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

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.

An initial exploratory clinical study and outcome assessment of gastrointestinal surgeries using advanced robotic-assisted techniques

BACKGROUND

In addition to the Da Vinci surgical robot, domestic surgical robots are being developed rapidly. Chinese Toumai® laparoscopic surgical robot was approved for urological surgery in 2022.This study aims to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Toumai® robotic surgical system in performing complex gastrointestinal surgeries.

METHODS

This prospective, single-center, single-arm exploratory study was conducted at Gansu Provincial Hospital between June 2022 and October 2023, enrolling 12 patients undergoing gastrectomy and 9 patients undergoing colorectal resection. The primary endpoints are oncological outcomes and surgical success rates, while secondary endpoints encompassed intraoperative blood loss, operative duration, complication rates, system performance metrics, length of hospital stay, and postoperative pain levels.

RESULTS

All patients successfully underwent robotic-assisted surgery with adequate oncological resection and favorable postoperative outcomes. There were no conversions to open or laparoscopic surgery, resulting in a 100% procedural success rate. The median docking time for radical gastrectomy was 17.50 (14.25, 21.50) minutes, with a median master-slave control time of 121.50 (105.50, 172.00) minutes, median intraoperative blood loss of 100.00 (50.00, 275.00) mL, and a median postoperative hospital stay of 9.00 (7.25, 10.75) days. For radical colorectal surgery, the median docking time was 22 (17.50, 30.50) minutes, the median master-slave control time was 68 (56.50, 119.00) minutes, with a median blood loss of 50 (50.00, 150.00) mL, and a median postoperative hospital stay of 7 (7.00, 10.00) days. No intraoperative organ injury, mortality, system failure, or severe postoperative complications were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

These preliminary findings provide compelling evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of the Toumai® laparoscopic surgical robotic system in performing gastric and colorectal surgeries.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy among malnourished patients with gastric cancer based on textbook outcome

BACKGROUND

Textbook outcome (TO) has been widely employed as a comprehensive indicator to assess the short-term prognosis of patients with cancer. Preoperative malnutrition is a potential risk factor for adverse surgical outcomes in patients with gastric cancer (GC). This study aimed to compare the TO between robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) and laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) in malnourished patients with GC.

METHODS

According to the diagnostic consensus of malnutrition proposed by Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) and Nutrition Risk Index (NRI), 895 malnourished patients with GC who underwent RAG (n = 115) or LAG (n = 780) at a tertiary referral hospital between January 2016 and May 2021 were included in the propensity score matching (PSM, 1:2) analysis.

RESULTS

After PSM, no significant differences in clinicopathological characteristics were observed between the RAG (n = 97) and LAG (n = 194) groups. The RAG group had significantly higher operative time and lymph nodes harvested, as well as significantly lower blood loss and hospital stay time compared to the LAG group. More patients in the RAG achieved TO. Logistic regression analysis revealed that RAG was an independent protective factor for achieving TO. There were more adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) cycles in the RAG group than in the LAG group. After one year of surgery, a higher percentage of patients (36.7% vs. 22.8%; P < 0.05) in the RAG group recovered from malnutrition compared to the LAG group.

CONCLUSIONS

For malnourished patients with GC, RAG performed by experienced surgeons can achieved a higher rate of TO than those of LAG, which directly contributed to better AC compliance and a faster restoration of nutritional status.

Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this multicentre cohort study was to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

Patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy by robotic or laparoscopic approaches from 1 March 2010 to 31 December 2018 at 10 high-volume centres in China were selected from institutional databases. Patients receiving RG were matched 1 : 1 by propensity score with patients undergoing LG. The primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes were overall survival and disease recurrence.

RESULTS

Some 2055 patients who underwent RG and 4309 patients who had LG were included. The propensity score-matched cohort comprised 2026 RGs and 2026 LGs. Median follow-up was 41 (i.q.r. 39-58) months for the RG group and 39 (38-56) months for the LG group. The 3-year disease-free survival rates were 80.8% in the RG group and 79.5% in the LG group (log rank P = 0.240; HR 0.92, 95% c.i. 0.80 to 1.06; P = 0.242). Three-year OS rates were 83.9 and 81.8% respectively (log rank P = 0.068; HR 0.87, 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.068) and the cumulative incidence of recurrence over 3 years was 19.3% versus 20.8% (HR 0.95, 0.88 to 1.03; P = 0.219), with no difference between groups.

