Robot-assisted surgery for gastric carcinoma: Five years follow-up and beyond: A single western center experience and long-term oncological outcomes

Open vs robotic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis on 1469 patients from the IMIGASTRIC prospective database

BACKGROUND

Comparative data on D2-robotic gastrectomy (RG) vs D2-open gastrectomy (OG) are lacking in the Literature. Aim of this paper is to compare RG to OG with a focus on D2-lymphadenectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Data of patients undergoing D2-OG or RG for gastric cancer were retrieved from the international IMIGASTRIC prospective database and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 1469 patients were selected for inclusion in the study. After 1:1 propensity score matching, a total of 580 patients were matched and included in the final analysis, 290 in each group, RG vs OG. RG had longer operation time (210 vs 330 min, p < 0.0001), reduced intraoperative blood loss (155 vs 119.7 ml, p < 0.0001), time to liquid diet (4.4 vs 3 days, p < 0.0001) and to peristalsis (2.4 vs 2 days, p < 0.0001), and length of postoperative stay (11 vs 8 days, p < 0.0001). Morbidity rate was higher in OG (24.1% vs 16.2%, p = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

RG significantly expedites recovery and reduces the risk of complications compared to OG. However, long-term survival is similar.

Three-year outcomes of robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for the treatment of clinical stage I/II gastric cancer: a multi-institutional retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

Oncological benefits of robotic gastrectomy (RG) remain unclear. We aimed to determine and compare the 3-year outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for the treatment of gastric cancer.

METHODS

This was a multi-institutional retrospective study of patients who prospectively underwent RG in a previous study (UMIN000015388) and historical controls who underwent LG. Operable patients with cStage I/II primary gastric cancer were enrolled. The inverse probability of treatment weighting method based on propensity scores was used to balance patient demographic factors and surgeon volume between the RG and LG groups. The primary outcome measure was the 3-year overall survival rate (3yOS).

RESULTS

Of the 1,127 patients in the previous study, 326 and 752 patients in the RG and LG groups, respectively, completed the study. The standardized difference of all confounding factors was reduced to 0.09 or less after weighting. In the weighted population, 3yOS was 96.3% and 89.6% in the RG and LG groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.34 [0.15, 0.76]; p = 0.009), whereas there was no difference in 3-year recurrence-free survival rate (3yRFS) between the two groups (HR 0.58 [0.32, 1.05]; p = 0.073). Sub-analyses showed that RG improved 3yOS (HR 0.05 [0.01, 0.38]; p = 0.004) and 3yRFS (HR 0.05 [0.01, 0.34]; p = 0.003) in patients with pStage IA disease. Recurrence rates and patterns were similar between the RG and LG groups. RG did not improve the morbidity rate, however, it attenuated some of the adverse events, including anastomotic leakage and intra-abdominal abscess. RG improved estimated blood loss and duration of postoperative hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

This study showed surgical and oncological safety of RG for cStage I/II gastric cancer considering the 3-year outcomes, compared with those of LG.

Current standards of surgical management of gastric cancer: an appraisal

PURPOSE

Gastric cancer (GC) is the fifth most common malignancy worldwide and portends a grim prognosis due to a lack of appreciable improvement in 5-year survival. We aimed to analyze the available literature and summarize the current standards of surgical care for curative and palliative intent treatment of GC.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on the PubMed database for studies on the management of GC.

RESULTS

Endoscopic resection is an acceptable treatment option for T1a tumors. The role of optimal resection margin for GC remains unclear. D2 lymph node dissection remains the standard of care with splenectomy needed selectively for splenic hilum involvement. A distal pancreatic resection should be avoided. The advantage of bursectomy and omentectomy in GC surgery is not clear. Multi-visceral resection may be considered for locally advanced GC in carefully selected patients. Minimally invasive approaches are non-inferior to open surgery. Surgery should be abandoned prior even in metastatic GC within the frame of multimodal therapy approach.

CONCLUSION

Various trials have conclusively shown improved patient outcomes when well-established surgical standards are followed.

The Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gastric Cancer

Objective: This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in gastric cancer and to compare MIS versus open gastrectomy (OG) in terms of early mortality and morbidity, long-term oncological outcomes, and recurrence rates.

Methods: A total of 75 patients who underwent MIS or OG for gastric cancer at Koç University School of Medicine between December 2014 and December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Postoperative complications and disease-specific survival were compared between surgical approaches.

Results: Of the patients, 44 were treated with MIS and 31 with OG. In the MIS group, 33 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery, and 11 patients underwent robotic gastrectomy. Duration of operation was significantly longer in the MIS group than in the OG group (p<0.0001). The median amount of blood loss was 142.5 (range, 110 to 180) mL in the MIS group and 180.4 (range, 145 to 230) mL in the OG group (p<0.706). The median number of lymph node dissection was 38.9 (range, 15 to 66) and 38.7 (range, 12 to 70) in the MIS and OG groups, respectively (p<0.736). The median length of hospitalization, twelve days in the OG group and nine days in the MIS group. Median follow-up was 19.1 (range, 2 to 61) months in the MIS group and 22.1 (range, 2 to 58) months in the OG group. The median OS and DFS rates were 56.8 months and 39.6 months in the MIS group, respectively (log-rank; p=0.004) and 31.6 months and 23.1 months in the OG group, respectively (log-rank; p=0.003).

