Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of short outcomes

The Evolving Surgical Landscape: A Comprehensive Review of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer

Robotic gastrectomy has been gaining ground in the past 20 years. This study aims to (a) provide an updated and all-encompassing comprehensive review including post-operative outcomes, rate of complications, surgical efficiency and costs, pathology, overall survival, mortality and recurrence, and disease-free survival of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy, (b) report research gaps, and (c) identify ongoing or forthcoming clinical trials that could potentially shed light on underreported findings within the existing literature. Regarding the methodology, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses published between January 2012 and October 2023. ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for related clinical trials currently underway or recruiting. Robotic gastrectomy, when compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy, for the treatment of gastric cancer, performs equally well or shows superiority in terms of the length of hospitalization, overall complications rates, rate of conversion to open surgery, surgical complications, anastomotic leakage, pancreatic complications, blood loss, mortality rates, time to first flatus, time to oral intake, distal and proximal resection margins, recurrence rate, reoperation rates, and overall survival. However, it is associated with higher costs and longer operative time. Parameters such as duodenal stump leakage, anastomosis stenosis, intestinal obstruction, ileus, delayed gastric emptying, wound complications, acute pancreatitis, pancreatic fistula, direct costs, time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy, postoperative morbidity, recurrence, and disease-free survival are currently underreported in the literature and necessitate for further research. Lastly, four clinical trials are currently underway or recruiting that could possibly bridge the research gap.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in patients with obesity: systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

The number of overweight patients with gastric cancer (GC) is increasing, and no previous study has compared laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and robotic gastrectomy (RG) in obese patients with GC. To investigate the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of RG and LG in obese GC patients, we performed a meta-analysis of propensity matched scores and retrospective studies to compare the perioperative parameters, oncologic findings, and short-term postoperative outcomes between the two groups.

Methods

This study was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. A search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register to identify eligible propensity matched scores and retrospective studies conducted and published before December 2022. Data on perioperative and oncological outcomes were included in the meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, we identified 1 propensity score match study and 5 randomized control trials of RG and LG, enrolling a total of 718 patients (197 and 521 patients received RG and LG, respectively). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of complications, bleeding, or lymph node dissection. Of note, RG had a longer procedure time (P = 0.03), earlier oral intake (P = 0.0010), shorter hospital stay (P = 0.0002), and shorter time to defecation (P < 0.00001).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis concluded that patients in the RG group had shorter hospital stays, earlier postoperative feeding, and earlier postoperative ventilation; however, no differences were found in blood loss, number of lymph nodes removed, or overall complications. RG is an effective, safe, and promising treatment for obese patients with GC, compensating for the shortcomings of laparoscopy and allowing for less trauma and faster recovery.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022298967.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

An umbrella review was performed to summarize literature data and to investigate benefits and harm of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared to laparoscopic (LG) approach. To overcome the intrinsic limitations of laparoscopy, the robotic approach is claimed to facilitate lymph-node dissection and complex reconstruction after gastrectomy, to assure oncologic safety also in advanced gastric cancer. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases for all meta-analyses published up to December 2019. The search strategy was previously published in a protocol. We selected fourteen meta-analyses comparing outcomes between LG and RG with curative intent in patients with diagnosis of resectable gastric cancer. We highlight that RG has a longer operation time, inferior blood loss, reduction in hospital stay and a more rapid recovery of bowel function. In meta-analyses with statistical significance the number of nodes removed in RG is higher than LG and the distal margin of resection is higher. There is no difference in terms of total complication rate, mortality, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis, intestinal obstruction and in conversion rate to open technique. The safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy are not clearly supported by strong evidence, suggesting that the outcomes reported for each surgical technique need to be interpreted with caution, in particular for the meta-analyses in which the heterogeneity is large. Certainly, robotic gastrectomy is associated with shorter time to oral intake, lesser intraoperative bleeding and longer operation time with an acceptable level of evidence. On the other hand, the data regarding other outcomes are insufficient as well as non-significant, from an evidence point of view, to draw any robust conclusion.

