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

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: The Largest Systematic Reviews of 68,755 Patients and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in treating gastric cancer (GC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature search across PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science identified 86 eligible studies, including 68,755 patients (20,894 in the RG group and 47,861 in the LG group).

RESULTS

The analysis revealed that RG was associated with superior outcomes in several areas: more lymph nodes were harvested, intraoperative blood loss was reduced, postoperative hospital stays were shorter, and the time to first flatus and oral intake was shortened (all p < 0.001). Additionally, RG resulted in lower incidences of conversion to open surgery (OR = 0.62, p = 0.004), reoperation (OR = 0.68, p = 0.010), overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.82, p < 0.001), severe complications (OR = 0.65, p < 0.001), and pancreatic complications (OR = 0.60, p = 0.004). However, RG had longer operative times and higher costs (both p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between RG and LG in terms of resection margin distance, mortality, anastomotic leakage, or recurrence rates.

CONCLUSIONS

RG is a safe and effective surgical option for patients of GC, but further improvements in operative duration and costs are needed.

Current clinical trials on gastric cancer surgery in China

Gastric cancer (GC) is the leading diagnosed malignancy worldwide, especially in China. Radical surgery is the cornerstone of GC treatment. We reviewed previous clinical trials and aimed to provide an update on the factors related to the surgical treatment of GC. The number of registered clinical trials in the field of GC surgery is rapidly increasing. With the development and popularization of endoscopic, laparoscopic, and robotic techniques, GC surgery has gradually entered a new era of precise minimally invasive surgery. Postoperative quality of life has become a major issue in addition to surgical oncological safety. Although great progress has been made in clinical research on GC in China, there are still deficiencies. Many studies enrolled large numbers of patients, but the research data were not of high quality. The characteristics of GC in China include a high incidence, large population, and large proportion of patients with advanced GC, which provides sufficient reason for studying this disease. There is still a need for well-designed, large, randomized clinical trials to improve our knowledge of the surgical treatment of GC.

Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score matching studies

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of robot distal gastrectomy (RDG) versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) for gastric cancer. Studies included only those that utilized propensity score matching (PSM). A systematic literature search was conducted in several major global databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, up to June 2024. Articles were screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Baseline data and primary and secondary outcome measures (e.g., operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph-node yield dissection, length of hospital stay, and time to first flatus) were extracted. The quality of PSM studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I, and data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.1 software. A total of 12 propensity score-matched studies involving 3688 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Robot-assisted surgery resulted in a longer operative time (WMD 30.64 min, 95% CI 15.63 - 45.66; p < 0.0001), less estimated blood loss (WMD 29.54 mL, 95% CI - 47.14 - 11.94; p = 0.001), more lymph-node yield (WMD 5.14, 95% CI 2.39 - 7.88; p = 0.0002), and a shorter hospital stay (WMD - 0.36, 95% CI - 0.60 - 0.12; p = 0.004) compared with laparoscopic surgery. There were no significant differences between the two surgical methods in terms of time to first flatus, overall complications, and major complications. Robot distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer reduces intraoperative blood loss, increases lymph-node yield, and shortens hospital stay compared with laparoscopic surgery, despite a longer operative time. There are no significant differences in time to first flatus and complication rates between the two groups.

Surgical Techniques and Related Perioperative Outcomes After Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy (RAMIG): Results From the Prospective Multicenter International Ugira Gastric Registry

OBJECTIVE

To gain insight into the global practice of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy (RAMIG) and evaluate perioperative outcomes using an international registry.

BACKGROUND

The techniques and perioperative outcomes of RAMIG for gastric cancer vary substantially in the literature.

METHODS

Prospectively registered RAMIG cases for gastric cancer (≥10 per center) were extracted from 25 centers in Europe, Asia, and South-America. Techniques for resection, reconstruction, anastomosis, and lymphadenectomy were analyzed and related to perioperative surgical and oncological outcomes. Complications were uniformly defined by the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group.

RESULTS

Between 2020 and 2023, 759 patients underwent total (n=272), distal (n=465), or proximal (n=22) gastrectomy (RAMIG). After total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y-reconstruction, anastomotic leakage rates were 8% with hand-sewn (n=9/111) and 6% with linear stapled anastomoses (n=6/100). After distal gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y (67%) or Billroth-II-reconstruction (31%), anastomotic leakage rates were 3% with linear stapled (n=11/433) and 0% with hand-sewn anastomoses (n=0/26). Extent of lymphadenectomy consisted of D1+ (28%), D2 (59%), or D2+ (12%). Median nodal harvest yielded 31 nodes (interquartile range: 21-47) after total and 34 nodes (interquartile range: 24-47) after distal gastrectomy. R0 resection rates were 93% after total and 96% distal gastrectomy. The hospital stay was 9 days after total and distal gastrectomy, and was median 3 days shorter without perianastomotic drains versus routine drain placement. Postoperative 30-day mortality was 1%.