Conclusion: Our study results suggest that, despite its technical challenges, MIS is an effective and safe method in treating gastric cancer with favorable early mortality and morbidity rates and long-term oncological outcomes, and acceptable recurrence rates.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Short- and long-term comparison of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer by the same surgical team: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Research on short-term outcomes and oncology results after robotic gastrectomy (RG) is still limited, especially from a single surgical team. The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

METHODS

Between October 2014 and September 2019, 1686 consecutive patients who underwent MIS gastrectomy were enrolled. The patients were divided into RG and LG groups according to surgical type. Groups were matched at a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores based on the following variables: age, sex, ASA score, primary tumor location, histologic type, pathological stage, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The primary outcomes were 3-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). The secondary outcomes were postoperative short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups after matching. Compared to the LG group, the RG group had a significantly higher retrieved lymph node (LN) number (32.15 vs 30.82, P = 0.040), more retrieved supra-pancreatic LNs (12.45 vs 11.61, P = 0.028), lower estimated blood loss (73.67 vs 98.08 ml, P < 0.001), but longer operation time (205.18 vs 185.27 min, P < 0.001) and higher hospitalization costs ($13,607 vs $10,928, P < 0.001) in the matched cohort. In the subgroup analysis, we observed that compared with LG, patients with advanced gastric cancer benefitted more from RG surgery. The matched cohort analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences for 3-year OS or RFS (log-rank, P = 0.648 and P = 0.951, respectively): 80.3% and 77.0% in LG vs. 81.2% and 76.6% in RG, respectively.

CONCLUSION

RG has certain technical advantages over LG, especially in patients with advanced gastric cancer. However, RG does not improve long-term oncology outcomes.

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

Aim:

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

Materials and Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

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.

Current perspectives on the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted surgery for gastric cancer

INTRODUCTION

Robotic gastrectomy is performed worldwide as part of the treatment for gastric cancer and is associated with good clinical outcome. This review aims to describe the current issues, debates, and future directions associated with the use of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

AREA COVERED

Here, we review the current evidence surrounding the safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy, including our institutional experience. Current issues associated with robotic gastrectomy, including feasibility, perioperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes, are described.

EXPERT OPINION

Sophisticated movements, articulating instruments, and the rapid introduction of fast-developing novel technology make robotic gastrectomy use more frequent. However, the need for well-designed prospective randomized trials is warranted.

Robotic surgery for gastric cancer in the west: A systematic review and meta-analyses of short-and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

This review aims to merge all the western studies dealing with robotic gastrectomies (RG) to provide pooled results and higher levels of evidence supporting the use of robotic gastrectomy for the treatment of gastric cancer also at western latitudes.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for studies published between 2010 and 2020 concerning RG in western centers. Case series and comparative studies (robotic versus open and robotic versus laparoscopic) were included.

RESULTS

After screening 1732 articles, 10 articles with a total of 988 patients undergoing RG in western centers were eligible for inclusion. Included studies showed a relatively low risk of bias. The pooled conversion rate was 3.9% (95% CI 1.2-7.9). The pooled overall complications rate was 15% (7.1-25.3) with a mortality rate of 2.5% (1.1-4.7). The pooled 5-year overall survival rate was 60.4% (46.0-74.1). The pooled analyses of the comparative studies (robotic versus open) included 132 robotic and 305 open gastrectomies and showed comparable safety parameters. The robotic group had a pooled 5-year overall survival of 55.2% (33.7-75.8) versus 50.8% (36.4-65.2) of the open group (RR 1.10, 0.78-1.55; p = 0.248 - I2 51.8, 0.0-86.1; p = 0.125). The meta analyses of the results from the studies comparing the robotic (n = 679) and the laparoscopic (n = 1355) approach (LG) showed similar morbidity (RG 19.9%, 10.2-32.0 versus LG 15.6%, 8.7-24.0; p = 0.706) and mortality rates (RG 5.5%, 3.9-7.3 versus LG 4.3%, 3.3-5.4; p = 0.272). RG had longer operative time (RG 327 min, 297-358 versus LG 248, 222-275; p = 0.001) and lower blood loss (RG 99 ml, 96-103 versus LG 133, 104-161; p < 0.001) than laparoscopic gastrectomy.

CONCLUSION

Based on the available data from western centers, robotic gastrectomy is comparable with the open and the laparoscopic approaches with regards to short term outcomes. Survival data of RG were similar to open gastrectomies, but studies on long-term outcomes are required to confirm these results.

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

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

Impact of Neoadjuvant Therapy on Minimally Invasive Surgical Outcomes in Advanced Gastric Cancer: An International Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

No international consensus on the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) exists. In the absence of well-designed, comparative studies between neoadjuvant versus adjuvant strategies, concerns about increased risk of postoperative complications remain barriers to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for AGC. We evaluated surgical outcomes of AGC patients who received minimally invasive radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy after NAC.

METHODS

We collected data from two high-volume gastric cancer programs in the United States and China between January 2015 and December 2019 with the last follow-up in February 2020. AGC patients undergoing minimally invasive radical surgery were included. After propensity score-matching, surgical outcomes were analyzed. Risk-factor of complications was analyzed in the whole cohort.

RESULTS

After 1:1 propensity score-matching, 97 patients were included in each cohort. NAC + surgery cohort was younger (58.2 ± 10.3 vs. 61.3 ± 9.6, P = 0.036) with lower preoperative WBC count (5.7 ± 2.8 vs. 6.9 ± 2.1 × 10⁹/ml) than the surgery upfront cohort. NAC was not a risk-factor for postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.859; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-1.60; P = 0.633). Overall risk-factors of postoperative complications included age ≥ 60 years (OR, 21.338; 95% CI, 5.00-91.05; P < 0.001), tumor size ≥ 5 cm (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.83; P < 0.001), operation time ≥ 240 min (OR, 5.53; 95% CI, 1.26-24.26; P = 0.012), and ASA classification ≥ II (OR, 13.14; 95% CI, 4.12-24.73; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

NAC before minimally invasive radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy does not increase postoperative complications, and these findings support broader application of NAC and MIS for AGC. Additional studies are required to determine the effect of NAC on long-term survival.