Instrument flight to the inner ear

Surgical robot systems can work beyond the limits of human perception, dexterity and scale making them inherently suitable for use in microsurgical procedures. However, despite extensive research, image-guided robotics applications for microsurgery have seen limited introduction into clinical care to date. Among others, challenges are geometric scale and haptic resolution at which the surgeon cannot sufficiently control a device outside the range of human faculties. Mechanisms are required to ascertain redundant control on process variables that ensure safety of the device, much like instrument-flight in avionics. Cochlear implantation surgery is a microsurgical procedure, in which specific tasks are at sub-millimetric scale and exceed reliable visuo-tactile feedback. Cochlear implantation is subject to intra- and inter-operative variations, leading to potentially inconsistent clinical and audiological outcomes for patients. The concept of robotic cochlear implantation aims to increase consistency of surgical outcomes such as preservation of residual hearing and reduce invasiveness of the procedure. We report successful image-guided, robotic CI in human. The robotic treatment model encompasses: computer-assisted surgery planning, precision stereotactic image-guidance, in-situ assessment of tissue properties and multipolar neuromonitoring (NM), all based on in vitro, in vivo and pilot data. The model is expandable to integrate additional robotic functionalities such as cochlear access and electrode insertion. Our results demonstrate the feasibility and possibilities of using robotic technology for microsurgery on the lateral skull base. It has the potential for benefit in other microsurgical domains for which there is no task-oriented, robotic technology available at present.

An intra-operative video comparison of laparoscopic versus robotic transabdominal lateral adrenalectomy

BACKGROUND

The aim was to compare intraoperative conduct of adrenalectomy between laparoscopic and robotic approaches.

METHODS

Intraoperative video-recordings of patients who underwent robotic (n = 30) and laparoscopic adrenalectomy (n = 30) were analysed using Mann-Whitney U, chi-square and multivariate regression analyses.

RESULTS

Demographics, indications and outcomes were similar between groups. For all tumour sizes, camera was more engaged to surgical task and exhibited less vision problems in robotic versus laparoscopic group. There was less instrument exchange and restriction of exposure with robotic approach. For dissection, robotic approach allowed for a wider range of instrument reach around adrenal. Robotically, there was an increased ability to do fine dissection, rather than en bloc division with rigid laparoscopic vessel sealers. Bleeding problems were less robotically.

CONCLUSION

Despite similarities in post-operative morbidity and hospital stay, there was a superiority in quality of procedure performed with robotic versus laparoscopic adrenalectomy for both small and large adrenal tumours.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: an overview of systematic reviews with quality assessment of current evidence

Many systematic reviews have been published to evaluate the clinical benefits of robotic surgery for gastric cancer. However, these reviews have investigated various outcomes and differ considerably in quality. In this overview, we summarize the findings and quality of these reviews. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses that compared robotic surgery with laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer. We summarized the results of the meta-analyses and evaluated the quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR-2 tool. The literature search identified 14 eligible reviews. The reviews showed that estimated blood loss was significantly less and time to resumption of oral intake was significantly shorter in patients who underwent robotic surgery than in those who underwent laparoscopic surgery. However, no significant differences in other outcomes were found between the two types of surgery. The quality of the included reviews was judged to be critically low. In conclusion, the available evidence, albeit of critically low quality, suggests that robotic surgery decreases estimated blood loss and shortens the time to resumption of oral intake in patients with gastric cancer. There is currently no high-quality evidence that robotic surgery has clinical benefits for gastric cancer patients.

Oncological Robot-Assisted Gastrectomy: Technical Aspects and Ongoing Data

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

Short-term efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy via Huang's three-step maneuver for advanced upper gastric cancer: Results from a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been considered to be significantly better than laparoscopic surgery for complicated procedures.

AIM

To explore the short-term effect of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy (SPSHL) for advanced gastric cancer (GC) by Huang’s three-step maneuver.

METHODS

A total of 643 patients who underwent SPSHL were recruited from April 2012 to July 2017, including 35 patients who underwent robotic SPSHL (RSPSHL) and 608 who underwent laparoscopic SPSHL (LSPSHL). One-to-four propensity score matching was used to analyze the differences in clinical data between patients who underwent robotic SPSHL and those who underwent laparoscopic SPSHL.