CONCLUSION

RG and LG in patients with gastric cancer are associated with comparable disease-free and overall survival.

Trends of Oncological Quality of Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer in the United States

Background

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been increasingly used for treatment of gastric cancer in the United States. However, it is unknown if there has been a nationwide improvement of short-term safety outcomes and oncological quality metrics over time.

Methods

We used the National Cancer Database to identify patients who underwent major gastrectomy from 2010 through 2018. The short-term safety outcomes and oncological metrics were compared between cases of open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), and RG. We also compared the indications and outcomes of RG between the three periods (2010 - 2012, 2013 - 2015, and 2016 - 2018).

Results

Of the 22,445 patients included, 1,867 (8%) underwent RG. Number of RG continued to increase from only 37 cases performed in 2010 to 412 cases performed in 2018. The number of lymph nodes (LNs) examined (OG, 16; LG, 17; and RG, 19) and the R0 rate (OG, 88%; LG, 92%; and RG 94%) were better for RG than for OG or LG (P < 0.001). In the RG group, the number of LNs examined (first period, 15; third period, 18; P < 0.001), R0 rate (first period, 88.6%; third period, 91.1%; P < 0.001), length of hospital stay (first period, 9 days; third period, 8 days; P < 0.001), 30-day readmission rate (first period, 10.1%; third period, 7.9%; P < 0.001), and 90-day mortality (first period, 7.3%; third period, 6.0%; P = 0.003) continued to improve cohort over time. The ratio of the robotic cases performed in academic institutions gradually increased (first period, 48.6%; third period, 54.3%; P < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, RG was associated with more than 15 LNs being examined (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.34 - 1.65; P < 0.001). The indications for RG appeared expanding to include more advanced stage, high comorbidity, and patients who underwent preoperative therapy.

Conclusions

RG has been increasingly performed in the past decade. Although its indication was expanded to include more advanced tumors, we found that the oncological quality metrics and safety outcomes of RG have improved over time and were better than those of OG or LG.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a propensity score matched analysis from a bi-centric experience

The advantages of using the robotic platform may not be clearly evident in left colectomies, where the surgeon operates in an "open field" and does not routinely require intraoperative suturing. Current evidences are based on limited cohorts reporting conflicting outcomes regarding robotic left colectomies (RLC). The aim of this study is to report a bi-centric experience with robotic left colectomy in order to help in defining the role of the robotic approach for these procedures. This is a bi-centric propensity score matched study including patients who underwent RLC or laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) between January 1, 2012 and May 1, 2022. RLC patients were matched to LLC patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were conversion to open surgery and 30-day morbidity. In total, 300 patients were included. Of 143 (47.7%) RLC patients, 119 could be matched. After matching, conversion rate (4.2 vs. 7.6%, p = 0.265), 30-day morbidity (16.1 vs. 13.7%, p = 0.736), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications (2.4 vs 3.2%, p = 0.572), transfusions (0.8 vs. 4.0%, p = 0.219), and 30-day mortality (0.8 vs 0.8%, p = 1.000) were comparable for RLC and LLC, respectively. Median operative time was longer for RLC (296 min 260-340 vs. 245, 195-296, p < 0.0001). Early oral feeding, time to first flatus, and hospital stay were similar between groups. RLC has safety parameters as well as conversion to open surgery comparable with standard laparoscopy. Operative time is longer with the robotic approach.

Safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) has been used in the minimally invasive surgical treatment of gastric cancer, but the research on advanced gastric cancer (AGC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has not been reported. This study aimed to analyze the outcomes of RADG versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) after NAC for AGC.