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.

Short-term outcomes of robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted Total Gastrectomy for advanced gastric Cancer: a propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have been designed to evaluate the short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) and laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The purpose of this study was to assess the short-term outcomes of RATG compared with LATG for AGC.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 126 and 257 patients who underwent RATG or LATG, respectively. In addition, we performed propensity score matching (PSM) analysis between RATG and LATG for clinicopathological characteristics to reduce bias and compared short-term surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

After PSM, the RATG group had a longer mean operation time (291.14 ± 59.18 vs. 270.34 ± 52.22 min, p = 0.003), less intraoperative bleeding (154.37 ± 89.68 vs. 183.77 ± 95.39 ml, p = 0.004) and more N2 tier RLNs (9.07 ± 5.34 vs. 7.56 ± 4.50, p = 0.016) than the LATG group. Additionally, the total RLNs of the RATG group were almost significantly different compared to that of the LATG group (34.90 ± 13.05 vs. 31.91 ± 12.46, p = 0.065). Moreover, no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of the length of incision, proximal resection margin, distal resection margin, residual disease and postoperative hospital stay. There was no significant difference in the overall complication rate between the RATG and LATG groups after PSM (23.8% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.390). Grade II complications accounted for most of the complications in the two cohorts after PSM. The conversion rates were 4.55 and 8.54% in the RATG and LATG groups, respectively, with no significant difference (p = 0.145), and the ratio of splenectomy were 1.59 and 0.39% (p = 0.253). The mortality rates were 0.8 and 0.4% for the RATG and LATG groups, respectively (p = 1.000).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that RATG is comparable to LATG in terms of short-term surgical outcomes.

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.

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.

miR-1915-3p inhibits Bcl-2 expression in the development of gastric cancer

Many gene expressions changed during the development of gastric cancer, and non-coding RNAs including microRNAs (miRNAs) have been found to regulate cancer progression by participating in the process of tumor cell growth, migration, invasion and apoptosis. Our previous study has identified 29 miRNAs that are highly expressed in gastric cancer stem cells. One of these miRNAs, miR-1915-3p, has shown great potential as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for the cancers in liver, colon and thyroid, as well as in immune and kidney diseases. Herein, we found that miR-1915-3p exhibited low expression level in differentiated gastric cancer cell lines and gastric cancer tissues. It was found that the miR-1915-3p inhibited the growth of gastric cancer cells and thus promoted cell apoptosis. We discovered that the expressions of miR-1915-3p were significantly correlated to the lymph node metastasis and overall survival of patients with gastric cancer. Further study showed that there was a negative correlation between miR-1915-3p and Bcl-2 (B cell lymphoma/leukemia-2) expression, suggesting that Bcl-2 was a target gene of miR-1915-3p. Hence, miR-1915-3p possibly contributes to the development and progression of gastric cancer by inhibiting the anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-2. The finding provides a potential therapeutic strategy for gastric cancer.

Multimodal multiphoton imaging for label-free monitoring of early gastric cancer

Background

Early gastric cancer is associated with a much better prognosis than advanced disease, and strategies to improve prognosis is strictly dependent on earlier detection and accurate diagnosis. Therefore, a label-free, non-invasive imaging technique that allows the precise identification of morphologic changes in early gastric cancer would be of considerable clinical interest.

Methods

In this study, multiphoton microscopy (MPM) using two-photon excited fluorescence combined with second-harmonic generation was used for the identification of early gastric cancer.

Results

This microscope was able to directly reveal improved cellular detail and stromal changes during the development of early gastric cancer. Furthermore, two features were quantified from MPM images to assess the cell change in size and stromal collagen change as gastric lesion developed from normal to early cancer.

Conclusions

These results clearly show that multiphoton microscopy can be used to examine early gastric cancer at the cellular level without the need for exogenous contrast agents. This study would be helpful for early diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer, and may provide the groundwork for further exploration into the application of multiphoton microscopy in clinical practice.

Pancreatic Complications After Conventional Laparoscopic Radical Gastrectomy Versus Robotic Radical Gastrectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent reports have suggested that the use of the robot might reduce the rate of pancreatic complications following minimally invasive radical gastrectomy.

METHODS

By meta-analyzing the available literature, we aimed to elucidate possible differences between conventional laparoscopic and robotic radical gastrectomy on pancreatic morbidity.

RESULTS

More than 2000 patients from eight studies were eventually included in the analysis. The overall incidence of postoperative pancreatic complications was 2.2%, being 1.7% and 2.5% following robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), respectively. In particular, pancreatic fistula occurred in 2.7% of patients receiving robotic gastrectomy (RG) and 3.8% of patients receiving laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the robot showed a trend toward better outcomes compared with laparoscopy, despite the presence of more advanced disease and higher body mass index. The meta-analysis resulted in an odd ratio of 0.8 favoring RG over LG on pancreatic morbidity, although without statistical significance.

Outcome of Discharge Within 72 Hours of Robotic Gastrectomy Using Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Programs

AIMS

To evaluate the safety and outcome of discharge within 72 hours of a robotic gastrectomy together with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 108 consecutive patients received elective robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer from April 2017 to September 2017. All patients attended ERAS programs, which do not routinely use nasogastric tubes but include early feeding, early ambulation, and standard discharge criteria, among other items.