RESULTS

In all, 175 patients were matched, including 35 patients who underwent RSPSHL and 140 who underwent LSPSHL. After matching, there were no significant differences detected in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. Significant differences in total operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), splenic hilar blood loss (SHBL), splenic hilar dissection time (SHDT), and splenic trunk dissection time were evident between these groups (P < 0.05). Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in the overall noncompliance rate of lymph node (LN) dissection (62.9% vs 60%, P = 0.757), number of retrieved No. 10 LNs (3.1 ± 1.4 vs 3.3 ± 2.5, P = 0.650), total number of examined LNs (37.8 ± 13.1 vs 40.6 ± 13.6, P = 0.274), and postoperative complications (14.3% vs 17.9%, P = 0.616). A stratified analysis that divided the patients receiving RSPSHL into an early group (EG) and a late group (LG) revealed that the LG experienced obvious improvements in SHDT and length of stay compared with the EG (P < 0.05). Logistic regression showed that robotic surgery was a significantly protective factor against both SHBL and SHDT (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

RSPSHL is safe and feasible, especially after overcoming the early learning curve, as this procedure results in a radical curative effect equivalent to that of LSPSHL.

Robotic vs laparoscopic rectal tumour surgery: a cohort study

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare robotic and laparoscopic rectal surgery in terms of perioperative data, short-term outcome and compliance to the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol.

METHOD

In this cohort study, 224 patients scheduled for rectal resection for cancer or adenoma between January 2011 and January 2017 were evaluated. In the first time period (12 January 2011 to 23 April 2014), 47 (46%) of 102 patients had laparoscopic surgery. In the second time period (24 April 2014 to 30 January 2017), 72 (59%) of 122 patients had robotic surgery. Perioperative data and short-term outcome were collected from the ERAS database and patient charts. Data obtained from laparoscopic and robotic surgery in the two time periods studied were compared. Primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS) and secondary outcomes were compliance to the ERAS protocol, difference in postoperative complications and conversion to open surgery.

RESULTS

Compliance to the ERAS protocol was 81.1% in the robotic group and 83.4% in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.890). Robotic surgery was associated with shorter median LOS (3 days vs 7 days, P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (11.1% vs 34.0%, P = 0.002), lower rate of postoperative complications (25% vs 49%, P < 0.01) and longer duration of surgery (5.8 h vs 4.5 h, P < 0.001). The differences remained after multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery was associated with shorter LOS, lower conversion rates and fewer postoperative complications compared with laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery may add benefits to the ERAS protocol.

Minimally invasive and open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to find the better treatment for gastric cancer by comparing robotic gastrectomy, laparoscopic gastrectomy, and open gastrectomy using Bayesian network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We will search PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for eligible studies published before 1 September 2018. There will be no language restrictions. Randomized clinical trials that compare robotic gastrectomy, laparoscopic gastrectomy, or open gastrectomy for patients with gastric cancer will be included. The risk of bias of included studies will be assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trial. The outcomes of the study include operation time, estimated blood loss, time of ambulation, times to first flatus, time of oral intake, hospitalization, and the occurrence of complication. If sufficient data is collected and adequate clinical homogeneity is established among studies, we will conduct pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses for all related outcome measures.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study does not involve human subjects and does not need ethical approval and patient consent. The results of the network meta-analysis will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is a new surgical method alternative for gastric cancer. However, few studies have evaluated the outcomes of RG for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the short-and long-term outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) with D2 lymph node dissection for AGC.

Patients and methods

We retrospectively evaluated 454 patients with AGC who underwent RG or LG with D2 lymph node dissection for AGC between August 2013 and March 2017. The short-and long-term outcomes were compared between the propensity score-matched groups.

Results

The RG group was associated with longer operation time, less intraoperative blood loss, and higher hospital cost. Additionally, there was a tendency favoring RG in terms of number of harvested lymph nodes, time to first flatus, time to first start diet, and postoperative hospital stay, although the differences were not statistically significant. The overall postoperative complication rate was 13.4% and 11.6% in the RG and LG groups, respectively, with no significant difference (P=0.686). The 3-year overall survival and recurrence rates of the RG and LG groups were also comparable (78.6% vs 74.1%, P=0.483; 18.8% vs 21.4%, P=0.617; respectively).

Conclusion

RG with D2 lymph node dissection is safe and feasible for AGC in terms of both short- and long-term outcomes. High-volume randomized controlled trials with sufficient follow-up are needed to confirm this rationale.