CONCLUSIONS

This large multicenter study provided a worldwide overview of current RAMIG techniques and their respective perioperative outcomes. These outcomes demonstrated high surgical quality, set a quality standard for RAMIG, and can be considered an international reference for surgical standardization.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Distal gastrectomy (DG) with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer is routinely performed. In this meta-analysis, we present an updated overview of the perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic DG (LDG) and robotic DG (RDG) to compare their safety and overall outcomes in patients undergoing DG. An extensive search was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the establishment of the database to June 2023 for randomized clinical trials comparing RDG and LDG. The primary outcome was operative results, postoperative recovery, complications, adequacy of resection, and long-term survival. We identified twenty studies, evaluating 5,447 patients (1,968 and 3,479 patients treated with RDG and LDG, respectively). We observed no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the proximal resection margin, number of dissected lymph nodes, major complications, anastomosis site leakage, time to first flatus, and length of hospital stay. The RDG group had a longer operative time (P < 0.00001), lesser bleeding (P = 0.0001), longer distal resection margin (P = 0.02), earlier time to oral intake (P = 0.02), fewer overall complications (P = 0.004), and higher costs (P < 0.0001) than the LDG group. RDG is a promising approach for improving LDG owing to acceptable complications and the possibility of radical resection. Longer operative times and higher costs should not prevent researchers from exploring new applications of robotic surgery.

Robotic gastrectomy was reliable option for overweight patients with gastric cancer: a propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive surgery using robotics versus laparoscopy in resectable gastric cancer patients with a high body mass index (BMI) remains controversial.

METHODS

A total of 482 gastric adenocarcinoma patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 who underwent minimally invasive radical gastrectomy between August 2016 and December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed, including 109 cases in the robotic gastrectomy (RG) group and 321 cases in the laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) group. Propensity score matching (PSM) with a 1:1 ratio was performed, and the perioperative outcomes, lymph node dissection, and 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were compared.

RESULTS

After PSM, 109 patients were included in each of the RG and LG groups, with balanced baseline characteristics. Compared with the LG group, the RG group had similar intraoperative estimated blood loss [median (IQR) 30 (20-50) vs. 35 (30-59) mL, median difference (95%CI) - 5 (- 10 to 0)], postoperative complications [13.8% vs. 18.3%, OR (95%CI) 0.71 (0.342 to 1.473)], postoperative recovery, total harvested lymph nodes [(34.25 ± 13.43 vs. 35.44 ± 14.12, mean difference (95%CI) - 1.19 (- 4.871 to 2.485)] and textbook outcomes [(81.7% vs. 76.1%, OR (95%CI) 1.39 (0.724 to 2.684)]. Among pathological stage II-III patients receiving chemotherapy, the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy in the RG group was similar to that in the LG group [median (IQR): 28 (25.5-32.5) vs. 32 (27-38.5) days, median difference (95%CI) - 3 (- 6 to 0)]. The 3-year OS (RG vs. LG: 80.7% vs. 81.7%, HR = 1.048, 95%CI 0.591 to 1.857) and DFS (78% vs. 76.1%, HR = 0.996, 95%CI 0.584 to 1.698) were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RG conferred comparable lymph node dissection, postoperative recovery, and oncologic outcomes in a selected cohort of patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2.

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.

Minimally Invasive and Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Optimal surgical management for gastric cancer remains controversial. We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes after open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG), and robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases was undertaken. An NMA was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-NMA guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using R and Shiny.

RESULTS

Twenty-two RCTs including 6890 patients were included. Overall, 49.6% of patients underwent LAG (3420/6890), 46.6% underwent OG (3212/6890), and 3.7% underwent RG (258/6890). At NMA, there was a no significant difference in recurrence rates following LAG (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-1.49) compared with OG. Similarly, overall survival (OS) outcomes were identical following OG and LAG (OS: OG, 87.0% [1652/1898] vs. LAG: OG, 87.0% [1650/1896]), with no differences in OS in meta-analysis (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77-1.52). Importantly, patients undergoing LAG experienced reduced intraoperative blood loss, surgical incisions, distance from proximal margins, postoperative hospital stays, and morbidity post-resection.

