Rapid and safe learning of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: multidimensional analysis in a comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy

Clinical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy using propensity score matching method: Data of 5-year period in a Korean high-volume gastric cancer center

INTRODUCTION

Despite the theoretical advantages of Robotic gastrectomy (RG) over laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), the benefit of RG compared to LG remains controversial. To address this controversy, we evaluated the outcomes of RG compared to LG in the high-volume gastric cancer center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective cohort study enrolled patients of RG and LG from January 2013 to December 2017 using propensity score matching. Results of operation, and overall survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

For RG, 268 patients were enrolled, and 733 patients with LG were matched. The four gastric methods were matched at the following ratios; Distal gastrectomy (RG: 35.8 % vs LG: 38.7 %), Total gastrectomy (RG: 16.0 % vs LG: 13.9 %), Pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (RG: 46.3 % vs LG: 44.7 %), Proximal gastrectomy (RG: 1.9 % vs LG: 2.6 %) The median number of retrieved lymph nodes (RG: 36.0 vs LG: 37.0, p = 0.247) and supra-pancreatic lymph nodes (RG: 8.0 vs LG: 7.0, p = 0.647), showed no difference. No difference was observed in complications (RG: 21.3 % vs LG: 21.4 %, p = 1.000), and severe complications (RG: 13.1 % vs LG: 12.7 %, p = 0.961) The 5-year overall survival was not significantly different (RG: 94.8 % vs LG: 93.1 %, hazard ratio: 0.76, 95 % confidence interval: 0.41-1.40, p = 0.379).

CONCLUSION

Our study observed no advantage in RG compared to LG regarding short-term and oncologic outcomes. To take advantage of RG, developing new articulating efficient devices would be necessary.

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted early-onset gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Early-onset gastric cancer (EOGC) is a distinct subtype of gastric cancer with increasing incidence, characterized by unique clinical and pathological features. This propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study aims to compare the perioperative safety and outcomes of EOGC patients who underwent laparoscopic versus robotic radical gastrectomy, providing a scientific basis for surgical treatment of EOGC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included 252 patients diagnosed with EOGC at or before the age of 45, who underwent robotic or laparoscopic radical gastrectomy between January 2015 and April 2021. After propensity score matching, 47 patients in the robotic surgery group and 94 in the laparoscopic surgery group were compared. The study evaluated intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, pathological results, and long-term survival.

RESULTS

The robotic surgery group showed less intraoperative bleeding (50 ml vs. 100 ml, p = 0.042) and shorter postoperative hospital stays (6 days vs. 7 days, p = 0.008) compared to the laparoscopic group. The number of positive lymph nodes was higher in the robotic group (median 2 vs. 1, p = 0.016), but the number of lymph nodes harvested did not significantly differ. No significant differences were found in overall survival (3-year OS: 65.9% vs. 62.5%, p = 0.596) and disease-free survival (3-year DFS: 61.4% vs. 61.7%, p = 0.765) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic resection for EOGC is non-inferior to laparoscopic surgery in terms of perioperative outcomes and long-term prognosis. This study suggests that robotic surgery may be a viable option for the treatment of EOGC.

Evaluating the safety of robotic total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer against the conventional laparoscopic approach: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Gastric cancer poses a significant global health challenge, necessitating effective surgical interventions. A critical gap in the literature exists, as most studies do not differentiate between various surgical approaches, i.e., total, distal, and subtotal gastrectomy, and level of lymphadenectomy, when comparing robotic to conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy. This leads to a lack of clear evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) specifically in the context of total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy.This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the safety of RTG with D2 lymphadenectomy compared to conventional laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG). A literature search was conducted up to November 1, 2024, following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included studies comparing RTG and LTG, focusing on anastomotic leakage, Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ III complications, conversion rates, mortality, overall complications, and reoperation rates. Data were synthesized using odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD), with statistical heterogeneity assessed using the I2 statistic. Five studies comprising 1131 patients (432 RTG, 700 LTG) were included. No significant differences were found in the following outcomes: anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.79 [95% CI: 0.35, 1.78], I2 = 0%, P = 0.57), Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ III complications (OR = 0.86 [95% CI: 0.51, 1.45], I2 = 0%, P = 0.56), conversion to open surgery (OR = 0.34 [95% CI: 0.10, 1.18], I2 = 0%, P = 0.09), mortality (OR = 1.78 [95% CI: 0.23, 13.48], I2 = 0%, P = 0.58), overall complications (OR = 0.84 [95% CI: 0.62, 1.14], I2 = 0%, P = 0.26), and reoperation rates (OR = 0.88 [95% CI: 0.29, 2.67], I2 = 0%, P = 0.82). Sensitivity analysis proves the robustness of the findings. The analysis shows no significant differences in safety outcomes between RTG and LTG for gastric cancer, indicating both techniques are comparable. RTG may be a viable alternative to LTG, especially in centers with appropriate robotic capabilities. Further research is warranted to investigate long-term outcomes and the learning curve of robotic surgery.PROSPERO Registration: CRD42024606570.

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.

Surgical Techniques and Related Perioperative Outcomes After Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy (RAMIG): Results From the Prospective Multicenter International Ugira Gastric Registry

OBJECTIVE

To gain insight into the global practice of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy (RAMIG) and evaluate perioperative outcomes using an international registry.

BACKGROUND

The techniques and perioperative outcomes of RAMIG for gastric cancer vary substantially in the literature.

METHODS

Prospectively registered RAMIG cases for gastric cancer (≥10 per center) were extracted from 25 centers in Europe, Asia, and South-America. Techniques for resection, reconstruction, anastomosis, and lymphadenectomy were analyzed and related to perioperative surgical and oncological outcomes. Complications were uniformly defined by the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group.