Lower Gastrointestinal Surgery: Robotic Surgery versus Laparoscopic Procedures

Introduction

For a long time, the comprehensive application of minimally invasive techniques in lower gastrointestinal (GI) surgery was substantially impaired by inherent anatomical and technical complexities. Recently, several new techniques such as robotic operating platforms and transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) have revolutionized the minimally invasive approach. This review aims to depict the current state of the art and evaluates the advantages and drawbacks in regard to perioperative outcome and quality of oncological resection.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed using the search terms 'colorectal cancer', 'rectal cancer', 'minimally invasive surgery', 'laparoscopic surgery', and 'robotic' to identify relevant studies reporting on robotic surgery (RS) either alone or in comparison to laparoscopic surgery (LS). Publications on taTME were analyzed separately.

Results

69 studies reporting on RS with a total of 20,872 patients, and 17 articles on taTME including 881 patients, were identified.

Conclusion

Both RS and taTME can facilitate a minimally invasive approach for lower GI surgery in an increasing number of patients. Furthermore, combining both techniques might become an auspicious approach in selected patients; further prospective and randomized trials are needed to verify its benefits over conventional laTME.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Importance

This review provides a comprehensive comparison of treatment outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RLS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) based on randomly-controlled trials (RCTs).

Objectives

We employed RCTs to provide a systematic review that will enable the relevant community to weigh the effectiveness and efficacy of surgical robotics in controversial fields on surgical procedures both overall and on each individual surgical procedure.

Evidence review

A search was conducted for RCTs in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from 1981 to 2016. Among a total of 1,517 articles, 27 clinical reports with a mean sample size of 65 patients per report (32.7 patients who underwent RLS and 32.5 who underwent CLS), met the inclusion criteria.

Findings

CLS shows significant advantages in total operative time, net operative time, total complication rate, and operative cost (p < 0.05 in all cases), whereas the estimated blood loss was less in RLS (p < 0.05). As subgroup analyses, conversion rate on colectomy and length of hospital stay on hysterectomy statistically favors RLS (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Despite higher operative cost, RLS does not result in statistically better treatment outcomes, with the exception of lower estimated blood loss. Operative time and total complication rate are significantly more favorable with CLS.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Advances in Laparoscopic and Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Robot-assisted gastrectomy has been reported to be a safe alternative to both conventional laparoscopy and the open approach for treating early gastric carcinoma. Currently, there are a limited number of published reports on this technique in the literature. We assessed the current status of robotic and laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer and compared the operative outcomes, learning curves, and oncological outcome of the two approaches. Robotic gastrectomy offers benefits that include increased ease of performing D2 lymph node dissection and reduced blood loss compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy. However, the operative time is longer, and robotic gastrectomy is more costly for the patients. Regarding to the operative and oncological outcomes, there appears to be no significant differences between laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies after the surgeon overcomes the associated learning curves. Sharing the available knowledge regarding laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies could shorten these learning curves. For elder patients, minimally invasive surgery that decreases the postoperative recovery time should be considered the preferred treatment. Prospective randomized studies are required to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes among laparoscopic, robotic, and open surgeries for both early and advanced gastric cancer.

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.

[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.

Comparison Between Minimally Invasive and Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer in Europe: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

AIMS

We compared laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies with open gastrectomies and with each other that were held for gastric cancer in Europe.

METHODS

We searched for studies conducted in Europe and published up to 20 February 2015 in the PubMed database that compared laparoscopic or robotic with open gastrectomies for gastric cancer and with each other.

RESULTS

We found 18 original studies (laparoscopic vs open: 13; robotic vs open: 3; laparoscopic vs robotic: 2). Of these, 17 were non-randomized trials and only 1 was a randomized controlled trial. Only four studies had more than 50 patients in each arm. No significant differences were detected between minimally invasive and open approaches regarding the number of retrieved lymph nodes, anastomotic leakage, duodenal stump leakage, anastomotic stenosis, postoperative bleeding, reoperation rates, and intraoperative/postoperative mortality. Nevertheless, laparoscopic procedures provided higher overall morbidity rates when compared with open ones, but robotic approaches did not differ from open ones. On the contrary, blood loss was less and hospital stay was shorter in minimally invasive than in open approaches. However, the results were controversial concerning the duration of operations when comparing minimally invasive with open gastrectomies. Additionally, laparoscopic and robotic procedures provided equivalent results regarding resection margins, duodenal stump leakage, postoperative bleeding, intraoperative/postoperative mortality, and length of hospital stay. On the contrary, robotic operations had less blood loss, but lasted longer than laparoscopic ones. Finally, there were relatively low conversion rates in laparoscopic (0%-6.7%) and robotic gastrectomies (0%-5.6%) in most studies.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies may be considered alternative approaches to open gastrectomies for treating gastric cancer. Minimally invasive operations are characterized by less blood loss and shorter hospital stay than open ones. In addition, robotic procedures have less blood loss, but last longer than laparoscopic ones.