RESULTS

The mean age was 58.7 ± 10.4 years old, and the mean body mass index was 22.9 ± 2.8 kg/m². The mean postoperative length of hospital stay was 5.6 ± 8.0 days, and 13 patients (12.0%) exhibited a complication within 30 days with no mortality. A total of 38 patients (35.2%) were discharged within 72 hours of surgery. Patients were grouped based on being discharged within or after 72 hours. The rate of complications was significantly lower in patients discharged within 72 hours than patients discharged after 72 hours (1/38, 2.6% versus 12/70, 17.1%, P = .028). Although patients discharged within 72 hours showed lower readmission numbers, this difference was not statistically significant (1/38, 2.6% versus 8/70, 11.4%, P = .116). One month after surgery, loss of weight, loss of total protein, loss of albumin, and loss of prealbumin in patients discharged within 72 hours were less than those of patients discharged after 72 hours.

CONCLUSION

Complication and readmission rates are low in patients discharged within 72 hours of robotic gastrectomy when ERAS programs and standard discharge criteria are used.

Curative effect of Da Vinci robot assisted radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer

AIM

To assess the value of Da Vinci robot in radical gastrec-tomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

The information of patients who underwent Da Vinci robot assisted radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer at the Department of General Surgery, Lanzhou General Hospital of the Chinese People's Liberation Army from December 2016 to April 2017 was collected. The information of patients who received laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer was also obtained. The information on surgical treatment, postoperative recovery, hospital expenses, and prognosis was statistically analyzed between the two groups.

RESULTS

Compared with the laparoscopic group, the Da Vinci group had less bleeding during operation (P < 0.05), more complete lymph node dissection (P < 0.05), and safer incision margin (P < 0.05), but the operative time was increased (P < 0.05). In the postoperative recovery of patients of the two groups, the time to first food intake, the time to the recovery of the digestive tract, and the incidence of complications were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05), but surgical cost was significantly increased (P < 0.05). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in patients who received Da Vinci robot assisted radical gastrectomy than in the laparoscopy group (P < 0.05), but this difference was not found in patients who underwent distal radical gastrectomy (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in long-term survival between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Da Vinci robot assisted radical gastrectomy has certain advantages over laparoscopic radical gastrectomy in the treatment of gastric cancer, but it is still necessary for practitioners to improve their skills and be cautious.

Scinderin-knockdown inhibits proliferation and promotes apoptosis in human breast carcinoma cells

Previous studies have reported that scinderin (SCIN) affects multiple cellular processes, including proliferation, migration and differentiation in cancer. However, the specific role of SCIN in breast cancer (BC) cells is unknown. Immunohistochemistry was used to investigate SCIN expression in 46 BC and 21 mammary fibroadenoma or fibroadenomatoid hyperplasia tissue samples. SCIN expression was ablated in MDA-MB-231 and T-47D cells using lentivirus-mediated small interfering RNA technology. Cell proliferation was tested using Celigo and 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assays. Cell apoptosis was analyzed by measuring Caspase 3/7 activity and annexin-V staining. The results of the present study demonstrated that SCIN expression was elevated in BC tissues compared with mammary fibroadenoma or fibroadenomatoid hyperplasia tissues. Specifically, higher SCIN expression was observed in Ki-67-positive BC tissues (78.6%) compared with Ki-67-negative BC tissues. Furthermore, knockdown of SCIN expression in the BC cell lines significantly suppressed cell proliferation and induced apoptosis. The data presented in the present study indicate that SCIN serves an important role in the development of breast cancer.

Robotic oesophago-gastric cancer surgery

A postoperative complications rate of nearly 50% has compelled oesophago-gastric practice to adopt minimally invasive techniques such as robotic surgery

Long-term results of hand-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy for advanced Siewert type II and type III esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) combines laparoscopic surgery with the tactile feedback of a hand-assist device for complex laparoscopic operations. This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients who underwent HALS versus open surgery for the treatment of advanced Siewert type II and type III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 77 patients with advanced Siewert type II and IIIAEG between March 2010 and March 2011. Data concerning the basic characteristics of patients, pathological staging, early postoperative course, and long-term follow-up were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

HALS resulted in significantly lower mean blood loss and mean postoperative hospital stay in comparison to open surgery (P = 0.007 and 0.01, respectively). The mean number of resected lymph nodes was 23.22 ± 9.36 in the HALS group, which was more than in the open surgery group (18.61 ± 6.91, P = 0.015). The cumulative 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 52.8% (95% CI 43.07-60.09) for all patients in the HALS group (78.6% for stage II patients and 36.4% for stage III patients). The 5-year OS rate was not significantly different between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

While achieving similar oncological outcomes to open surgery, the HALS approach resulted in reduced blood loss, shortened postoperative hospital stay, and the resection of more lymph nodes. This analysis suggests that HALS may serve as a less invasive and as successful alternative to open surgery for the treatment of advanced Siewert type II and type IIIAEG.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Initial experiences with robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer have demonstrated favorable short-term outcomes, suggesting that RG is an effective alternative to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). However, data on long-term survival and recurrence after RG for gastric cancer have yet to be reported. The objective of this study was to assess long-term outcomes after RG compared with LG.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 313 and 524 patients who underwent RG or LG, respectively, for gastric cancer between July 2005 and December 2009. We compared long-term outcomes using the entire and a propensity-score matched cohort.