CONCLUSIONS

LAG was associated with non-inferior oncological and surgical outcomes compared with OG. Surgical outcomes following LAG and RG superseded OG, with similar outcomes observed for both LAG and RG. Given these findings, minimally invasive approaches should be considered for the resection of local gastric cancer, once surgeon and institutional expertise allows.

Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery: Short-Term Outcomes-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 25,521 Patients

Background: Gastric cancer has the third highest cancer-related mortality worldwide. There is no consensus regarding the optimal surgical technique to perform curative resection surgery. Objective: Compare laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and robotic gastrectomy (RG) regarding short-term outcomes in patients with gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched the following topics: "Gastrectomy," "Laparoscopic," and "Robotic Surgical Procedures." The included studies compared short-term outcomes between LG and RG. Individual risk of bias was assessed with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) scale. Results: There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding conversion rate, reoperation rate, mortality, overall complications, anastomotic leakage, distal and proximal resection margin distances, and recurrence rate. However, mean blood loss (mean difference [MD] -19.43 mL, P < .00001), length of hospital stay (MD -0.50 days, P = .0007), time to first flatus (MD -0.52 days, P < .00001), time to oral intake (MD -0.17 days, P = .0001), surgical complications with a Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, P < .0001), and pancreatic complications (RR 0.51, P = .007) were significantly lower in the RG group. Furthermore, the number of retrieved lymph nodes was significantly higher in the RG group. Nevertheless, the RG group showed a significantly higher operation time (MD 41.19 minutes, P < .00001) and cost (MD 3684.27 U.S. Dollars, P < .00001). Conclusion: This meta-analysis supports the choice of robotic surgery over laparoscopy concerning relevant surgical complications. However, longer operation time and higher cost remain crucial limitations. Randomized clinical trials are required to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of RG.

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.

The effect of implant surgery experience on the learning curve of a dynamic navigation system: an in vitro study

BACKGROUND

Dynamic navigation systems have a broad application prospect in digital implanting field. This study aimed to explore and compare the dynamic navigation system learning curve of dentists with different implant surgery experience through dental models.

METHODS

The nine participants from the same hospital were divided equally into three groups. Group 1 (G1) and Group 2 (G2) were dentists who had more than 5 years of implant surgery experience. G1 also had more than 3 years of experience with dynamic navigation, while G2 had no experience with dynamic navigation. Group 3 (G3) consisted of dentists with no implant surgery experience and no experience with dynamic navigation. Each participant sequentially placed two implants (31 and 36) on dental models according to four practice courses (1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12 exercises). Each dentist completed 1-3, 4-6 exercises in one day, and then 7-9 and 10-12 exercises 7 ± 1 days later. The preparation time, surgery time and related implant accuracy were analyzed.

RESULTS

Three groups placed 216 implants in four practice courses. The regressions for preparation time (F = 10.294, R² = 0.284), coronal deviation (F = 4.117, R² = 0.071), apical deviation (F = 13.016, R² = 0.194) and axial deviation (F = 30.736, R² = 0.363) were statistically significant in G2. The regressions for preparation time (F = 9.544, R² = 0.269), surgery time (F = 45.032, R² = 0.455), apical deviation (F = 4.295, R² = 0.074) and axial deviation (F = 21.656, R² = 0.286) were statistically significant in G3. Regarding preparation and surgery time, differences were found between G1 and G3, G2 and G3. Regarding implant accuracy, differences were found in the first two practice courses between G1 and G3.

CONCLUSIONS

The operation process of dynamic navigation system is relatively simple and easy to use. The linear regression analysis showed there is a dynamic navigation learning curve for dentists with or without implant experience and the learning curve of surgery time for dentists with implant experience fluctuates. However, dentists with implant experience learn more efficiently and have a shorter learning curve.

Implementation of the robotic abdominal phase during robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE): results from a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the added value of robotic-assistance in the abdominal phase during esophagectomy is scarce. In 2003, our center implemented the robotic thoracic phase for esophagectomy. In November 2018 the robot was also implemented in the abdominal phase. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of the abdominal phase during robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE).