RESULTS

Between 2020 and 2023, 759 patients underwent total (n=272), distal (n=465), or proximal (n=22) gastrectomy (RAMIG). After total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y-reconstruction, anastomotic leakage rates were 8% with hand-sewn (n=9/111) and 6% with linear stapled anastomoses (n=6/100). After distal gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y (67%) or Billroth-II-reconstruction (31%), anastomotic leakage rates were 3% with linear stapled (n=11/433) and 0% with hand-sewn anastomoses (n=0/26). Extent of lymphadenectomy consisted of D1+ (28%), D2 (59%), or D2+ (12%). Median nodal harvest yielded 31 nodes (interquartile range: 21-47) after total and 34 nodes (interquartile range: 24-47) after distal gastrectomy. R0 resection rates were 93% after total and 96% distal gastrectomy. The hospital stay was 9 days after total and distal gastrectomy, and was median 3 days shorter without perianastomotic drains versus routine drain placement. Postoperative 30-day mortality was 1%.

CONCLUSIONS

This large multicenter study provided a worldwide overview of current RAMIG techniques and their respective perioperative outcomes. These outcomes demonstrated high surgical quality, set a quality standard for RAMIG, and can be considered an international reference for surgical standardization.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Distal gastrectomy (DG) with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer is routinely performed. In this meta-analysis, we present an updated overview of the perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic DG (LDG) and robotic DG (RDG) to compare their safety and overall outcomes in patients undergoing DG. An extensive search was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the establishment of the database to June 2023 for randomized clinical trials comparing RDG and LDG. The primary outcome was operative results, postoperative recovery, complications, adequacy of resection, and long-term survival. We identified twenty studies, evaluating 5,447 patients (1,968 and 3,479 patients treated with RDG and LDG, respectively). We observed no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the proximal resection margin, number of dissected lymph nodes, major complications, anastomosis site leakage, time to first flatus, and length of hospital stay. The RDG group had a longer operative time (P < 0.00001), lesser bleeding (P = 0.0001), longer distal resection margin (P = 0.02), earlier time to oral intake (P = 0.02), fewer overall complications (P = 0.004), and higher costs (P < 0.0001) than the LDG group. RDG is a promising approach for improving LDG owing to acceptable complications and the possibility of radical resection. Longer operative times and higher costs should not prevent researchers from exploring new applications of robotic surgery.

Establishing the Learning Curve of Laparoscopic and Robotic Distal Gastrectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal gastrectomy (MIDG) is non-inferior compared with open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. However, MIDG bears a learning curve (LC). This study aims to evaluate the number of cases required to surmount the LC (i.e. NLC) in MIDG.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to August 2022 for studies which reported NLC in MIDG. NLC on reduced-port/single-port MIDG only were separately analysed. Poisson mean (95% confidence interval (CI)) was used to determine NLC. Negative binomial regression was used to compare NLC between laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) and robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG).

RESULTS

A total of 45 articles with 71 data sets (LDG n=47, RDG n=24) were analysed. There were 7776 patients in total (LDG n=5516, RDG n=2260). Majority of studies were conducted in East Asia (n=68/71). Majority (76.1%) of data sets used non-arbitrary methods of analyses. The overall NLC for RDG was significantly lower compared to LDG (RDG 22.4 (95% CI: 20.4-24.5); LDG 46.7 (95% CI: 44.1-49.4); incidence rate ratio 0.48, p<0.001). The median number of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) cases prior was 0 (interquartile range (IQR) 0-105) for LDG and 159 (IQR 101-305.3) for RDG. Meta-regression analysis did not show a significant impact prior experience in LG, extent of lymphadenectomy and intracorporeal vs extracorporeal anastomosis had on overall NLC for LDG and RDG.

CONCLUSION

NLC for RDG is shorter compared to LDG, but this may be due to prior experience in LG and ergonomic advantages of RDG.

Impact of Hospital Volume on Utilization of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gastric cancer is increasingly performed. The purpose of this study is to evaluate trends in utilization of laparoscopic and robotic techniques compared to open surgery as well as utilization based on hospital volume.

METHODS

We used the National Cancer Database to query patients who underwent gastrectomy from 2010 to 2017 for adenocarcinoma. Regression analyses were used to determine associations between MIS and clinical factors, the trend of MIS over time, and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 18,380 patients met inclusion criteria. The annual rates of MIS increased for all hospital volumes, though lower volume centers were less likely to undergo MIS. MIS was associated with a shorter length of stay compared to open, and robotic gastrectomy had a higher rate of obtaining at least 15 lymph nodes and lower rate of having a positive margin.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS utilization for resection of gastric cancer increased over time, with robotic surgery increasing at a higher rate than laparoscopic surgery. Importantly, this occurred without increased in mortality or sacrificing adequate oncologic outcomes.

Effects of the learning curve on operative time and lymph node harvesting during robotic gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is the fifth most frequent cancer globally. The introduction of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer aimed at reducing post-operative morbidity and hospital length of stay. Although the role of laparoscopic gastrectomy has been established, robotic gastric surgery has only recently gained popularity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate, with a multidimensional analysis, the learning curve of a single surgeon with extensive experience in laparoscopic gastrectomy.

METHODS

We prospectively collected data from 104 gastric cancer patients who underwent surgery with a robotic approach from June 2015 to June 2019 by a single surgeon. We performed 21 total gastrectomies (TGs) and 83 subtotal gastrectomies (STGs). A D2 lymphadenectomy was performed in all the patients. Proximal and distal resection margins were tumoour-free in all patients. There were no intraoperative complications, and no conversions occurred.

RESULTS

The plateau of the learning curve based on harvesting lymph nodes and operative time was not reached for TG. The learning curve of operative time for STG could be divided into three different phases: an early or learning phase from 1 to 27 cases, an intermediate or proficiency phase from 28 to 48 cases, and a late or mastery phase from 49 to 83 cases. The learning curve for harvesting lymph nodes was achieved after 41 cases in the STG group.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that robotic gastrectomy is a complex procedure with a significant multiphasic learning curve. Nevertheless, the robotic learning curve seems to be more rapid than that of conventional laparoscopy. Most importantly, our results suggest that the robotic technique can provide oncological adequacy in terms of lymph node harvesting even in the very first phase of the learning curve.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Early stage gastric adenocarcinoma: clinical and molecular landscapes