Ongoing surgical clinical trials on minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: Korea

Since Korean Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery Study (KLASS) group was activated in 2003, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have finished or are ongoing in Korea to evaluate oncologic safety and feasibility of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gastric cancer by KLASS group as well as other expert surgeons. MIS in gastric cancer is regarded as one of standard treatment modality for early gastric cancer (EGC) and the indication is going expansion with the accumulation of evidence. This review covers current status of ongoing clinical trials on MIS for gastric cancer in Korea.

Recent developments and innovations in gastric cancer

Gastric cancer has an important place in the worldwide incidence of cancer and cancer-related deaths. It can metastasize to the lymph nodes in the early stages, and lymph node metastasis is an important prognostic factor. Surgery is a very important part of gastric cancer treatment. A D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard surgical treatment for cT1N+ and T2-T4 cancers, which are potentially curable. Recently, the TNM classification system was reorganized, and the margins for gastrectomy and lymphadenectomy were revised. Endoscopic, laparoscopic and robotic treatments of gastric cancer have progressed rapidly with development of surgical instruments and techniques, especially in Eastern countries. Different endoscopic resection techniques have been identified, and these can be divided into two main categories: endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Minimally invasive surgery has been reported to be safe and effective for early gastric cancer, and it can be successfully applied to advanced gastric cancer with increasing experience. Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermıc intraperıtoneal chemotherapy were developed as a combined treatment modality from the results of experimental and clinical studies. Also, hyperthermia increases the antitumor activity and penetration of chemotherapeutics. Trastuzumab which is a monoclonal antibody interacts with human epidermal growth factor (HER) 2 and is related to gastric carcinoma. The anti-tumor mechanism of trastuzumab is not clearly known, but mechanisms such as interruption of the HER2-mediated cell signaling pathways and cell cycle progression have been reported previously. H. pylori is involved in 90% of all gastric malignancies and Japanese guidelines strongly recommend that all H. pylori infections should be eradicated regardless of the associated disease. In this review, we present innovations discussed in recent studies.

Multicenter Prospective Comparative Study of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To compare short-term surgical outcomes including financial cost of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND

Despite a lack of supporting evidence, robotic surgery has been increasingly adopted as a minimally invasive modality for the treatment of gastric cancer because of its assumed technical superiority over conventional laparoscopy.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter comparative study was conducted. Patients were matched according to the surgeon, extent of gastric resection, and sex. The primary endpoint was morbidity and mortality. Outcomes were analyzed on an intention-to-treat and per-protocol basis.

RESULTS

A total of 434 patients were enrolled for treatment with either robotic (n = 223) or laparoscopic (n = 211) gastrectomy for intention-to-treat analysis, and a total of 370 patients (n = 185 per treatment) were compared in per-protocol analysis. Results were similar between both analyses. In per-protocol analysis, both groups showed similar overall complication rates (robotic = 11.9% vs laparoscopic = 10.3%) and major complication rates (robotic = 1.1% vs laparoscopic = 1.1%) with no operative mortality in either group. Patients treated with robotic surgery showed significantly longer operative time (robotic = 221 minutes vs laparoscopic = 178 minutes; P < 0.001) and significantly higher total costs (robotic = US$13,432 vs laparoscopic = US$8090; P < 0.001), compared with those who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy. No significant differences between groups were noted in estimated blood loss, rates of open conversion, diet build-up, or length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of robotic systems is assumed to provide a technically superior operative environment for minimally invasive surgery. However, our analysis of perioperative surgical outcomes indicated that robotic gastrectomy is not superior to laparoscopic gastrectomy. Clinical trials identification: NCT01309256.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: Present and future directions

Laparoscopic surgery is applied today worldwide to most digestive procedures. In some of them, such as cholecystectomy, Nissen's fundoplication or obesity surgery, laparoscopy has become the standard in practice. In others, such as colon or gastric resection, the laparoscopic approach is frequently used and its usefulness is unquestionable. More complex procedures, such as esophageal, liver or pancreatic resections are, however, more infrequently performed, due to the high grade of skill necessary. As a result, there is less clinical evidence to support its implementation. In the recent years, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has been increasingly applied, again with little evidence for comparison with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This review will focus on the complex digestive procedures as well as those whose use in standard practice could be more controversial. Also novel robot-assisted procedures will be updated.

Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review

AIM: To review current applications of the laparoscopic surgery while highlighting the standard procedures across different fields.

METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken using the PubMed Advanced Search Builder. A total of 321 articles were found in this search. The following criteria had to be met for the publication to be selected: Review article, randomized controlled trials, or meta-analyses discussing the subject of laparoscopic surgery. In addition, publications were hand-searched in the Cochrane database and the high-impact journals. A total of 82 of the findings were included according to matching the inclusion criteria. Overall, 403 full-text articles were reviewed. Of these, 218 were excluded due to not matching the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS: A total of 185 relevant articles were identified matching the search criteria for an overview of the current literature on the laparoscopic surgery. Articles covered the period from the first laparoscopic application through its tremendous advancement over the last several years. Overall, the biggest advantage of the procedure has been minimizing trauma to the abdominal wall compared with open surgery. In the case of cholecystectomy, fundoplication, and adrenalectomy, the procedure has become the gold standard without being proven as a superior technique over the open surgery in randomized controlled trials. Faster recovery, reduced hospital stay, and a quicker return to normal activities are the most evident advantages of the laparoscopic surgery. Positive outcomes, efficiency, a lower rate of wound infections, and reduction in the perioperative morbidity of minimally invasive procedures have been shown in most indications.

CONCLUSION: Improvements in surgical training and developments in instruments, imaging, and surgical techniques have greatly increased safety and feasibility of the laparoscopic surgical procedures.

Robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery for gastric cancer compared on surgical, clinical and oncological outcomes: a multi-institutional chart review. A study protocol of the International study group on Minimally Invasive surgery for GASTRIc Cancer-IMIGASTRIC

INTRODUCTION

Gastric cancer represents a great challenge for healthcare providers and requires a multidisciplinary treatment approach in which surgery plays a major role. Minimally invasive surgery has been progressively developed, first with the advent of laparoscopy and recently with the spread of robotic surgery, but a number of issues are currently being debated, including the limitations in performing an effective extended lymph node dissection, the real advantages of robotic systems, the role of laparoscopy for Advanced Gastric Cancer, the reproducibility of a total intracorporeal technique and the oncological results achievable during long-term follow-up.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A multi-institutional international database will be established to evaluate the role of robotic, laparoscopic and open approaches in gastric cancer, comprising of information regarding surgical, clinical and oncological features. A chart review will be conducted to enter data of participants with gastric cancer, previously treated at the participating institutions. The database is the first of its kind, through an international electronic submission system and a HIPPA protected real time data repository from high volume gastric cancer centres.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is conducted in compliance with ethical principles originating from the Helsinki Declaration, within the guidelines of Good Clinical Practice and relevant laws/regulations. A multicentre study with a large number of patients will permit further investigation of the safety and efficacy as well as the long-term outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and open approaches for the management of gastric cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02325453; Pre-results.

Robotic surgery for gastric cancer

Laparoscopic gastrectomy is a widely used minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer. However, skillful techniques are required to perform lymph node dissection using straight shaped forceps, particularly for D2 dissection. Robotic surgery using the da Vinci surgical system is anticipated to be a powerful tool for performing difficult techniques using high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) images and the EndoWrist equipped with seven degrees of freedom. Attempts are being made to apply robotic surgery in gastrectomy procedures mainly in Japan, South Korea, and Europe. Although definite superiority to laparoscopic gastrectomy is yet to be proven, robotic surgery has been reported to have a shorter learning curve and offer more precise dissection for total gastrectomy. Hence, its oncological efficacy needs to be verified in a clinical trial.

Robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: current status and technical considerations

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted gastrectomy has been reported as a safe alternative to the conventional laparoscopy or open approach for treating early gastric carcinoma. To date, however, there are a limited number of published reports available in the literature.

