Robotic surgery for gastric tumor: current status and new approaches

Robotic vs. laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A propensity score-matched retrospective comparative study at a single institution

BACKGROUND

Although robotic surgery is becoming more widespread worldwide, it is still in its infancy. This study aimed to confirm the safety and feasibility of the induction of robotic-assisted gastric surgery at a local hospital.

METHODS

For five years, between 2016 and 2020, 42 laparoscopic and 71 robotic distal gastrectomies were performed at the same institution. Patients diagnosed with gastric cancer were retrieved from the database. Propensity score matching was performed based on covariates such as Age, Sex, BMI, the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status, Tumor Location, pT, and pN. Clinicopathological characteristics, surgical performance, postoperative outcomes, and pathological data were retrospectively collected and compared by the Chi-square test, the Fisher's exact test, the Student's t-test, and the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

Billroth II reconstruction was often selected for the robotic group more than the laparoscopic group (59.4% and 15.6%, respectively). In addition, the number of lymph nodes harvested after D2 dissection tended to be more significant in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (52.1 ± 7.6 and 29.1 ± 3.7, respectively; p = 0.00934). The mean operative time was 271.4 ± 10.5 min for the robotic group and 220.8 ± 12.3 min for the laparoscopic group (p = 0.00005). There were no differences in short-term clinical outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a single-center, small comparative study, the results showed that the robotic surgery group was not inferior to the laparoscopic group in feasibility and safety. Moreover, robotic surgery enables harvesting a higher number of lymph nodes, which may be more advantageous than laparoscopic surgery. This study also showed that as the surgeon gains experience with robotic surgery, its operative time becomes significantly shorter.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Integrating Robotic Technology Into Resident Training: Challenges and Recommendations From the Front Lines

PURPOSE

To develop recommendations for improving the integration of robotic technology into today's apprentice-based resident training.

METHOD

During a national meeting in 2017, 24 robotic surgeons were interviewed about their experiences integrating robotic technology into resident training. Qualitative thematic analysis of interview notes and recordings revealed themes related to challenges and recommendations.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged, each corresponding to a general recommendation for integrating robotic technology into training. The first, surgical techniques versus tools, contrasts faculty's sequential mastery-surgical techniques first, then the robotic tool-with residents' simultaneous learning. The recommendation is to create separate learning opportunities for focused skill acquisition. The second theme, timing of exposure to the robotic tool, describes trainees' initial focus on tool use for basic surgical steps. The recommendation is to increase access to basic robotic cases. The third theme covers the relationship of laparoscopic and robotic surgery. The recommendation is to emphasize similar and dissimilar features during all minimally invasive surgical cases. The fourth theme, use of the dual console (which enables two consoles to operate the robot, the primary determines the secondary's functionality), highlights the unique teaching opportunities this console creates. The recommendation is for surgeons to give verbal guidance so residents completely understand surgical techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical educators should consider technique versus tool, timing of exposure to the tool, overlapping and varying features of robotic and laparoscopic surgery, and use of the dual console as they develop curricula to ensure thorough acquisition and synthesis of all elements of robotic surgery.

Similar Operative Outcomes between the da Vinci Xi® and da Vinci Si® Systems in Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Purpose

The robotic system for surgery was introduced to gastric cancer surgery in the early 2000s to overcome the shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery. The more recently introduced da Vinci Xi^® system offers benefits allowing four-quadrant access, greater range of motion, and easier docking through an overhead boom rotation with laser targeting. We aimed to identify whether the Xi^® system provides actual advantages over the Si^® system in gastrectomy for gastric cancer by comparing the operative outcomes.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy as treatment for gastric cancer from March 2016 to March 2017. Patients' demographic data, perioperative information, and operative and pathological outcomes were collected and analyzed.

Results

A total of 109 patients were included in the Xi^® group and 179 in the Si^® group. Demographic characteristics were similar in both groups. The mean operative time was 229.9 minutes in the Xi^® group and 223.7 minutes in the Si^® group. The mean estimated blood loss was 72.7 mL in the Xi^® group and 62.1 mL in the Si^® group. No patient in the Xi^® group was converted to open or laparoscopy, while 3 patients in the Si^® group were converted, 2 to open surgery and 1 to laparoscopy, this difference was not statistically significant. Bowel function was resumed 3 days after surgery, while soft diet was initiated 4 days after surgery.

Conclusions

We found no difference in surgical outcomes after robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer between the da Vinci Xi^® and da Vinci Si^® procedures.