Gastric adenocarcinoma, even when diagnosed at an early (localized) disease stage, poses a major health-care burden with cure rates that remain unsatisfactorily low, particularly in Western countries. This lack of progress reflects, among other aspects, the impracticality of early diagnosis, considerable variations in therapeutic approaches that is partly based on regional preferences, and the ingrained heterogeneity of gastric adenocarcinoma cells and their associated tumour microenvironment (TME). Clinical trials have long applied empirical interventions with the assumption that all early stage gastric adenocarcinomas are alike. Despite certain successes, the shortcomings of these approaches can potentially be overcome by targeting the specific molecular subsets of gastric adenocarcinomas identified by genomic and/or multi-omics analyses, including microsatellite instability-high, Epstein-Barr virus-induced, DNA damage repair-deficient, HER2-positive and PD-L1-high subtypes. Future approaches, including the availability of sophisticated vaccines, novel antibody technologies, agents targeting TME components (including fibroblasts, macrophages, cytokines or chemokines, and T cells) and novel immune checkpoint inhibitors, supported by improved tissue-based and blood-based diagnostic assays, seem promising. In this Review, we highlight current knowledge of the molecular and cellular biology of gastric adenocarcinomas, summarize the current approaches to clinical management of the disease, and consider the role of novel management and/or treatment strategies.

A novel training program: laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer can be trained simultaneously

Background

Current expectations are that surgeons should be technically proficient in minimally invasive low anterior resection (LAR)-both laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery. However, methods to effectively train surgeons for both approaches are under-explored. We aimed to compare two different training programs for minimally invasive LAR, focusing on the learning curve and perioperative outcomes of two trainee surgeons.

Methods

We reviewed 272 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic LAR by surgeons A and B, who were novices in conducting minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Surgeon A was trained by first operating on 80 cases by laparoscopy and then 56 cases by robotic-assisted surgery. Surgeon B was trained by simultaneously performing 80 cases by laparoscopy and 56 by robotic-assisted surgery. The cumulative sum (CUSUM) method was used to evaluate the learning curves of operative time and surgical failure.

Results

For laparoscopic surgery, the CUSUM plots showed a longer learning process for surgeon A than surgeon B (47 vs. 32 cases) for operative time, but a similar trend in surgical failure (23 vs. 19 cases). For robotic surgery, the plots of the two surgeons showed similar trends for both operative times (23 vs. 25 cases) and surgical failure (17 vs. 19 cases). Therefore, the learning curves of surgeons A and B were respectively divided into two phases at the 47th and 32nd cases for laparoscopic surgery and at the 23rd and 25th cases for robotic surgery. The clinicopathological outcomes of the two surgeons were similar in each phase of the learning curve for each surgery.

Conclusions

For surgeons with rich experience in open colorectal resections, simultaneous training for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted LAR of rectal cancer is safe, effective, and associated with accelerated learning curves.

Feasibility of simultaneous development of laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Laparoscopic (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) are both challenging procedures. The feasibility and safety of simultaneously developing LPD and RPD remain unreported. We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients undergoing LPD or RPD between 2014 and 2021. A total of 114 patients underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD): 39 LPDs and 75 RPDs. The learning process of LPD and RPD were similar. The cutoff points of the learning curve were LPD, 13th patient (the 27th patient of MIPD), and RPD, 18th patient (the 31st patient of MIPD) according the cumulative sum analysis of operative time. A decrease in the operative time was associated with the case sequence (p < 0.001) but not with the surgical approach (p = 0.36). The overall surgical outcomes were comparable between both the LPD and RPD groups. When evaluating the learning curve impact on MIPD, LPD had higher major complication (≧ Clavien-Dindo grade III), bile leak and wound infection rates in the pre-learning curve phase than those in the after-learning curve phase, while RPD had similar surgical outcomes between two phases. Simultaneous development of LPD and RPD is feasible and safe for experienced surgeons, with similar learning process and comparable surgical outcomes.

Risk factors and conservative therapy outcomes of anastomotic leakage after gastrectomy: Experience of 3,926 patients from a single gastric surgical unit

Background

Anastomotic leakage (AL) after gastrectomy is one of the severest postoperative complications and is related to increasing mortality. In addition, no consensus guidelines about strategies of AL treatment have been established. This large cohort study aimed to inspect the risk factors and efficacy of the conservative treatment for AL in patients with gastric cancer.

Methods

We reviewed the clinicopathological data of 3,926 gastric cancer patients undergoing gastrectomy between 2014 and 2021. Results contained the rate, risk factors, and conservative therapy outcomes of AL.

Results

In total, 80 patients (2.03%, 80/3,926) were diagnosed with AL, and esophagojejunostomy was the most frequent AL site (73.8%, 59/80). Among them, one patient (2.5%, 1/80) died. Multivariate analysis indicated that low albumin concentration (P = 0.001), presence of diabetes (P = 0.025), laparoscopic method (P &lt; 0.001), total gastrectomy (P = 0.003), and proximal gastrectomy (P = 0.002) were predicting factors for AL. The closure rate for the conservative treatment of AL in the first month after AL diagnosis was 83.54% (66/79), and the median time from leakage diagnosis to the closure of leakage was 17 days (interquartile range 11–26 days). Low level of plasma albumin (P = 0.004) was associated with late leakage closures. In terms of 5-year overall survival, no significant difference was observed between patients with and without AL.

Conclusion

The incidence of AL after gastrectomy is associated with low albumin concentration, diabetes, the laparoscopic method, and extent of resection. The conservative treatment is relatively safe and effective for the AL management in patients after gastric cancer surgery.

Comparison of short-term efficacy and safety between total robotic and total 3D laparoscopic distal radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol: a propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

The application of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol in gastrointestinal surgery has been widely accepted. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of ERAS in total robotic distal gastrectomy (TRDG) versus 3D total laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (3D-TLDG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 73 patients underwent TRDG and 163 patients who received 3D-TLDG. The propensity score was used for matching analysis according to a 1:1 ratio, so that there was no significant difference in the baseline data between the two groups. The short-term effect and safety of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The TRDG group had a less intraoperative bleeding (30.21 ± 13.78 vs. 41.44 ± 17.41 ml, P < 0.001), longer intraoperative preparation time (31.05 ± 4.93 vs. 15.48 ± 2.43 min, P < 0.001), shorter digestive tract reconstruction time (32.67 ± 4.41 vs. 39.78 ± 4.95 min, P < 0.001), shorter postoperative ambulation time (14.07 ± 8.97 vs. 17.49 ± 5.98 h, P = 0.007), shorter postoperative anal exhaust time (1.78 ± 0.79 vs. 2.18 ± 0.79 days, P = 0.003), shorter postoperative hospital stay (7.74 ± 3.15 vs. 9.97 ± 3.23 days, P < 0.001), lower postoperative pain score (P = 0.006) and higher hospitalization cost (89,907.15 ± 17,147.19 vs. 125,615.82 ± 11,900.80 RMB, P < 0.001) than the 3D-TLDG group.