METHODS

We assess the current status of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, focusing on the technical details and oncological considerations.

RESULTS

In gastric surgery, the biggest advantage of robotic surgery is the ease and reproducibility of D2-lymphadenectomy. Reports show that even the intracorporeal digestive restoration is facilitated by use of the robotic approach, particularly following total gastrectomy. Additionally, the accuracy of robotic dissection is confirmed by decreased blood loss, as reported in series comparing robot-assisted with laparoscopic gastrectomy. The learning curve and technical reproducibility also appear to be shorter with robotic surgery and, consequently, robotics can help to standardize and diffuse minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, even in the later stages. This is important because the application of minimally invasive surgery is limited by the complexity of performing a D2-lymphadenectomy. The potential to reproduce D2-lymphadenectomy, enlarged resections, and complex reconstructions provides robotic surgery with an important role in the therapeutic strategy of advanced gastric cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

While published reports have shown no significant differences in surgical morbidity, mortality, or oncological adequacy between robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy, more studies are needed to assess the indications and oncological effectiveness of robotic use in the treatment of gastric carcinoma. Herein, the authors assess the current status of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, focusing on the technical details and oncological considerations.

Minimally invasive gastrectomy for cancer: current utilization in US academic medical centers

BACKGROUND

Internationally, the utilization of minimally invasive techniques for gastric cancer resection has been increasing since first introduced in 1994. In the USA, the feasibility and safety of these techniques for cancer have not yet been demonstrated.

METHODS

The University HealthSystem Consortium database was queried for gastrectomies performed between 2008 and 2013. Any adult patient with an abdominal visceral malignancy that necessitated gastric resection was included in the cohort. Clinicopathological and in-hospital outcome metrics were collected for open, laparoscopic, and robotic procedures.

RESULTS

Open gastrectomies comprised 89.5% of the total study group, while 8.2% of procedures were performed laparoscopically, and 2.3% were performed with robotic assistance. When accounting for disparities in patient severity of illness and risk of mortality subclass designations, there were no significant differences in mean length of stay, 30-day readmission, and in-hospital mortality between the three groups; however, mean total cost was highest in the robotic-assisted group (P = 0.017). Overall, complication rates were also similar; however, there was a higher incidence of superficial infection in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.013) and a higher incidence of venous thromboembolism in the robotic group (P = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

Despite widespread adoption for benign indications, minimally invasive gastrectomy for cancer remains underutilized in the USA. In these patients, laparoscopic and robot-assisted gastrectomies appear to be comparable to open resection with respect to overall complications, length of stay, 30-day readmission, and in-hospital mortality. However, when employing minimally invasive techniques, infection and thromboembolism risk reduction strategies should be emphasized in the operative and postoperative periods.

Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of eight studies

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been used successfully in many branches of surgery, but there is little evidence in the literature on its use in rectal cancer (RC). We conducted this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) to evaluate whether the safety and efficacy of robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) in patients with RC are equivalent to those of laparoscopic TME (LTME).

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of RTME with LTME for RC were selected. Operative and recovery outcomes, early postoperative morbidity, and oncological parameters were evaluated.

RESULTS

Eight studies were identified that included 1229 patients in total, 554 (45.08 %) in the RTME group and 675 (54.92 %) in the LTME group. Compared with LTME, RTME was associated with lower conversion rate (OR 0.23, 95 % CI [0.10, 0.52]; P = 0.0004), lower positive rate of circumferential resection margins (CRM) (2.74 % vs 5.78 %, OR 0.44, 95 % CI [0.20, 0.96], P = 0.04), and lesser incidence of erectile dysfunction (ED) (OR 0.09, 95 % CI [0.02, 0.41]; P = 0.002). Operation time, estimated blood loss, recovery outcome, postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, number of lymph nodes harvested, distal resection margin (DRM), proximal resection margin (PRM), and local recurrence had no significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RTME is safe and feasible and may be an alternative treatment for RC. More international multicenter prospective large sample RCTs investigating the long-term oncological and functional outcomes are needed to determine the advantages of RTME over LTME in RC.