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent full RAMIE with intrathoracic anastomosis for esophageal cancer were included. Patients were extracted from a prospectively maintained institutional database. A cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was performed for abdominal operation time and abdominal lymph node yield. Intraoperative, postoperative and oncological outcomes including collected lymph nodes per abdominal lymph node station were reported.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2021, 70 consecutive patients were included. The majority of the patients had an adenocarcinoma (n = 55, 77%) and underwent neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy (n = 65, 95%). The median operative time for the abdominal phase was 180 min (range 110-233). The CUSUM analysis for abdominal operation time showed a plateau at case 22. There were no intraoperative complications or conversions during the abdominal phase. The most common postoperative complications were pneumonia (n = 18, 26%) and anastomotic leakage (n = 14, 20%). Radical resection margins were achieved in 69 (99%) patients. The median total lymph node yield was 42 (range 23-83) and the median abdominal lymph node yield was 16 (range 2-43). The CUSUM analysis for abdominal lymph node yield showed a plateau at case 21. Most abdominal lymph nodes were collected from the left gastric artery (median 4, range 0-20).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that a robotic abdominal phase was safely implemented for RAMIE without compromising intraoperative, postoperative and oncological outcomes. The learning curve is estimated to be 22 cases in a high-volume center with experienced upper GI robotic surgeons.

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.

Perioperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies and randomized controlled trials

Background

Da Vinci robotic surgery system, a novel type of surgery, was widespread in surgical field. However, the perioperative outcomes of robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) are still controversy, despite several observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT) had been reported. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched (PSM) and RCT studies to evaluated the perioperative feasibility and safety of RDG.

Methods

Studies were systematically searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase database, and screened according to the defined limitations. The quality of PSM studies and RCT studies were respectively assessed by ROBINS-I and Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Extracted data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.4.

Results

7 PSM studies and 1 RCT with a total of 2763 patients were included in this analysis. The longer operative time (MD = 31.42, 95% CI [22.88, 39.96], p < 0.00001), less blood loss (MD = − 25.89, 95% CI [− 36.18, − 15.6], p < 0.00001), more retrieved lymph nodes (MD = 3.46, 95% CI [2.94, 3.98], p < 0.00001), shorter time to first flatus (MD = − 0.08, 95% CI [− 0.13, − 0.02], p = 0.006) and liquid intake (MD = − 0.13, 95% CI [− 0.22, − 0.05], p = 0.002) were observed in RDG group compared with LDG group. There are no statistically significant in time to start soft diet, postoperative hospital stays, overall complications, complications Grade I–II, complications Grade ≥ III, anastomotic leakage, bleeding, intra-abdominal bleeding, intraluminal bleeding, ileus, abdominal infection, delayed gastric emptying and wound complications.

Conclusions

RDG showed less blood loss and more retrieved lymph nodes, revealed less time to first flatus and liquid intake after operation. But the operative time was longer in RDG group than in LDG. The incidence rate of postoperative complications was comparable between RDG and LDG.

Surgical and oncological outcomes of robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score‑matched analysis of 1164 patients

BACKGROUND

Studies on surgical outcomes after robotic surgery are increasing; however, long-term oncological results of studies comparing robotic-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) are still limited. This study aimed to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of RADG and LADG for the treatment of AGC.

METHODS

A total of 1164 consecutive AGC patients undergoing RADG or LADG were enrolled between January 2015 and October 2021. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. The perioperative and oncological outcomes between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

Patient's characteristics were comparable between the two groups after PSM. RADG group represented a longer operative time (205.2 ± 43.1 vs 185.3 ± 42.8 min, P < 0.001), less operative blood loss (139.3 ± 97.8 vs 167.3 ± 134.2 ml, P < 0.001), greater retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) number (31.4 ± 12.1 vs 29.4 ± 12.3, P = 0.015), more retrieved LNs in the supra-pancreatic areas (13.4 ± 5.0 vs 11.4 ± 5.1, P < 0.001), and higher medical costs (13,608 ± 4326 vs 10,925 ± US $3925, P < 0.001) than LADG group. The overall complication rate was 13.7% in the RADG group and 16.6% in the LADG group, respectively; the difference was not significantly different (P = 0.242). In the subgroup analysis, the benefits of RADG were more evident in high BMI patients. Moreover, the 3-year overall survival (75.5% vs 73.1%, P = 0.471) and 3-year disease-free survival (72.9% vs 71.4%, P = 0.763) were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RADG appears to be a safe and feasible procedure and could serve as an alternative treatment for AGC in experienced centers.

Postoperative outcomes in robotic gastric resection compared with laparoscopic gastric resection in gastric cancer: A meta-analysis and systemic review

Background

Robotic gastrectomy is a commonly used procedure for early gastric cancer and it also overcomes the limitation of laparoscopic. However, the complications of robotic gastrectomy (RG) still need to be assessed. Our study was designed to compare postoperative complications of RG with laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

Materials and Methods

A meta-analysis and systemic review were prospectively collected using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE database of published studies by comparing the RG and LG with gastric cancer up to December 2021. To evaluate the postoperative outcomes, odds ratios were calculated for Dichotomous data and the mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for continuous data, and measured by the random-effect model.