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a European perspective

Gastrectomy is the mainstay treatment for gastric cancer. To reduce the associated patient burden, minimally invasive gastrectomy was introduced in almost 30 years ago. The increase in the availability of surgical robotic systems led to the first robotic-assisted gastrectomy to be performed in 2002 in Japan. Robotic gastrectomy however, particularly in Europe, has not yet gained significant traction. Most reports to date are from Asia, predominantly containing observational studies. These cohorts are commonly different in the tumour stage, location (particularly with regards to gastroesophageal junctional tumours) and patient BMI compared to those encountered in Europe. To date, no randomised clinical trials have been performed comparing robotic gastrectomy to either laparoscopic or open equivalent. Cohort studies show that robotic gastrectomy is equal oncological outcomes in terms of survival and lymph node yield. Operative times in the robotic group are consistently longer compared to laparoscopic or open gastrectomy, although evidence is emerging that resectional surgical time is equal. The only reproducibly significant difference in favour of robot-assisted gastrectomy is a reduction in intra-operative blood loss and some studies show a reduction in the risk of pancreatic fistula formation.

Effects of long periods of pneumoperitoneum combined with the head-up position on heart rate-corrected QT interval during robotic gastrectomy: an observational study

Objective

Pneumoperitoneum and the head-up position reportedly stimulate the sympathetic nervous system, potentially increasing the risk of cardiac arrhythmia. We evaluated the effects of a long duration of pneumoperitoneum in the head-up position on the heart rate-corrected QT (QTc) interval during robotic gastrectomy.

Methods

This prospective observational study involved 28 patients undergoing robotic gastrectomy. The QTc interval was recorded at the following time points: before anaesthetic induction (baseline); 10 minutes after tracheal intubation; 1, 5, 30, 60, and 90 minutes after pneumoperitoneum induction in the head-up position; after pneumoperitoneum desufflation in the supine position; and at the end of surgery. The primary outcome was the QTc interval, which was measured 90 minutes after pneumoperitoneum combined with the head-up position.

Results

Compared with baseline, the QTc interval was significantly prolonged at 1 and 60 minutes after pneumoperitoneum, peaked at 90 minutes, and was sustained and notably prolonged until the end of surgery. However, no considerable haemodynamic changes developed.

Conclusion

A long period of carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum application in a head-up position significantly prolonged the QTc interval during robotic gastrectomy. Therefore, diligent care and close monitoring are required for patients who are susceptible to developing ventricular arrhythmia.

Trial Registration: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02604979; Registration number NCT02604979

Inguinal hernia repair: is there a benefit to using the robot?

BACKGROUND

The number of robotic surgical procedures performed yearly is constantly rising, due to improved dexterity and visualization capabilities compared with conventional methods. We hypothesized that outcomes after robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair would not be significantly different from outcomes after laparoscopic or open repair.

METHODS

All patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair between 2012 and 2016 were identified using institutional American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data. Demographics; preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative characteristics; and outcomes were evaluated based on method of repair (Robot, Lap, or Open). Categorical variables were analyzed by Chi-square test and continuous variables using Mann-Whitney U.

RESULTS

A total of 510 patients were identified who underwent unilateral inguinal hernia repair (Robot: 13.8% [n = 69], Lap: 48.1% [n = 241], Open: 38.1% [n = 191]). There were no demographic differences between groups other than age (Robot: 52 [39-62], Lap: 57 [45-67], and Open: 56 [48-67] years, p = 0.03). Operative duration was also different (Robot: 105 [76-146] vs. Lap: 81 [61-103] vs. Open: 71 [56-88] min, p < 0.001). There were no operative mortalities and all patients except one were discharged home the same day. Postoperative occurrences (adverse events, readmissions, and death) were similar between groups (Robot: 2.9% [2], Lap: 3.3% [8], Open: 5.2% [10], p = 0.53). Although rare, there was a significant difference in rate of postoperative skin and soft tissue infection (Robot: 2.9% [2] vs. Lap: 0% [0] vs. Open: 0.5% [1], p = 0.02). Cost was significantly different between groups (Robot: $7162 [$5942-8375] vs. Lap: $4527 [$2310-6003] vs. Open: $4264 [$3277-5143], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes after robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair were similar to outcomes after laparoscopic or open repair. Longer operative duration during robotic repair may contribute to higher rates of skin and soft tissue infection. Higher cost should be considered, along with surgeon comfort level and patient preference when deciding whether inguinal hernia repair is approached robotically.

Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Current evidence

The robotic system has gained wide acceptance in specialties such as urological and gynecological surgery. It has also been applied in the field of upper gastrointestinal surgery. Since the first implementation of the robotic system for the treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma, the procedure has been found to be safe and feasible. Although robotic gastrectomy does not meet our expectations and yield better results than laparoscopic gastrectomy, this procedure seems to provide several advantages over laparoscopy such as reduced blood loss, shorter learning curves and increased number of retrieved lymph nodes. However, as many case series, including a recent multicenter study, have revealed, higher cost and longer operation time are the major limitations of robotic gastrectomy. Furthermore, there are no results from well-designed randomized clinical trials comparing the two procedures. New procedures in much more technically demanding cases will test the genuine benefits of robotic gastrectomy.