RESULTS

The entire cohort analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in 5-year overall survival(OS) or relapse-free survival(RFS) (p = 0.4112 and p = 0.8733, respectively): 93.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 89.9-95.6] and 90.7% (95% CI, 86.9-93.5) after RG and 91.6% (95% CI 88.9-93.7) and 90.5% (95% CI 87.6-92.7) after LG, respectively; hazard ratios for death and recurrence in the robotic group were 0.828 (95% CI, 0.528-1.299; p = 0.4119) and 0.968 (95% CI, 0.649-1.445; p = 0.8741), respectively. The propensity-matched cohort analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences for 5-year OS or RFS (p = 0.5207 and p = 0.2293, respectively): 93.2% and 90.7% after RG and 94.2% and 92.6% after LG, respectively; hazard ratios for death and recurrence in the robotic group were 1.194 (95% CI, 0.695-2.062; p = 0.5214) and 1.343 (95% CI, 0.830-2.192; p = 0.2321), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The potential technical superiority of robotic system over laparoscopy did not improve oncological outcomes after gastrectomy. Long-term oncological outcomes were not different between RG and LG. Nevertheless, robotic applications in minimally invasive gastric cancer surgery may be an oncologically safe alternative.

Robotic surgery for the upper gastrointestinal tract: Current status and future perspectives

More than 4000 da Vinci Surgical Systems have been installed worldwide. Robotic surgery using the da Vinci Surgical System has been increasingly performed in the last decade, especially in urology and gynecology. The da Vinci Surgical System has not become standard in surgery of the upper gastrointestinal tract because of a lack of clear benefits in comparison with conventional minimally invasive surgery. We initiated robotic gastrectomy and esophagectomy for patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer in 2009, and we have demonstrated the potential advantages of the da Vinci Surgical System in reducing postoperative local complications after gastrectomy and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy after esophagectomy. However, robotic surgery has the disadvantages of a longer operative time and higher costs than the conventional approach. In this review article, we present the current status of robotic surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, as well as future perspectives on this approach, based on our experience and a review of the literature.

Long-term oncological outcomes in robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been a new technical alternative for gastric cancer. However, the long-term oncological outcomes of RG still should be further evaluated. In this meta-analysis, the long-term oncological outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) are compared.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches from various databases are compared in February 2017 to identify that the oncological outcomes of RG and LG are evaluated in gastric cancer patients. The pooled oncological outcomes of the overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and the recurrence rate were performed by adopting the meta-analysis to calculate the hazard ratio (HR) or the odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Five studies that concern retrospective design and prospective data collection and involve 1614 patients were included. All the five studies evaluated OS. Two studies evaluated DFS, while four studies reported the recurrence rate or recurrence cases in RG and LG groups with the long-term follow-up. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in OS and DFS between RG and LG, without significant between-study heterogeneity. Besides, the recurrence rate between RG and LG had no significant difference without heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

RG could provide comparable long-term oncological outcomes as well as LG for the treatment of gastric cancer. OS, DFS, and the recurrence rate by the long-time follow-up of RG were comparable with LG. Generally speaking, more randomized clinical trials and a larger patient cohort with longer follow-up are still essential to further demonstrate the value of the robotic surgery for gastric cancer.

Robotic versus laparoscopic Gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Background

Advanced minimally invasive techniques including robotic surgery are being employed with increasing frequency around the world, primarily in order to improve the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy (RG).

Methods

Studies, which compared surgical outcomes between LG and RG, were retrieved from medical databases before May 2017. Outcomes of interest were estimated as weighted mean difference (WMD) or risk ratio (RR) using the random-effects model. The software Review Manage version 5.1 was used for all calculations.

Results

Nineteen comparative studies with 5953 patients were included in this analysis. Compared with LG, RG was associated with longer operation time (WMD = −49.05 min; 95% CI: -58.18 ~ −39.91, P < 0.01), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = 24.38 ml; 95% CI: 12.32 ~ 36.43, P < 0.01), earlier time to oral intake (WMD = 0.23 days; 95% CI: 0.13 ~ 0.34, P < 0.01), and a higher expense (WMD = −3944.8 USD; 95% CI: -4943.5 ~ −2946.2, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding time to flatus, hospitalization, morbidity, mortality, harvested lymph nodes, and cancer recurrence.

Conclusions

RG can be performed as safely as LG. However, it will take more effort to decrease operation time and expense.

New totally intracorporeal reconstructive approach after robotic total gastrectomy: Technical details and short-term outcomes

AIM

To show outcomes of our series of patients that underwent a total gastrectomy with a robotic approach and highlight the technical details of a proposed solution for the reconstruction phase.