Results

Thirty-two retrospective studies describing 13,585 patients (4484 RG and 9101 LG) satisfied the inclusion criteria. A statistically significant result was in blood loss (MD = -17.97, 95% Cl: -25.61 to 10.32, p < 0.001), Clavien-Dindo grade Ⅲ (odds ratio (OR) = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.48-0.76, p < 0.01), and harvested lymph node (MD = 2.62, 95% CI: 2.14-3.11, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between robotic gastrectomy surgery (RGS) and laparoscopic gastrectomy surgery (LGS) regarding distal resection margin (DRM), proximal resection margin (PRM), conversion rate, anastomotic leakage, and overall complications.

Conclusion

Having significant outcomes in Clavien-Dindo grade III, and blood loss, harvested lymph nodes are more common in RGS, and they also help in increasing the quality of life.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Mega Meta-Analysis

Background

Laparoscopic gastrectomy and robotic gastrectomy are the most widely adopted treatment of choice for gastric cancer. To systematically assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis on short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy.

Methods

In order to find relevant studies on the efficacy and safety of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in the treatment of gastric cancer, numerous medical databases including PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, and China Journal Full-text Database (CNKI) were consulted, and Chinese and English studies on the efficacy and safety of RG and LG in the treatment of gastric cancer published from 2012 to 2022 were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.

Results

The meta-analysis inlcuded 48 literatures, with 20,151 gastric cancer patients, including 6,175 in the RG group and 13,976 in the LG group, respectively. Results of our meta-analysis showed that RG group had prololonged operative time (WMD = 35.72, 95% CI = 28.59–42.86, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 258.69 min ± 32.98; LG: mean ± SD = 221.85 min ± 31.18), reduced blood loss (WMD = −21.93, 95% CI = −28.94 to −14.91, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 105.22 ml ± 62.79; LG: mean ± SD = 127.34 ml ± 79.62), higher number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.99–3.63, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 35.88 ± 4.14; LG: mean ± SD = 32.73 ± 4.67), time to first postoperative food intake shortened (WMD = −0.20, 95% CI = −0.29 to −0.10, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 4.5 d ± 1.94; LG: mean ± SD = 4.7 d ± 1.54), and lower length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD = −0.54, 95% CI = −0.83 to −0.24, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 8.91 d ± 6.13; LG: mean ± SD = 9.61 d ± 7.74) in comparison to the LG group. While the other variables, for example, time to first postoperative flatus, postoperative complications, proximal and distal mar gin, R₀ resection rate, mortality rate, conversion rate, and 3-year overall survival rate were all found to be statistically similar at P > 0.05.

Conclusions

In the treatment of gastric cancer, robotic gastrectomy is a safe and effective procedure that has both short- and long-term effects. To properly evaluate the advantages of robotic surgery in gastric cancer, more randomised controlled studies with rigorous research methodologies are needed.

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.

Robotic total gastrectomy for carcinoma in the remnant stomach: a comparison with laparoscopic total gastrectomy

Background

Total gastrectomy for carcinoma in the remnant stomach (CRS) remains a technically demanding procedure. Whether robotic surgery is superior, equal, or inferior to laparoscopic surgery in patients with CRS is unclear. This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) and laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) for the treatment of CRS.

Methods

In this cohort study, we retrospectively analysed the data from patients who underwent RTG or LTG for CRS at Southwest Hospital (Chongqing, China) between May 2006 and October 2019. The surgical outcomes, post-operative complications, and survival outcomes between the two groups were compared.

Results

Compared with LTG, RTG was associated with similar effective operation time (272.0 vs 297.9 min, P = 0.170), higher total costs (105,967.2 vs 81,629.5 RMB, P < 0.001), and less estimated blood loss (229.2 vs 288.8 mL, P = 0.031). No significant differences were found between the robotic and laparoscopic groups in terms of conversion rate, time to first flatus, time to first soft diet, post-operative hospital stay, post-operative complications, R0 resection rate, and number of retrieved lymph nodes (all P > 0.05). The 3-year disease-free survival and 3-year overall survival rates were comparable between the two groups (65.5% vs 57.5%, P = 0.918; 69.0% vs 60.0%, P = 0.850, respectively).