METHODS

This was a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis from February 2020 and March 2022. Patients who underwent RADG or LDG for AGC (cT3-4a/N +) following NAC were enrolled and a propensity score-matched analysis was performed in a 1:1 manner. The patients were divided into RADG group and LDG group. The clinicopathological characteristics and short-term outcomes were observed.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 67 patients each in the RADG and LDG groups. RADG was associated with a lower intraoperative blood loss (35.6 vs. 118.8 ml, P = 0.014) and more retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) (50.7 vs. 39.5, P < 0.001), more extraperigastric (18.3 vs. 10.4, P < 0.001), and suprapancreatic LNs (16.33 vs. 13.70, P = 0.042). The RADG group showed lower VAS scores at postoperative 24 h (2.2 vs 3.3, P = 0.034), earlier ambulation (1.3 vs. 2.6, P = 0.011), aerofluxus time (2.2 vs. 3.6, P = 0.025), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (8.3 vs. 9.8, P = 0.004). There were no significant differences in the operative time (216.7 vs.194.7 min, P = 0.204) and postoperative complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RADG may be a potential therapeutic option for patients with AGC after NAC considering its advantages in perioperative period compared with LDG.

Safety and feasibility of robotic surgery for old rectal cancer patients

Robotic surgery is widely utilized for rectal cancer. Older patients are associated with comorbidity and diminished cardiopulmonary reserve, resulting in uncertainty and reluctance to perform robotic surgery in older patients. The aim of the study was to assess the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery in older rectal cancer patients. We collected the data of patients diagnosed with rectal cancer and operated at our hospital from May 2015 to January 2021. All patients undergoing robotic surgery were classified into two groups: the old group (≥ 70 years) and young group (< 70 years). Perioperative outcomes were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Risk factors related to postoperative complications were also explored. A total of old N = 114 and young N = 324 rectal patients were enrolled in our study. Older patients were prone to exhibit comorbidity than the young and had lower body mass index and higher scores of American Society of Anesthesiologists than the young. No statistical difference was found in operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph nodes retrieved, tumor size, pathological TNM stage, hospital stay after surgery and total hospital cost between the two groups. The incidence of postoperative complications did not show difference between the two groups. On multivariate analyses, male sex and longer operative time could predict postoperative complications, whereas old age was not an independent factor for postoperative complications. After careful preoperative evaluation, robotic surgery is a technically feasible and safe procedure for older rectal cancer patients.

Implementation of a patient blood management in an Italian City Hospital: is it effective in reducing the use of red blood cells?

To evaluate the effect of patient blood management (PBM) since its introduction, we analyzed the need for transfusion and the outcomes in patients undergoing abdominal surgery for different types of tumor pre- and post-PBM. Patients undergoing elective gastric, liver, pancreatic, and colorectal surgery between 2017 and 2020 were included. The implementation of the PBM program was completed on May 1, 2018. The patients were grouped as follows: those who underwent surgery before the implementation of the program (pre-PBM) versus after the implementation (post-PBM). A total of 1302 patients were included in the analysis (445 pre-PBM vs. 857 post-PBM). The number of transfused patients per year decreased significantly after the introduction of PBM. A strong tendency for a decreased incidence of transfusion was evident in gastric and pancreatic surgery and a similar decrease was statistically significant in liver surgery. With regard to gastric surgery, a single-unit transfusion scheme was used more frequently in the post-PBM group (7.7% vs. 55% after PBM; p = 0.049); this was similar in liver surgery (17.6% vs. 58.3% after PBM; p = 0.04). Within the subgroup of patients undergoing liver surgery, a significant reduction in the use of blood transfusion (20.5% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.002) and a decrease in the Hb trigger for transfusion (8.5, 8.2-9.5 vs. 8.2, 7.7-8.4 g/dl; p = 0.039) was reported after the PBM introduction. After the implementation of a PBM protocol, a significant reduction in the number of patients receiving blood transfusion was demonstrated, with a strong tendency to minimize the use of blood products for most types of oncologic surgery.

Robotic Gastrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Cohort Study of 5402 Patients in China

OBJECTIVE

A large-scale multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

RG is being increasingly used worldwide, but data from large-scale multicenter studies on the short- and long-term oncologic outcomes of RG versus LG are limited. The potential benefits of RG compared with LG for gastric cancer remain controversial.