METHODS

Data of gastrectomies performed from May 2014 to October 2016, were extracted and analyzed. Basic characteristics of patients, surgical and clinical outcomes were reported. The technique for reconstruction (Parisi Technique) consists on a loop of bowel shifted up antecolic to directly perform the esophago-enteric anastomosis followed by a second loop, measured up to 40 cm starting from the esojejunostomy, fixed to the biliary limb to create an enteroenteric anastomosis. The continuity between the two anastomoses is interrupted just firing a linear stapler, so obtaining the Roux-en-Y by avoiding to interrupt the mesentery.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients were considered in the present analysis. Estimated blood loss was 126.55 ± 73 mL, no conversions to open surgery occurred, R0 resections were obtained in all cases. Hospital stay was 5 (3-17) d, no anastomotic leakage occurred. Overall, a fast functional recovery was shown with a median of 3 (3-6) d in starting a solid diet.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery and the adoption of a tailored reconstruction technique have increased the feasibility and safety of a minimally invasive approach for total gastrectomy. The present series of patients shows its implementation in a western center with satisfying short-term outcomes.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the potential effectiveness of robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) in comparison to open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was carried out to identify studies comparing RAG and OG in gastric cancer. Participants of any age and sex were considered for inclusion in comparative studies of the two techniques independently from type of gastrectomy. A meta-analysis of short-term perioperative outcomes was performed to evaluate whether RAG is equivalent to OG. The primary outcome measures were set for estimated blood loss, operative time, conversion rate, morbidity, and hospital stay. Secondary among postoperative complications, wound infection, bleeding and anastomotic leakage were also analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 6 articles, 5 retrospective and 1 randomized controlled study, involving 6123 patients overall, with 689 (11.3%) cases submitted to RAG and 5434 (88.7%) to OG, satisfied the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. RAG was associated with longer operation time than OG (weighted mean difference 72.20 min; P < 0.001), but with reduction in blood loss and shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference -166.83 mL and -1.97 d respectively; P < 0.001). No differences were found with respect to overall postoperative complications (P = 0.65), wound infection (P = 0.35), bleeding (P = 0.65), and anastomotic leakage (P = 0.06). The postoperative mortality rates were similar between the two groups. With respect to oncological outcomes, no statistical differences among the number of harvested lymph nodes were found (weighted mean difference -1.12; P = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

RAG seems to be a technically valid alternative to OG for performing radical gastrectomy in gastric cancer resulting in safe complications.

Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

The number of robotic gastrectomy (RG) performed per year has been increasing, particularly in East Asia where the incidence of gastric cancer is high and approximately half of the cases are diagnosed as early gastric cancer. With articulated devices of RG, surgeons are able to perform every procedure more meticulously, which can result in less bleeding and damage to organs. There are many single arm and comparative studies, and these study showed similar trends, which included relatively less estimated blood loss and longer operation time following RG than laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), equivalent number of harvested lymph nodes and similar length of postoperative hospital stay between RG and LG. Considering the results of these retrospective comparative studies, RG seems to be as feasible as LG in terms of early surgical outcomes. However, medical expense of RG is approximately twice as much as that of LG. Lack of solid evidence in terms of long-term outcomes is another problem. Considering the higher medical expenses associated with RG, its superiority in terms of long-term survival outcomes needs to be confirmed in the future for it to be accepted more widely.

Status and Prospects of Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Our Experience and a Review of the Literature

Since the first report of robotic gastrectomy, experienced laparoscopic surgeons have used surgical robots to treat gastric cancer and resolve problems associated with laparoscopic gastrectomy. However, compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy, the superiority of robotic procedures has not been clearly proven. There are several advantages to using robotic surgery for gastric cancer, such as reduced estimated blood loss during the operation, a shorter learning curve, and a larger number of examined lymph nodes than conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy. The increased operation time observed with a robotic system is decreasing because surgeons have accumulated experience using this procedure. While there is limited evidence, long-term oncologic outcomes appear to be similar between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy. Robotic procedures have a significantly greater financial cost than laparoscopic gastrectomy, which is a major drawback. Recent clinical studies tried to demonstrate that the benefits of robotic surgery outweighed the cost, but the overall results were disappointing. Ongoing studies are investigating the benefits of robotic gastrectomy in more complicated and challenging cases. Well-designed randomized control trials with large sample sizes are needed to investigate the benefits of robotic gastrectomy compared with laparoscopic surgery.

Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer in USA: current status and future perspectives

The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared gastric carcinoma a global health concern and gastric cancer remains the third leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide. With the rising incidence of gastric cancer, a body of both retrospective and randomized data has emerged since the early 1990's evaluating the role of minimally invasive platforms in the management of gastric cancer. While Eastern studies have shown that the laparoscopic approach is safe and feasible for advanced gastric cancer in Eastern patients, it is not clear whether this is true for patients in the West. Differences in tumor biology, stage at presentation, institutional volume, and surgeon experience all may impact the efficacy and widespread utilization of minimally invasive approaches in regions where gastric cancer is less prevalent. The majority of studies have pointed to a number of improvements associated with minimally invasive approaches including decreased blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, lower analgesic requirements, decreased minor complications, and faster recovery without any significant difference in overall or disease specific survival (DSS). The benefits associated with minimally invasive approaches and evidence supporting similar oncologic outcomes compared to the traditional open approach will hopefully expand the indications for minimally invasive surgery in the management of gastric cancer. In the United States, results following initial experiences with minimally invasive techniques, including robotic platforms, have revealed promising results. Well-established laparoscopic and robotic techniques are emerging, particularly from high volume United States institutions, which will hopefully pave the way for increased utilization of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer in the West.

Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: the American experience

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgical techniques are increasingly being implemented in oncologic care. This study assesses the impact of minimally invasive surgery on oncologic and perioperative outcomes in the management of gastric cancer in the USA.

