journal of General Surgery in August 2021.

METHODS

We have made a detailed interpretation of the process of robotic gastric cancer surgery regarding the indications, contraindications, perioperative preparation, surgical steps, complication, and postoperative management based on the recommendations of China's Guidelines for Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery and supplemented by other surgical guidelines, consensus, and single-center experience.

RESULTS

Twenty experiences of perioperative clinical management of robotic gastric cancer surgery were described in detail.

CONCLUSION

We hope to bring some clinical reference values to the front-line clinicians in treating robotic gastric cancer surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The guidelines were registered on the International Practice Guideline Registration Platform ( http://www.guidelines-registry.cn ) (registration number: IPGRP-2020CN199).

Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology

Robotic surgery has experienced a dramatic increase in utilization across general surgery over the last two decades, including in surgical oncology. Although urologists and gynecologists were the first to show that this technology could be utilized in cancer surgery, the robot is now a powerful tool in the treatment of gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreatico-biliary, colorectal, endocrine, and soft tissue malignancies. While long-term outcomes are still pending, short-term outcomes have showed promise for this technologic advancement of cancer surgery.

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

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

Robotic versus open approach in total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a comparative single-center study of perioperative outcomes

The robotic approach to gastric cancer has been gaining interest in recent years; however, its benefit over the open procedure in total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is still controversial. The aims of the study were to compare postoperative morbidity and mortality, hospital stay, and anatomopathological findings between the robotic and open approaches to oncologic total gastrectomy. We analyzed a prospectively collected database, which included patients who underwent total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy in our center using a robotic or an open approach between 2014 and 2021. Comparative analysis of clinicopathological, intraoperative, postoperative and anatomopathological variables between the robot-assisted group and the open group was performed. Thirty patients underwent total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy by a robotic approach and 48 patients by an open procedure. Both groups were comparable. The robot-assisted group presented a lower rate of Clavien-Dindo complications ≥ stage II (20 vs. 48%, p = 0.048), a shorter hospital stay (7 days vs. 9 days, p = 0.003) and had a higher total number of lymph nodes resected (22 nodes vs. 15 nodes, p = 0.001) compared to the open approach. Operative time was longer in the robotic group (325 min vs. 195 min, p < 0.001) compared to the open group. The robotic approach is associated with a longer surgical time, a lower rate of Clavien-Dindo complications ≥ stage II and a shorter hospital stay, and more lymph nodes were resected compared to the open approach.

Short-Term Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Gastrectomy Compared to Open Gastrectomy for Patients with Gastric Cancer: a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been shown to be a safe and feasible method in gastric cancer (GC) treatment. However, most studies are in Eastern cohorts and there is great interest in knowing whether the method can be used routinely, especially in the West.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term surgical outcomes of D2-gastrectomy by RG versus open gastrectomy (OG).

METHODS

Single-institution, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized clinical trial performed between 2015 and 2020. GC patients were randomized (1:1 allocation) to surgical treatment by RG or OG. Da Vinci Si platform was used.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

gastric adenocarcinoma, stage cT2-4 cN0-1, potentially curative surgery, age 18-80 years, and ECOG performance status 0-1.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

emergency surgery and previous gastric or major abdominal surgery. Primary endpoint was short-term surgical outcomes. The study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02292914).

RESULTS

Of 65 randomized patients, 5 were excluded (3 palliatives, 1 obstruction and emergency surgery, and 1 for material shortage). Consequently, 31 and 29 patients were included for final analysis in the OG and RG groups, respectively. No differences were observed between groups regarding age, sex, BMI, comorbidities, ASA, and frequency of total gastrectomy. RG had similar mean number of harvested lymph nodes (p = 0.805), longer surgical time (p < 0.001), and less bleeding (p < 0.001) compared to OG. Postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and readmissions in 30 days were equivalent between OG and RG.

CONCLUSIONS

RG reduces operative bleeding by more than 50%. The short-term outcomes were non-inferior to OG, although surgical time was longer in RG.

Surgical considerations and outcomes of minimally invasive approaches for gastric cancer resection

Despite high mortality rates from gastric cancer, surgical management remains critical for curative potential. Optimal outcomes of gastric cancer resection depend on a multitude of variables, including the extent of resection, scope of lymphadenectomy, method of reconstruction, and potential for a minimally invasive approach. Laparoscopic gastrectomy, compared with open gastrectomy, has been analyzed in numerous randomized control trials. Generally, those trials demonstrated statistically similar postoperative complication rates, mortality, and oncologic outcomes between the two approaches. Although laparoscopic gastrectomy requires longer operative times, significant improvements in estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay, and return of bowel function have been noted in patients who undergo laparoscopic gastrectomy. These short-term benefits, along with equivalent oncologic results, have influenced national guidelines in both Eastern and Western countries to recommend laparoscopy, especially for early stage disease. Although robotic gastrectomy has not been as widely validated in effective trials, studies have reported equivalent oncologic outcomes and similar or improved postoperative complication and recovery rates after robotic gastrectomy compared with open gastrectomy. Comparing the two minimally invasive gastrectomy approaches, robotic surgery was associated with improved estimated blood loss, incidence of pancreatic sequela, and lymph node harvests in some studies, whereas laparoscopy resulted in lower operative times and hospital costs. Ultimately, when applying outcomes from the literature to clinical patient care decisions, it is imperative to recognize these studies' range of inclusion criteria, delineating between patients originating from Eastern or Western countries, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the volume of surgeon experience, and the extent of gastrectomy, among others.