METHODS

Data from eligible patients who underwent RG or LG for gastric cancer of 11 experienced surgeons from 7 centers in China between March 2010 and October 2019 were collected. The RG group was matched 1:1 with the LG group by using propensity score matching. The primary outcome was postoperative complications.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, a well-balanced cohort of 3552 patients was included for further analysis. The occurrence of overall complications (12.6% vs 15.2%, P = 0.023) was lower in the RG group than in the LG group. RG was associated with less blood loss (126.8 vs 142.5 mL, P < 0.001) and more retrieved lymph nodes in total (32.5 vs 30.7, P < 0.001) and in suprapancreatic areas (13.3 vs 11.6, P < 0.001).The long-term oncological outcomes were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this multicenter study demonstrate that RG is a safe and effective treatment for gastric cancer when performed by experienced surgeons, although longer operation time and higher costs are still concerns about RG. This study provides evidence suggesting that RG may represent an alternative surgical treatment to LG.

Robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to review the latest evidence on the robotic approach (RHR) for inguinal hernia repair comparing the pooled outcome of this technique with those of the standard laparoscopic procedure (LHR). A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus for studies published between 2010 and 2021 concerning the comparison between RHR versus LHR. After screening 582 articles, 9 articles with a total of 64,426 patients (7589 RHRs) were eligible for inclusion. Among preoperative variables, a pooled higher ratio of ASA > 2 patients was found in the robotic group (12.4 vs 8.6%, p < 0.001). Unilateral hernia repair was more common in the laparoscopic group (79.9 vs 68.1, p < 0.001). Overall, operative time was longer in the robotic group (160 vs 90 min, p < 0.001); this was confirmed also in the sub-analysis on unilateral procedures (88 vs 68 min, p = 0.040). The operative time for robotic bilateral repair was similar to the laparoscopic one (111 vs 100, p = 0.797). Conversion to open surgery was 0% in the robotic group. The pooled rate of chronic pain and postoperative complications was similar between the groups. The standardized mean difference MD of the costs between LHR versus RHR was - 3270$ (95% CI - 4757 to - 1782, p < 0.001). In conclusion, laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair have similar safety parameters and postoperative outcomes. Robotic approach may require longer operative time if the unilateral repair is performed. Costs are higher in the robotic group.

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

Background

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

Materials and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Clinical efficacy and safety of robotic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) is a new technique that is rapidly gaining popularity and may help overcome the limitations of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG); however, its safety and therapeutic efficacy remain controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RDG.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies that compared RDG and LDG and were published between the time of database inception and May 2021. We assessed the bias risk of the observational studies using ROBIN-I, and a random effect model was always applied.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 22 studies involving 5386 patients. Compared with LDG, RDG was associated with longer operating time (Mean Difference [MD] = 43.88, 95% CI = 35.17-52.60), less intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 24.84, 95% CI = - 41.26 to - 8.43), a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD = 2.41, 95% CI = 0.77-4.05), shorter time to first flatus (MD = - 0.09, 95% CI = - 0.15 to - 0.03), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = - 0.68, 95% CI = - 1.27 to - 0.08), and lower incidence of pancreatic fistula (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.07-0.79). Mean proximal and distal resection margin distances, time to start liquid and soft diets, and other complications were not significantly different between RDG and LDG groups. However, in the propensity-score-matched meta-analysis, the differences in time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups lost significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, RDG appears feasible and safe, shows better surgical and oncological outcomes than LDG and, comparable postoperative recovery and postoperative complication outcomes.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

The effect of learning curve on perioperative outcomes of robotic gastrectomy in two western high-volume centers

INTRODUCTION

To compare outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) performed during the learning curve (P1) with those after its completion (P2).

METHODS

In this retrospective study, all consecutive RG patients (n = 92) performed between 2008 and 2018 were included. Primary outcome was conversion rate.

RESULTS

D2 lymphadenectomies were more common in P2 (41, 97.6%) than P1 (41, 82.0%) (p = 0.019). Conversions were 11 (22%) in P1 versus 2 (4.8%) in P2 (p = 0.006). Postoperative morbidity was comparable between the groups. Median hospital stay was significantly shorter in P2. The only factor significantly associated with conversion was P2 (odds ratio = 0.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.85; p = 0.039). The 5-year overall survival in P1 was 79.6% versus 79.7% in P2 (p = 0.373).

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve affected operative and postoperative outcomes: during the learning curve, conversion to open surgery was significantly more frequent, the number of D2 was higher and patients were discharged earlier.