CONCLUSION

TRDG and 3D-TLDG under ERAS protocol are safe and feasible. Compared with 3D-TLDG, the TRDG has better intraoperative bleeding control effect and greater advantages in digestive tract reconstruction. After the combination of ERAS protocol, TRDG also has certain advantages in the recovery process of patients after surgery.

Effects of robotic and laparoscopic-assisted surgery on lymph node dissection and quality of life in the upper third of gastric cancer: A retrospective cohort study based on propensity score matching

Objective

The objective of this study was compare the effects of robot-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted surgery on lymph node dissection and quality of life in upper third gastric cancer patients undergoing radical total gastrectomy.

Methods

The clinical and follow-up data of 409 patients with upper third gastric cancer who underwent total gastrectomy from July 2016 to May 2021 were enrolled. The patients were divided into a robotic group (n = 106) and a laparoscopic group (n = 303). Age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor size and location, pathological type, cT, cN, and cTNM were adjusted to offset selection bias. The patient characteristics, operative procedures, surgical outcomes, oncologic and pathologic outcomes, number of lymph node dissections, quality of life assessment, and nutritional status were compared between the two groups.

Results

After propensity score matching, 61 cases were included in the robotic group and 122 cases were included in the laparoscopic group. The number of dissected lymph nodes (37.3 ± 13.5 vs. 32.8 ± 11.8, P = 0.022) significantly differed between the two groups. The number of lower mediastinal and subphrenic lymph nodes in the robotic group was greater than that in the laparoscopic group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Compared with the laparoscopic group, the total score of physical symptoms in the robotic group was significantly lower at 6 and 12 months after surgery (P = 0.03 and P = 0.001, respectively). The total social function score at 6 and 12 months after surgery was higher in the robotic group (P = 0.006 and P = 0.022). The quality of life scores were statistically significant only at 3 months after the operation (P = 0.047). A higher patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) score is when the score significantly correlated (P < 0.001) with a higher related physical symptoms score, lower social function score, and lower quality of life score.

Conclusion

Compared with laparoscopic radical gastrectomy, robotic radical gastrectomy is safe and feasible. Compared with laparoscopic radical gastrectomy, robotic radical gastrectomy was more refined, was associated with less surgical bleeding, and increased the quality of lymph node dissection. In addition, patients in the robotic group showed better postoperative quality of life.

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.

Safety assessment of robotic gastrectomy and analysis of surgical learning process: a multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

The safety of robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer in daily clinical settings and the process by which surgeons are introduced and taught RG remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of RG in daily clinical practice and assess the learning process in surgeons introduced to RG.

METHODS

Patients who underwent RG for gastric cancer at Kyoto University and 12 affiliated hospitals across Japan from January 2017 to October 2019 were included. Any morbidity with a Clavien-Dindo classification grade of II or higher was evaluated. Moreover, the influence of the surgeon's accumulated RG experience on surgical outcomes and surgeon-reported postoperative fatigue were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 336 patients were included in this study. No conversion to open or laparoscopic surgery and no in-hospital mortality were observed. Overall, 50 (14.9%) patients developed morbidity. During the study period, 14 surgeons were introduced to robotic procedures. The initial five cases had surprisingly lower incidence of morbidity compared to the following cases (odds ratio 0.29), although their operative time was longer (+ 74.2 min) and surgeon's fatigue scores were higher (+ 18.4 out of 100 in visual analog scale).

CONCLUSIONS

RG was safely performed in actual clinical settings. Although the initial case series had longer operative time and promoted greater levels of surgeon fatigue compared to subsequent cases, our results suggested that RG had been introduced safely.

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.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Mega Meta-Analysis

Background

Laparoscopic gastrectomy and robotic gastrectomy are the most widely adopted treatment of choice for gastric cancer. To systematically assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis on short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy.

Methods

In order to find relevant studies on the efficacy and safety of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in the treatment of gastric cancer, numerous medical databases including PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, and China Journal Full-text Database (CNKI) were consulted, and Chinese and English studies on the efficacy and safety of RG and LG in the treatment of gastric cancer published from 2012 to 2022 were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.

Results

The meta-analysis inlcuded 48 literatures, with 20,151 gastric cancer patients, including 6,175 in the RG group and 13,976 in the LG group, respectively. Results of our meta-analysis showed that RG group had prololonged operative time (WMD = 35.72, 95% CI = 28.59–42.86, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 258.69 min ± 32.98; LG: mean ± SD = 221.85 min ± 31.18), reduced blood loss (WMD = −21.93, 95% CI = −28.94 to −14.91, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 105.22 ml ± 62.79; LG: mean ± SD = 127.34 ml ± 79.62), higher number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.99–3.63, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 35.88 ± 4.14; LG: mean ± SD = 32.73 ± 4.67), time to first postoperative food intake shortened (WMD = −0.20, 95% CI = −0.29 to −0.10, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 4.5 d ± 1.94; LG: mean ± SD = 4.7 d ± 1.54), and lower length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD = −0.54, 95% CI = −0.83 to −0.24, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 8.91 d ± 6.13; LG: mean ± SD = 9.61 d ± 7.74) in comparison to the LG group. While the other variables, for example, time to first postoperative flatus, postoperative complications, proximal and distal mar gin, R₀ resection rate, mortality rate, conversion rate, and 3-year overall survival rate were all found to be statistically similar at P > 0.05.

Conclusions

In the treatment of gastric cancer, robotic gastrectomy is a safe and effective procedure that has both short- and long-term effects. To properly evaluate the advantages of robotic surgery in gastric cancer, more randomised controlled studies with rigorous research methodologies are needed.

