The Robotic Third Arm as a Competent Analog of an Assisting Surgeon in Radical Gastrectomy: Impact on Short-Term Clinical Outcomes

Long-term oncological outcomes of 3D versus 2D laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LG) is rapidly gaining popularity owing to its minimal invasiveness. Previous studies have found that compared with two-dimensional (2D)-LG, three-dimensional (3D)-LG showed better short-term outcomes. However, the long-term oncological outcomes in patients with locally resectable gastric cancer (GC) remain controversial.

METHODS

In this noninferiority, open-label, randomized clinical trial, a total of 438 eligible GC participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either 3D-LG or 2D-LG from January 2015 to April 2016. The primary endpoint was operating time, while the secondary endpoints included 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence pattern.

RESULTS

Data from 401 participants were included in the per-protocol analysis, with 204 patients in the 3D group and 197 patients in the 2D group. The 5-year OS and DFS rates were comparable between the 3D and 2D groups (5-year OS: 70.6% vs. 71.1%, Log-rank P = 0.743; 5-year DFS: 68.1% vs. 69.0%, log-rank P = 0.712). No significant differences were observed between the 3D and 2D groups in the 5-year recurrence rate (28.9% vs. 28.9%, P = 0.958) or recurrence time (mean time, 22.6 vs. 20.5 months, P = 0.412). Further stratified analysis based on the type of gastrectomy, postoperative pathological staging, and preoperative BMI showed that the 5-year OS, DFS, and recurrence rates of the 3D group in each subgroup were similar to those of the 2D group (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with locally resectable GC, 3D-LG performed by experienced surgeons in high-volume professional institutions can achieve long-term oncological outcomes comparable to those of 2D-LG.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02327481 ( http://clinicaltrials.gov ).

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Postoperative pancreatic fistula after robot distal gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

To compare the incidences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) between robot-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) and laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 40 patients with gastric cancer who underwent RADG were compared with 40 initial patients who underwent LADG by a single surgeon. We evaluated and compared the clinicopathologic characteristics, surgical outcomes, and operative complications including POPF in two groups.

RESULTS

The POPF was observed more frequently in the LADG group than in the RADG group (22.5% versus 10%, P < 0.001). Although the serum amylase levels in the 20 first-half cases did not statistically differ between LADG and RADG (P = 0.32), those in the 20 latter-half cases were significantly lower in the RADG group (P < 0.05). Univariate and multivariate analyses identified laparoscopic surgery and visceral fat area as POPF-associated risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

RADG is feasible and safe for distal gastrectomy in terms of POPF.

Robot-assisted gastrectomy and oesophagectomy for cancer

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery is a technically feasible alternative to open and laparoscopic surgery, which is being more frequently used in general surgery. We undertook this review to investigate whether robotic assistance provides a significant benefit for oesophagogastric cancer surgery.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for original English-language publications for robotic-assisted gastrectomy and oesophagectomy between January 1990 and October 2013.

RESULTS

Sixty-one publications were included. Thirty-five included gastrectomy, 31 included oesophagectomy and five included both operations. Several publications suggest that robot-assisted subtotal gastrectomy can be as safe and effective as an open or laparoscopic procedure, with equal outcomes with regard to the number of lymph nodes resected, overall morbidity and perioperative mortality, and length of hospital stay. Robotic assistance is associated with longer operation times but also with less blood loss in some reports. A significant benefit for robotic assistance has not been shown for the more extensive operations of oesophagectomy or total gastrectomy with D2-lymphadenectomy. There are very few oncologic data regarding local recurrence or long-term survival for any of the robotic operations.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences in morbidity, mortality or number of lymph node harvested have been shown between robot-assisted and laparoscopic gastrectomy or oesophagectomy. Robotic surgery, with its relatively short learning curve, may facilitate reproducible minimally invasive surgery in this field but operation times are reportedly longer and cost differences remain unclear. Randomized trials with oncologic outcomes and cost comparisons are needed.