Postoperative outcomes in robotic gastric resection compared with laparoscopic gastric resection in gastric cancer: A meta-analysis and systemic review

Background

Robotic gastrectomy is a commonly used procedure for early gastric cancer and it also overcomes the limitation of laparoscopic. However, the complications of robotic gastrectomy (RG) still need to be assessed. Our study was designed to compare postoperative complications of RG with laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

Materials and Methods

A meta-analysis and systemic review were prospectively collected using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE database of published studies by comparing the RG and LG with gastric cancer up to December 2021. To evaluate the postoperative outcomes, odds ratios were calculated for Dichotomous data and the mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for continuous data, and measured by the random-effect model.

Results

Thirty-two retrospective studies describing 13,585 patients (4484 RG and 9101 LG) satisfied the inclusion criteria. A statistically significant result was in blood loss (MD = -17.97, 95% Cl: -25.61 to 10.32, p < 0.001), Clavien-Dindo grade Ⅲ (odds ratio (OR) = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.48-0.76, p < 0.01), and harvested lymph node (MD = 2.62, 95% CI: 2.14-3.11, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between robotic gastrectomy surgery (RGS) and laparoscopic gastrectomy surgery (LGS) regarding distal resection margin (DRM), proximal resection margin (PRM), conversion rate, anastomotic leakage, and overall complications.

Conclusion

Having significant outcomes in Clavien-Dindo grade III, and blood loss, harvested lymph nodes are more common in RGS, and they also help in increasing the quality of life.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review

Background and Objectives: Gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard surgical treatment with curative intent for patients with gastric cancer (GC). Over the last three decades, surgeons have been increasingly adopting laparoscopic surgery for GC, due to its better short-term outcomes. In particular, laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been routinely used for early gastric cancer (EGC) treatment. However, LG suffers from technical limitations and drawbacks, such as a two-dimensional surgical field of view, limited movement of laparoscopic tools, unavoidable physiological tremors and discomfort for operating surgeon. Therefore, robotic surgery has been developed to address such limitations. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines in order to investigate the benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared to the LG. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Re-views, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL) and Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index) databases were used to search all related literature. Results: The 7 included meta-analyses covered an approximately 20 years-study period (2000-2020). Almost all studies included in the meta-analyses were retrospective ones and originated from Asian countries (China and Korea, in particular). Examined overall population ranged from 3176 to 17,712 patients. If compared to LG, RG showed both operative advantages (operative time, estimated blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes) and perioperative ones (time to first flatus, time to restart oral intake, length of hospitalization, overall complications, Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ III complications, pancreatic complications), in the absence of clear differences of oncological outcomes. However, costs of robotic approach appear significant. Conclusions: It is impossible to make strong recommendations, due to the statistical weakness of the included studies. Further randomized, possibly multicenter trials are strongly recommended, if we want to have our results confirmed.

Ladder-based resistance training elicited similar ultrastructural adjustments in forelimb and hindlimb peripheral nerves of young adult Wistar rats

To analyze the morphological response induced by high-volume, high-intensity ladder-based resistance training (LRT) on the ultrastructure of the radial (forelimb) and sciatic (hindlimb) nerves of adults Wistar rats. Twenty rats were equally distributed into groups: sedentary (SED) and LRT. After the rodents were subjected to the maximum load (ML) carrying test, the LRT group performed 6-8 progressive climbs (2 × 50% ML, 2 × 75% ML, 2 × 100% ML, and 2 × 100% ML + 30 g) three times per week. After 8 weeks, the radial and sciatic nerves were removed and prepared for transmission electron microscopy. In the radial nerve, myelinated axons cross-sectional area (CSA), unmyelinated axons CSA, myelin sheath thickness, and Schwann cells nuclei area were statistically larger in the LRT group than SED (p < 0.05). Also, the number of microtubules and neurofilaments per field were statistically higher in the LRT group than in SED (p < 0.01). For sciatic nerve, myelinated fibers CSA, unmyelinated axons CSA, myelin sheath thickness, Schwann cells nuclei area, and the number of neurofilaments per field were statistically larger in the LRT group compared to the SED group (p < 0.05). LRT with high-volume and high-intensity effectively induce similar changes in adult Wistar rats' radial and sciatic nerves' ultrastructure.