The impact of robotic technology on the learning curve for robot-assisted gastrectomy in the initial clinical application stage

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of robotic technology on the learning curve for robot-assisted gastrectomy in the initial clinical application stage and to compare RAG with laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy using a short-term evaluation.

METHODS

Between September 2016 and December 2018, 111 consecutive distal gastric cancer patients who were candidates for RAG or LAG were prospectively enrolled. Operative findings, morbidity, oncological findings, and the learning curve were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients underwent RAG with the da Vinci Si robot system, and eighty-one patients underwent LAG. Blood loss was lower during RAG than during LAG (133.80 ± 95.28 vs. 178.83 ± 98.37, P = 0.046). The operative time for RAG was significantly longer (304.45 ± 42.08 vs. 281.17 ± 32.69, P = 0.015). The number of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) was greater (37.33 ± 8.25 vs. 32.78 ± 5.98, P = 0.003) with RAG. Notably, RAG had an advantage in the dissection of No. 9 and 11p LNs (3.56 ± 1.76 vs. 2.78 ± 1.30, P = 0.038; 2.48 ± 0.93 vs. 1.99 ± 0.84, P = 0.015, respectively). Severe complications were less frequent in the RAG group (7 (8.6%) vs. 1 (3.3%), P = 0.003). No significant differences in terms of postoperative recovery were found between the two groups. The learning curve for RAG showed that the cumulative sum value decreased from the 10th case, while it decreased from the 28th case in the LAG group.

CONCLUSION

By means of robotic technology, RAG is better than LAG for the dissection of No. 9 and 11p LNs and for the alleviation of surgical trauma, and the technique is learned more rapidly during the preliminary stage than the LAG technique.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

Insurance-covered RG has been safely implemented nationwide.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Treatment burden of robotic gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC): a single western experience

Background

This study compares standard of care (SOC) open and robotic D2-gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) in the Western context of low disease prevalence, reduced surgical volume, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). We hypothesized that robotic gastrectomy (RG) after NAC reduces treatment burden for LAGC across multiple outcome domains vs. SOC.

Methods

Single institution, interrupted time series comparing SOC (2008–2013) for LAGC (T2–4Nany/TanyN+) vs. NAC + RG (2013–2018). Treatment burden was a composite metric of narcotic consumption, oncologic efficacy, cumulative morbidity, and 90-day resource utilization. Predictors were evaluated via multivariate modeling. Learning curve analysis was done using CUSUM.

Results

After exclusions, 87 subjects with equivalent baseline characteristics, aside from male sex, were treated via SOC (n=55) or NAC + RG (n=32). All four domains of treatment burden were significantly reduced in the NAC + RG cohort compared to SOC (P=0.003). The odds ratio for excess treatment burden in the NAC/RG was 0.23 (95% CI: 0.07–0.72, P=0.0117) vs. SOC upon multivariable modeling, whereas the extent of resection (total/subtotal), tumor size, T-stage, sex, and early learning curve had no effect. Differences in treatment burden persisted in subgroup analysis for NAC (n=51).

Conclusions

NAC + RG was associated with decreased treatment burden relative to SOC for LAGC. Frequencies of unfavorable hospitalization, adverse oncological outcomes, major morbidity, and narcotic consumption all decreased in this interrupted time series.

Current Status and Trends of Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy in Korea

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

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Gastric Cancer Screening Methods: A Comparative Study of Two Scoring Methods

Objective

To evaluate the Li’s and Japanese scoring methods scoring for screening early gastric cancer in a healthy population.

Methods

During January 2016–December 2018, profiles of the healthy people participated in a physical examination in the first people’s Hospital of Shanghai were collected. A total of 342 volunteers, including 137 males and 205 females ageing 40–74, were enrolled. After recording the basic information, all volunteers were scored using the Japan scoring method and the new gastric cancer screening score (ie, Li’s score). The subjects’ work characteristics (ROC curve) were drawn according to the patient’s endoscopic pathological examination to indicate early gastric cancer, to determine the best cut-off point for the diagnosis of early gastric cancer by Japanese scoring and Li’s scoring, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of both scoring methods were calculated as well.

Results

The area under the ROC curve of Japanese and Li’s score, in the diagnosis of early gastric cancer, was 0.763 and 0.837, respectively. Japanese and Li’s score ≥14 were considered as the best cut-off point. The sensitivity and specificity of Li’s scoring were 63.60% and 91.10%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the Japanese score were 54.50% and 87.50%, respectively. The area under the ROC curve in Li’s scoring is more significant than that in Japanese scoring, and there was a substantial difference in the two methods (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Both Li’s scoring and Japanese scoring have shown good screening value for early gastric cancer in a healthy population, but Li’s scoring is more sensitive/specific than Japanese scoring.

Comparison of the operative outcomes and learning curves between laparoscopic and "Micro Hand S" robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The Micro Hand S robot is a new surgical tool that has been applied to total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for rectal cancer in our center. In this study, we compared the operative outcomes, functional outcomes and learning curves of the Micro Hand S robot-assisted TME (RTME) with laparoscopic TME (LTME).

METHODS

A total of 40 patients who underwent RTME and 65 who underwent LTME performed by a single surgeon between July 2015 and November 2018 were included in this retrospective study. Clinicopathologic characteristics, operative and functional outcomes, and learning curves were compared between the two groups. The learning curve was analyzed using the cumulative sum method and two stages (Phase 1, Phase 2) were identified and analyzed. All patients were followed up for at least 12 months.

RESULTS

The clinicopathologic characteristics of the two groups were similar. The learning curve was 17 cases for RTME and 34 cases for LTME. Compared with LTME, RTME was associated with less blood loss (148.2 vs. 195.0 ml, p = 0.022), and shorter length of hospital stay (9.5 vs. 12.2 days, p = 0.017), even during the learning period. With the accumulation of experience, the operative time decreased significantly from Phase 1 to Phase 2 (RTME, 360.6 vs. 323.5 min, p = 0.009; LTME, 338.1 vs. 301.9 min, p = 0.005), whereas other outcomes did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Micro Hand S robot-assisted TME is safe and feasible even during the learning period, with outcomes comparable to laparoscopic surgery but superior in terms of blood loss, length of hospital stay, and learning curve. Trial registration Clinicaltrial.gov, NCT04836741, retrospectively registered on 5 April 2021.

Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes

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

Robotic 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.

Incidence and treatment outcomes of leakage after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Experience of 14,075 patients from a large volume centre

INTRODUCTION

Leakage is a serious and potentially fatal complication of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. However, comprehensive reports regarding leakage after gastrectomy remain limited. We aimed to evaluate the incidence and treatment outcomes of leakage after gastrectomy for cancer.

METHODS

We reviewed the prospectively collected data of 14,075 Patients who underwent gastrectomy for gastric cancer between 2005 and 2017. Outcomes included incidence, risk factors of leakage, and leakage treatment outcomes.

RESULTS

The median day of leakage detection was postoperative day 7 (range 1-29days). The overall leakage incidence was 1.51% (213/14,075), and the most frequent location was the oesophagojejunostomy (2.07%). Leakage after total gastrectomy was more frequent with minimally invasive surgery (open:1.64%, laparoscopic:3.56%, robotic:5.83%; P < 0.001). Leakage incidence was higher in the surgeon's initial 100 cases than in later cases (2.4 vs. 1.3%; P < 0.001), especially with minimally invasive surgery. Early leakage (within 4 days of surgery) occurred more often after minimally invasive surgery (open:12.7%, laparoscopic:35.4%, robotic:29.0%; P = 0.006). The success rate for initial treatment of leakage was 70.4% (150/213). Surgery after initial treatment failure demonstrated a higher success rate for early leakage than for late leakage (80.0 vs. 22.2%). Among 213 patients who experienced leakage, fifteen patients (7.0%) died, and leakage-related mortality accounted for 38.5% (15/39) of all surgery-related mortality after gastrectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Leakage after gastric cancer surgery is associated with high mortality. Improved surgeon experience using minimally invasive techniques is required to reduce the risk of leakage. Surgery is an effective treatment for early leakage, although further studies are needed to establish the most appropriate treatment strategies.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Incidence and risk factors of postoperative complications after robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an analysis of 817 cases based on 10-year experience in a large-scale center

BACKGROUND

In this study, we investigated the incidence and risk factors for postoperative complications after robotic gastrectomy (RG) in patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

A total of 817 patients who underwent RG for gastric cancer between March 2010 and August 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Postoperative complications were categorized according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, and possible risk factors were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 817 patients who underwent RG, overall, severe, local and systemic complication rates were 13.8, 4.2, 7.0 and 6.9%, respectively. Multivariable analysis revealed that an age of 70 years or older (P < 0.001) and multiorgan resection (P = 0.031) were independent risk factors for the occurrence of overall complications. Multivariable analysis showed that an age of 70 years or older (P = 0.005) and surgeons' experience ≤ 25 cases (P = 0.004) were independent risk factors for severe complications. Regarding local complications, an age of 70 years or older (P < 0.001), multiorgan resection (P = 0.010) and surgeons' experience ≤ 25 cases (P = 0.005) were identified as independent risk factors. An age of 70 years or older (P < 0.001), a BMI of 25 or higher (P = 0.045) and the presence of comorbidity (P = 0.029) were identified as independent risk factors for systemic complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated that RG is a safe and feasible procedure for the treatment of gastric cancer, and it has an acceptable postoperative morbidity. Elderly patients and insufficient surgeon experience were two major risk factors for the occurrence of complications following RG. We suggest that surgeons choose patients in good condition during their RG learning phase to reduce learning-associated morbidity.

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.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy for early-stage gastric cancer: Case series of initial experience

BACKGROUND

In the last decade's robotic gastrectomy (RG) has increasingly widespread as a valid minimally invasive option for treatment of gastric cancer. In literature, evidence of its routine use is not yet well established. The aims of this study are to report our initial experience and to present possible advantages of our hybrid operative technique for subtotal gastrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospectively, we analyzed data from 41 patients (22 male and 19 female) who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (RALG) with D2 lymphadenectomy using the da Vinci XI robotic system. Inclusion criteria were gastric cancer in the middle or lower portion of the stomach amenable of radical subtotal gastrectomy without preoperative suspicion of positive lymph-nodes or other organs involving and distant metastasis. All the procedures were performed by attending surgeons.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 270 min with one case of conversion to open surgery. The mean age was 71.4 (IQR 68.2-76.8) with 43.9% of patients classified as ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score ≥3. The median of lymph-nodes retrieved was 25 (IQR 19-35). No intra-operative complications occurred. Time to resume a soft diet was 5 days. Patients were hospitalized a median of 7 days. According to pathological AJCC-TNM, 21 patients were classified as advanced gastric cancer. Post-operative morbidity was recorded in 9 patients (21.9%) with major complications requiring surgical operation in 4 patients (9.8%). Elevated ASA score, fewer lymph-nodes retrieved and ICU recovery requirements were significant increased in patients with major complications.

CONCLUSION

The preliminary results demonstrated that robot-assisted laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy is safe and feasible. In particular, we found that the da Vinci platform improves surgeon abilities to perform an adequate lymphadenectomy and digestive reconstruction. Further studies are necessary to better clarify the role of this high-cost technology in minimally invasive treatment of gastric cancer.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effectiveness and safety of robotic versus traditional laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Gastrectomy is considered the gold standard treatment for gastric cancer patients. Currently, there are two minimally invasive surgical methods to choose from, robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Nevertheless, it is still unclear which is superior between the two. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of RG and LG for gastric cancer. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases until September 2018 in studies that compared RG and LG in gastric cancer patients. Operative and postoperative outcomes analyzed were assessed. The quality of the evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. Twenty-four English studies were analyzed. The meta-analysis revealed that the RG group had a significantly longer operation time, lower intraoperative blood loss, and higher perioperative costs compared to the LG group. However, there were no differences in complications, conversion rate, reoperation rate, mortality, number of lymph nodes harvested, days of first flatus, postoperative hospitalization time, and survival rate between the two groups. RG was shown to be associated with decreased intraoperative blood loss and increased perioperative cost and operation time compared to LG. Several higher-quality original studies and prospective clinical trials are required to confirm the advantages of RG.