METHODS

From the American College of Surgeons and American Cancer Society National Cancer Data Base, we identified 6427 patients who underwent gastrectomy for cancer from 2010 to 2012. Treatment groups were categorized with an intention-to-treat paradigm as robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to estimate the impact of the surgical approach on oncologic and perioperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Of patients undergoing definitive surgical intervention, 3.5 % (n = 223) underwent robotic gastrectomy, 23.1 % (n = 1487) underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy, and 73.4 % (n = 4717) underwent open surgery. Minimally invasive gastrectomy was more frequently performed on white (P = 0.018), privately insured patients (P = 0.049) treated at academic centers (P < 0.0001) in the eastern USA (P < 0.0001). After demographics, comorbidities, and tumor-related factors had been controlled for, patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy had the postoperative length of stay decreased by 1.08 days (P < 0.0001) and greater odds of having at least 15 lymph nodes resected (odds ratio 1.16, P = 0.023). Use of robotic surgery did not have a statistically significant effect on the postoperative length of stay relative to open surgery (P = 0.222) but the patients so treated had greater odds of having at least 15 lymph nodes resected (odds ratio 1.51, P = 0.005). There were no differences in R0 resection rates or perioperative mortality on the basis of the surgical approach alone.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that use of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer in the USA is impacting the adequacy of oncologic resection but is not yet having a clinically significant impact on perioperative outcomes relative to a conventional open approach.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Phase III evidence in the shape of a series of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses has shown that laparoscopic gastrectomy is safe and gives better short-term results with respect to the traditional open technique for early-stage gastric cancer. In fact, in the East laparoscopic gastrectomy has become routine for early-stage gastric cancer. In contrast, the treatment of advanced gastric cancer through a minimally invasive way is still a debated issue, mostly due to worries about its oncological efficacy and the difficulty of carrying out an extended lymphadenectomy and intestinal reconstruction after total gastrectomy laparoscopically. Over the last ten years the introduction of robotic surgery has implied overcoming some intrinsic drawbacks found to be present in the conventional laparoscopic procedure. Robot-assisted gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy has been shown to be safe and feasible for the treatment of gastric cancer patients. But unfortunately, most available studies investigating the robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared to laparoscopic and open technique are so far retrospective and there have not been phase III trials. In the present review we looked at scientific evidence available today regarding the new high-tech surgical robotic approach, and we attempted to bring to light the real advantages of robot-assisted gastrectomy compared to the traditional laparoscopic and open technique for the treatment of gastric cancer.

Changing Trends in Gastric Cancer Surgery

Gastric cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer-related death. It requires multimodal treatment and surgery is the most effective treatment modality. Radical surgery includes total or subtotal gastrectomy with lymph node dissection. The extent of lymphadenectomy still remains controversial. Eastern surgeons have performed D2 or more extended lymphadenectomy while their Western colleagues have performed more limited lymph node dissection. However, the trend has been changing in favour of D2 lymph node dissection in both hemispheres. Currently, D2 is the recommended type of lymphadenectomy in experienced centres in the west. In Japan, D2 lymph node dissection is the standard surgical approach. More extensive lymphadenectomy than D2 has not been found to be associated with improved survival and generally is not performed. Bursectomy and splenectomy are additional controversial issues in surgical performance, and trends regarding them will be discussed. The performance of bursectomy is controversial and there is no clear evidence of its clinical benefit. However, a trend toward better survival in patients with serosal invasion has been reported. Routine splenectomy as a part of lymph node dissection has largely been abandoned, although splenectomy is recommended in selected cases. Minimally invasive surgery has gained wide popularity and indications for minimally invasive procedures have been expanding due to increasing experience and improving technology. Neoadjuvant therapy has been shown to have beneficial effects and seems necessary to provide a survival benefit. Diagnostic laparoscopy should be kept in mind prior to treatment.

Robot-assisted gastrectomy for cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer is commonly considered a challenging procedure. The technical drawbacks of laparoscopy have been addressed by robotic technology, which can facilitate demanding reconstructions and fine dissection. These features confer potential advantages in the execution of lymphadenectomy.

OBJECTIVES

Here, we illustrate our technique of robotic gastrectomy and discuss advantages and drawbacks by reviewing the current literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We describe our technique for robot-assisted distal and total gastrectomy for cancer and assess the current literature dealing with short-term outcomes, immediate oncologic measures, and long-term oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted gastrectomy, in comparison with conventional laparoscopic and open surgery.

RESULTS

The robotic procedure seems to be as safe and effective as conventional gastrectomy for gastric cancer, with a longer operative time and decreased blood loss in comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy.

CONCLUSION

The technical advantages offered by robotics could help to standardize minimally invasive D2 lymphadenectomy and enable surgeons to perform this procedure routinely. Despite the scarcity of long-term data on survival, immediate oncological measures (lymph node yield and margin status) are encouraging. Further studies investigating the long-term oncological outcomes are required.

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

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer (GC) has been increasingly performed over the last decade. The technical feasibility and safety of RG for GC, predominantly early GC, have previously been reported; however, few studies have evaluated the oncological outcomes. This study aimed to determine the long-term outcomes of RG for GC compared with those of conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

METHODS

Of the 521 consecutive patients with GC who underwent radical gastrectomy at our institution between 2009 and 2012, 84 consecutive patients who underwent RG and 437 patients who received LG were enrolled in this study. Long-term outcomes including the 3-year overall survival (3yOS) and 3-year recurrence-free survival rates (3yRFS) were examined retrospectively.

RESULTS

In the RG group, the 3yOS rates stratified by pathological stage according to the Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma (IA, IB, II, and III) were 94.7, 90.9, 89.5, and 62.5 %, respectively. No differences in 3yOS (RG, 86.9 % vs. LG, 88.8 %; p = 0.636) or 3yRFS (RG, 86.9 % vs. LG, 86.3 %; p = 0.905) were observed between the groups. 3yOS was strongly associated with cancer recurrence within 3 years (p < 0.001), while 3yRFS was associated with tumor size ≥ 30 mm (p < 0.001), clinical stage ≥ IB (p < 0.001), estimated blood loss ≥ 50 mL (p = 0.033), and postoperative pancreatic fistula CD grade ≥ III) (p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

RG for GC was feasible and safe from the oncological point of view in a cohort including a considerable number of patients with advanced GC.