Robotic general surgery: current practice, evidence, and perspective

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology commenced to be adopted for the field of general surgery in the 1990s. Since then, the da Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical Inc, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has remained by far the most commonly used system in this domain. The da Vinci surgical system is a master-slave machine that offers three-dimensional vision, articulated instruments with seven degrees of freedom, and additional software features such as motion scaling and tremor filtration. The specific design allows hand-eye alignment with intuitive control of the minimally invasive instruments. As such, robotic surgery appears technologically superior when compared with laparoscopy by overcoming some of the technical limitations that are imposed on the surgeon by the conventional approach.

PURPOSE

This article reviews the current literature and the perspective of robotic general surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

While robotics has been applied to a wide range of general surgery procedures, its precise role in this field remains a subject of further research. Until now, only limited clinical evidence that could establish the use of robotics as the gold standard for procedures of general surgery has been created. While surgical robotics is still in its infancy with multiple novel systems currently under development and clinical trials in progress, the opportunities for this technology appear endless, and robotics should have a lasting impact to the field of general surgery.

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

Minimally invasive surgery, which has been extensively used to treat gastric adenocarcinoma, is now regarded as one of the standard treatments for early gastric cancer, and its suitability for advanced gastric cancer is being investigated. The use of cutting-edge techniques for minimally invasive surgery enables surgeons to deliver various treatment options to minimize a patient's distress and to maintain oncologic safety. Ongoing multicenter prospective studies aim to validate the efficacy of these surgical techniques and to expand the indications of minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of gastric cancer. In this review, we summarize the current status and issues regarding minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of gastric cancer.

Meta-analysis of the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short-term outcomes of gastric cancer patients treated with robotic gastrectomy (RG) or laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

INTRODUCTION

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been used for gastric cancer since 2002. This meta-analysis evaluates the safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pubmed, Embase and The Cochrane Library were searched, and manual searches were performed up to March 31, 2013. Five non-randomized control trials that reported RG and LG for gastric cancer were included. Outcomes evaluated were operation time, number of retrieved LN, blood loss, the length of the resection margin, complications, length of postoperative hospital stay.

RESULTS

Of 1796 patients in five studies, 551 were allocated to RG and 1245 to LG. Operation time was significantly shorter in the latter group (weighted mean difference 42.9; 95 % confidence interval 20.87 to 64.92 min; p < 0.05). Blood loss weighted mean difference was -16.07 (95 % confidence interval -32.78 to 0.64 mL; p < 0.05) and postoperative stay weighted mean difference was -1.98 (95 % confidence interval -3.66 to -0.3 days; p < 0.05); both were less in the RG group. LN, length of the resection margin, and postoperative complications were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

It may be concluded that RG is a safe and comfortable alternative to LG and is justifiable in the light of clinical trials.

Comparison of the operative outcomes and learning curves between laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Background

Minimally invasive surgery, including laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy, has become more popular in the treatment of gastric cancer. However, few studies have compared the learning curves between laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Methods

Data were prospectively collected between July 2008 and Aug 2014. A total of 145 patients underwent minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer by a single surgeon, including 73 laparoscopic and 72 robotic gastrectomies. The clinicopathologic characteristics, operative outcomes and learning curves were compared between the two groups.

Results

Compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group was associated with less blood loss and longer operative time. After the surgeon learning curves were overcome for each technique, the operative outcomes became similar between the two groups except longer operative time in the robotic group. After accumulating more cases of robotic gastrectomy, the operative time in the laparoscopic group decreased dramatically.

Conclusions

After overcoming the learning curves, the operative outcomes became similar between laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy. The experience of robotic gastrectomy could affect the learning process of laparoscopic gastrectomy.

Laparoscopic robotic total gastrectomy

Minimally invasive gastrectomy has become the standard of care in many centers in Asia but remains unpopular in Europe. The aim of this article is to present the technique of laparoscopic robot-assisted total gastrectomy. The presented case involved a 66-year-old female patient with an advanced gastric cancer on the lesser curvature of the stomach. The laparoscopic part of the procedure involved opening the lesser sac, mobilization of the greater curvature and transection of the duodenum. A robot was used for the D2 lymphadenectomy and creation of the anastomosis. In summary, we have found that during a total gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer a successful oncological resection can be achieved using a minimally invasive approach. We have also found that by combining conventional laparoscopy with robotic assistance we could overcome the technical difficulties with regards to lymph node dissection and anastomosis.