Trends of robotic-assisted surgery for thyroid, colorectal, stomach and hepatopancreaticobiliary cancer: 10 year Korea trend investigation

BACKGROUND

The current position of robotic surgery in the field of minimally invasive surgery remains ambiguous. We evaluated long-term trends of robotic general surgery and the future direction of its development.

METHODS

Data on robotic cancer surgeries between 2005 and 2014 were retrospectively collected by volunteer institutions in the Republic of Korea. Spearman's correlation and logistic regression analyses were used to compare robotic and laparoscopic surgery trends in general surgery.

RESULTS

The odds that robotic surgery was performed instead of laparoscopic surgery significantly decreased in the fields of colorectal, stomach, and hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery (odds ratio [OR]: 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-0.97; OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.88-0.92; and OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.65-0.78, respectively), except for thyroid surgery (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.25-1.30). Of the total numbers of each procedure, proportions of robotic intersphincteric resections, abdominoperineal resections, and pylorus-preserving surgery performed significantly increased (r = 0.98, P < .001; r = 0.78, P = .01; and r = 0.86, P = .007, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of robotic surgery failed to preponderate that of laparoscopic surgery, except for thyroid surgery. Robotic surgery is increasingly preferred for limited fields or complex surgeries, but the use of robotics in simple surgeries has decreased.

Outcomes of Gastric Resection in the Establishment of a Comprehensive Oncologic Robotic Program

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy is increasingly utilized for the treatment of gastric malignancies. However, the benefits of robotic surgery have been questioned. This study describes short-term outcomes in the establishment of a comprehensive robotic program for gastric malignancies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic-assisted gastric resections between 2013 and 2018 were studied. Preoperative measures and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Finally we studied and analyzed robotic and open gastrectomy for the management of gastric adenocarcinoma (GC) at the same institution between 2000 and 2018 for quality benchmarking.

RESULTS

Forty six patients (pts.) underwent robotic-assisted gastric resections. 26 (56.5%) were male, with a median age of 62 y (range: 29-87). Pathology included GC, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, neuroendocrine tumors, metastatic lesions, and benign processes. 19 pts. underwent total gastrectomy, 16 distal gastrectomy, four subtotal gastrectomy, and seven wedge resection. Pts. undergoing distal gastrectomy and wedge resection experienced shorter operative times and length of stay than total gastrectomy (P < 0.01; P < 0.01). Four operations (8.8%) were converted to open and 13 pts (28.3%) had postoperative complications, including an 8.7% readmission rate. Median lymph nodes retrieved during total, subtotal, and distal gastrectomy were 20 (13-46), 12.5 (0-26), and 16.5 (0-34), respectively. All pts. underwent margin negative resection. Median follow-up for GC was 21 mo, and 60% of pts. received adjuvant therapy at a median of 59d (range: 23-106).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic gastrectomy is a feasible alternative to open gastrectomy. Our results will help establish benchmarks to improve perioperative outcomes, especially length of stay and time to initiation of therapy.

Short-Term Clinical Outcomes After Laparoscopic and Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: a Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

The different advantages of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and robotic gastrectomy (RG), two new minimally invasive surgical techniques for gastric cancer, remain controversial.

PURPOSE

To compare the short-term clinical outcomes of LG and RG.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center comparative study of 1044 patients (LG = 750, RG = 294) was conducted. Patients undergoing LG and RG were matched (2:1 ratio) according to sex, age, BMI, extent of gastric resection, and pathologic stage. The primary outcomes were morbidity and mortality and perioperative recovery parameters; major types of complications were also analyzed.

RESULTS

After matching, 798 patients (LG = 532, RG = 266) were included. Both the LG and RG groups showed similar overall complication rates (LG = 12.8% vs RG = 12.4%) and operative mortality (LG = 0.4% vs RG = 0.4%). Compared to those who underwent LG, patients undergoing RG had significantly longer operative times (236.92 ± 57.28 vs 217.77 ± 65.00 min, p < 0.001), higher total costs (US$16,241.42 vs US$12,497, p < 0.001), less operative blood loss (77.07 ± 64.37 vs 103.68 ± 86.92 ml, p < 0.001), higher numbers of retrieved lymph nodes (32.0 vs 29.9, p < 0.001), and higher rates of retrieving more than 16 lymph nodes (94.0 vs 85.5%; p < 0.001). No significant differences between groups were noted in terms of the rate of reoperation, time until a soft diet was consumed, or length of hospital stay. The major complication and readmission rates were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

RG and LG produced similar short-term clinical outcomes, indicating that RG is a safe and beneficial surgical procedure.

Oncological Robot-Assisted Gastrectomy: Technical Aspects and Ongoing Data

Robotic surgery through the da Vinci Surgical System has been widely spread for many procedures across the globe for several years. At the same time, robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC) remains mostly available only in specialized centers in minimally invasive surgery and stomach neoplasm. The robotic platform has been introduced to overcome possible drawbacks of the laparoscopic approach. The safety and the feasibility of robotic radical gastrectomy have been reported in many retrospective case series and nonrandomized prospective studies. However, the superiority of robotic gastrectomy over the laparoscopic access has not yet been proven. This study aimed to report the technical aspects of robot-assisted gastrectomy for GC as well as the latest evidence on this subject.

Comparison of surgical outcomes between integrated robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for distal gastrectomy: a propensity score matching analysis

This study was aimed to compare the surgical outcomes between conventional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (CLDG) and integrated robotic distal gastrectomy (IRDG) which used both Single-Site platform and fluorescence image-guided surgery technique simultaneously. Retrospective data of 56 patients who underwent IRDG and 152 patients who underwent CLDG were analyzed. Propensity score matching analysis was performed to control selection bias using age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and body mass index. Fifty-one patients were selected for each group. Surgical success was defined as the absence of open conversion, readmission, major complications, positive resection margin, and inadequate lymph node retrieval (<16). Patients characteristics and surgical outcomes of IRDG group were comparable to those of CLDG group, except longer operation time (159.5 vs. 131.7 min; P < 0.001), less blood loss (30.7 vs. 73.3 mL; P = 0.004), higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) (50.4 vs. 41.9 LNs; P = 0.025), and lower readmission rate (2.0 vs. 15.7%; P = 0.031). Surgical success rate was higher in IRDG group compared to CLDG group (98.0 vs. 82.4%; P = 0.008). In conclusion, this study found that IRDG provides the benefits of higher number of retrieved LNs, less blood loss, and lower readmission rate compared with CLDG in patients with early gastric cancer.

Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Gastrectomy among Gastric Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Short-Term Analysis from a Single Institution in China

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci robotic system was considered an effectively alternative treatment option for early gastric cancer patients in recent years. The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted gastrectomy in our center.

METHODS

This study included 33 patients who underwent robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) and 88 patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) between January 2016 and April 2018. Clinicopathological characteristics, surgical parameters, postoperative recovery, and the learning curves of RAG were evaluated.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics between two groups were well balanced. The operation time of RAG was longer than that of LAG (333.1 ± 61.4 min vs. 290.6 ± 39.0 min, p = 0.001), and the estimated blood loss was 62.4 ± 41.2 ml in the RAG group and 77.7 ± 32.3 ml in the LAG group (p = 0.005), respectively. The mean number of examined lymph nodes in RAG was less than that in LAG (30.3 ± 10.2 vs. 37.4 ± 13.7, p = 0.008). However, RAG had an advantage in the dissection of No. 9 lymph nodes (3.4 ± 2.1 vs. 2.5 ± 1.6, p = 0.039). The incidence of postoperative complications was similar in both groups (p = 0.735). There were no significant differences in terms of postoperative recovery between the two groups. The learning curve of RAG showed that the CUSUM value decreased from the 8th case, which suggested a rapid learning curve among experienced surgeons on LAG operations.

CONCLUSIONS

RAG was safe and feasible for gastric cancer patients, with superiority in the dissection of No. 9 lymph nodes.

Robotic vs open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis on short- and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was compare short- and long-term outcomes between robotic (RG) and standard open gastrectomy (OG).

METHODS

This is a single-center propensity score-matched study including patients who underwent RG or OG for gastric cancer between 2008 and 2018.

RESULTS

In total, 191 patients could be included for analysis. Of 60 RG patients, 49 could be matched. After matching, significant differences in baseline characteristics were no longer present. Operative time was significantly longer (451 min, IQR: 392-513) in the RG group than in the OG (262 min, IQR: 225-330) (P < .0001). No significant differences in postoperative complications between RG (n = 15, 30.6%) and OG (n = 15, 30.6%) were seen (P = 1.000). Overall survival was comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RG is feasible and safe. With regard to long-term oncologic outcomes, survivals in the RG group were similar to those in OG group.

Make Intelligent of Gastric Cancer Diagnosis Error in Qazvin's Medical Centers: Using Data Mining Method

Objective: Gastric cancer is one of the most common types of cancers, which will result in irreparable harm in the case of misdiagnosis or late diagnosis. The purpose of this study is to investigate the capability of data mining techniques and disease risk factor characteristics to predict and diagnose the gastric cancer. Methods: In this retrospective descriptive-analytic study, we selected 405 samples from two groups of patient and healthy participants. A total of 11 characteristics and risk factors were examined. we used four Machine learning methods, Include support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), naive Bayesian model, and k nearest neighborhood (KNN) to classify the patients with gastric cancer. The evaluation criteria to investigate the model on the database of patients with gastric cancer included Recall, Precision, F-score, and Accuracy. Data was analyzed using MATLAB® software, version 3.2 (Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA, USA). Results: Based on the results achieved from the evaluation of four methods, the accuracy rates of SVM, DT, naive Bayesian model, and KNN algorithms were 90.08, 87.89, 87.60, and 87.60 percent, respectively. The findings showed that the highest level of F-Score was related to the SVM (91.99); whereas, the lowest rate was associated with the KNN algorithm (87.17). Conclusion: According to the findings, the SVM algorithm showed the best results in classification of Test samples. So, this intelligent system can be used as a physician assistant in medical education hospitals, where the diagnosis processes are performed by medical students.

Surgical outcomes and learning curve analysis of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Multidimensional analysis compared with three‑dimensional high‑definition laparoscopic gastrectomy

The present ambispective cohort study was performed to compare the short‑term surgical outcomes, including financial cost and surgeons' acceptance, of robotic versus three‑dimensional high‑definition (3D‑HD) laparoscopic gastrectomy for patients with gastric cancer (GC). Between 2011 and 2017, 517 patients with GC were enrolled for treatment with either robotic gastrectomy [408 patients, including 73 treated by one of the authors (LC)] or 3D‑HD laparoscopic gastrectomy (109 patients, including 71 treated by LC). The cumulative summation method was developed to analyze the learning curves of robotic and 3D‑HD laparoscopic gastrectomy performed by LC. In the analysis of all 517 patients, there were no significant differences in the clinicopathological characteristics between the two treatment groups, with the exception of smoking status (P<0.001). The robotic group had a shorter operative time (OT; 209 vs. 228 min, P=0.004), fewer postoperative days (PODs) to first flatus (3 vs. 4 days, P=0.025), more PODs to removal of the drainage and nasogastric tubes (12 vs. 9 days, P=0.001; 6 vs. 4 days, P=0.001, respectively), and more postoperative complications (21.3 vs. 9.2%, P=0.003). Comparison of these short‑term outcomes of robotic and 3D‑HD laparoscopic gastrectomy performed by LC (144 patients) revealed that only the number of retrieved lymph nodes (27 in the robotic group vs. 33 in the 3D‑HD group; P=0.038) and PODs to removal of the nasogastric tube (5 days in the robotic group vs. 3 days in the 3D‑HD group; P<0.001) were significantly different. The OT stabilized after around 21 robotic gastrectomy procedures and 19 3D‑HD laparoscopic gastrectomy procedures. The cost‑effectiveness analysis revealed that robotic gastrectomy had a significantly higher total cost than 3D‑HD laparoscopic gastrectomy (124,907 vs. 94,395 RMB, P<0.001). With comparable surgical outcomes, lower financial cost and higher surgeons' acceptance, 3D‑HD laparoscopic gastrectomy is highly recommended as a minimally invasive surgical method for patients with GC prior to the popularization of robotic surgery.