Robotic surgery for upper gastrointestinal cancer: Current status and future perspectives

Robotic surgery with the da Vinci Surgical System has been increasingly applied in a wide range of surgical specialties, especially in urology and gynecology. However, in the field of upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract, the da Vinci Surgical System has yet to be standard as a result of a lack of clear benefits in comparison with conventional minimally invasive surgery. We have been carrying out robotic gastrectomy and esophagectomy for operable patients with resectable upper GI malignancies since 2009, and have demonstrated the potential advantages of the use of the robot in possibly reducing postoperative local complications including pancreatic fistula following gastrectomy and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy after esophagectomy, even though there have been a couple of problems to be solved including longer duration of operation and higher cost. The present review provides updates on robotic surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer based on our experience and review of the literature.

[Robot-assisted gastrectomy for cancer. German version]

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer is commonly considered a challenging procedure. The technical drawbacks of laparoscopy have been addressed by robotic technology, which can facilitate demanding reconstructions and fine dissection. These features confer potential advantages in the execution of lymphadenectomy.

OBJECTIVES

Here, we illustrate our technique of robotic gastrectomy and discuss advantages and drawbacks by reviewing the current literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We describe our technique for robot-assisted distal and total gastrectomy for cancer and assess the current literature dealing with short-term outcomes, immediate oncologic measures, and long-term oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted gastrectomy, in comparison with conventional laparoscopic and open surgery.

RESULTS

The robotic procedure seems to be as safe and effective as conventional gastrectomy for gastric cancer, with a longer operative time and decreased blood loss in comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy.

CONCLUSION

The technical advantages offered by robotics could help to standardize minimally invasive D2 lymphadenectomy and enable surgeons to perform this procedure routinely. Despite the scarcity of long-termdata on survival, immediate oncological measures (lymph node yield and margin status) are encouraging. Further studies investigating the long-term oncological outcomes are required.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Current considerations

Radical gastrectomy with an adequate lymphadenectomy is the main procedure which makes it possible to cure patients with resectable gastric cancer (GC). A number of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis provide phase III evidence that laparoscopic gastrectomy is technically safe and that it yields better short-term outcomes than conventional open gastrectomy for early-stage GC. While laparoscopic gastrectomy has become standard therapy for early-stage GC, especially in Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea, the use of minimally invasive techniques is still controversial for the treatment of more advanced tumours, principally due to existing concerns about its oncological adequacy and capacity to carry out an adequately extended lymphadenectomy. Some intrinsic drawbacks of the conventional laparoscopic technique have prevented the worldwide spread of laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer and, despite technological advances in recent year, it remains a technically challenging procedure. The introduction of robotic surgery over the last ten years has implied a notable mutation of certain minimally invasive procedures, making it possible to overcome some limitations of the traditional laparoscopic technique. Robot-assisted gastric resection with D2 lymph node dissection has been shown to be safe and feasible in prospective and retrospective studies. However, to date there are no high quality comparative studies investigating the advantages of a robotic approach to GC over traditional laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. On the basis of the literature review here presented, robot-assisted surgery seems to fulfill oncologic criteria for D2 dissection and has a comparable oncologic outcome to traditional laparoscopic and open procedure. Robot-assisted gastrectomy was associated with the trend toward a shorter hospital stay with a comparable morbidity of conventional laparoscopic and open gastrectomy, but randomized clinical trials and longer follow-ups are needed to evaluate the possible influence of robot gastrectomy on GC patient survival.

Minimally invasive surgery for upper gastrointestinal cancer: Our experience and review of the literature

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, characterized by minimal access, has been increasingly performed worldwide. It not only results in better cosmetic outcomes, but also reduces intraoperative blood loss and postoperative pain, leading to faster recovery; however, endoscopically enhanced anatomy and improved hemostasis via positive intracorporeal pressure generated by CO2 insufflation have not contributed to reduction in early postoperative complications or improvement in long-term outcomes. Since 1995, we have been actively using MIS for operable patients with resectable upper GI cancer and have developed stable and robust methodology in conducting totally laparoscopic gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer and prone thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer using novel technology including da Vinci Surgical System (DVSS). We have recently demonstrated that use of DVSS might reduce postoperative local complications including pancreatic fistula after gastrectomy and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy after esophagectomy. In this article, we present the current status and future perspectives on MIS for gastric and esophageal cancer based on our experience and a review of the literature.

Robotic gastrectomy and esophagogastrectomy: A single center experience of 105 cases

BACKGROUND

A robotic approach to general surgery procedures may provide improved postoperative outcomes compared to either open or laparoscopic approaches. The role of robotics for gastroesophageal surgery, however, is still being evaluated.

STUDY DESIGN

A review of the prospective database for robotic surgery at Valley Hospital between January 2002 and March 2014 identified 105 patients who underwent robotic gastric and esophageal resection. Patient demographics and perioperative factors were studied.

RESULTS

Over a 12 years period, 105 patients underwent robotic gastroesophageal resection. The median operative time for distal gastrectomy (230 min [112-327]) was significantly less compared to either total gastrectomy (302 min [214-364]) or esophagogastrectomy (309 min [190-682]). The length of stay for patients undergoing distal gastrectomy (6 days [4-32]) was also significantly less than patients undergoing total gastrectomy (11 days [7-43]), as well as esophagogastrectomy (9 days [5-64]). In regard to the learning curve to perform robotic gastroesophageal surgery, there was a significant correlation between operative time and overall experience.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that robotic gastroesophageal surgery is feasible and can be safely performed. Assuming familiarity with the open procedures and acquisition of basic robotic skills, the learning curve for robotic gastroesophageal surgery requires approximately 20 cases.