Conclusions

RTG is a safe and feasible procedure for the treatment of CRS and could serve as an optimal treatment for CRS.

Current Status and Trends of Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy in Korea

Since its introduction in the early 1990s, laparoscopic gastrectomy has been widely accepted for the treatment of gastric cancer worldwide. In the last decade, the Korean Laparoendoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery Study group performed important clinical trials and exerted various efforts to enhance the quality of scientific knowledge and surgical techniques in the field of gastric cancer surgery. Laparoscopic gastrectomy has shifted to a new era in Korea due to recent advances and innovations in technology. Here, we discuss the recent updates of laparoscopic gastrectomy—namely, reduced-port, single-incision, robotic, image-guided, and oncometabolic surgery.

Effectiveness and safety of robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of 12,401 gastric cancer patients

Advanced minimally invasive techniques, such as robotic surgeries, are applied increasingly frequently around the world and are primarily used to improve the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Against that background, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy (RG). Studies comparing surgical outcomes between LG and RG patients were retrieved from medical databases, including RCTs and non-RCTs. The primary outcome of this study was overall survival, which was obtained by evaluating the 3-year survival rate and the 5-year survival rate. In addition, postoperative complications, mortality, length of hospital stay, and harvested lymph nodes were also assessed. We also conducted subgroup analyses stratified by resection type, body mass index, age, depth of invasion and tumour size. Ultimately, 31 articles met the criterion for our study through an attentive check of each text, including 1 RCT and 30 non-RCTs. A total of 12,401 patients were included in the analysis, with 8127 (65.5%) undergoing LG and 4274 (34.5%) undergoing RG. Compared with LG, RG was associated with fewer postoperative complications (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.71-0.93; P = 0.002), especially pancreas-related complications (OR 0.376; 95% CI 0.156-0.911; P = 0.030), increased harvested lymph nodes (WMD 2.03; 95% CI 0.95-3.10; P < 0.001), earlier time to first flatus (WMD - 0.105 days; 95% CI - 0.207 to - 0.003; P = 0.044), longer operation time (WMD 40.192 min, 95% CI 32.07-48.31; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD - 20.09 ml; 95% CI - 26.86 to - 13.32; P < 0.001), and higher expense (WMD 19,141.68 RMB; 95% CI 11,856.07-26,427.29; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding 3-year overall survival (OR 1.030; 95% CI 0.784-1.353; P = 0.832), 5-year overall survival (OR 0.862; 95% CI 0.721-1.031; P = 0.105), conversion rate (OR 0.857; 95% CI 0.443-1.661; P = 0.648), postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.368 days; 95% CI - 0.75-0.013; P = 0.059), mortality (OR 1.248; 95% CI 0.514-3.209; P = 0.592), and reoperation (OR 0.855; 95% CI 0.479-1.525; P = 0.595). Our study revealed that postoperative complications, especially pancreas-related complications, occurred less often with RG than with LG. However, long-term outcomes between the two surgical techniques need to be further examined, particularly regarding the oncological adequacy of robotic gastric cancer resections.

Challenges in improving the minimal invasiveness of the surgical treatment for gastric cancer using robotic technology

The number of operations performed using the da Vinci Surgical System® (DVSS) has been increasing worldwide in the past decade. We introduced robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC) in January 2009 to overcome the disadvantage of conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy. Initially, we experienced some troubles in the technical aspect and cost of robotic surgery. After extensive trial and error, we were able to develop the "double bipolar method" and the "da Vinci's plane theory" to use DVSS effectively. We then conducted "Senshiniryo B," which was a multi-institutional prospective single-arm study to determine the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy for GC in 2014. In that study, we demonstrated that the morbidity rate in the robotic group (2.45%) was significantly lower than that in the historical control group (6.4%). As a consequence of that clinical trial, 12 procedures, including robotic gastrectomy for GC, have been covered under the Japanese national insurance in 2018. An additional seven procedures were newly covered in April 2020. In the first half of this article, we describe the history of robotic surgery in the world and Japan and demonstrate the "double bipolar method" and "da Vinci's plane theory." In the latter half, we explain the Japanese systems for the safe dissemination of robotic surgery and state our efforts to solve some problems in robotic surgery.

Long-term Comparison of Robotic and Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score-weighted Analysis of 2084 Consecutive Patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare long-term outcomes between robotic and LG approaches using propensity score weighting based on a generalized boosted method to control for selection bias.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Minimally invasive surgical approaches for GC are increasing, yet limited evidence exists for long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG).

METHODS

Patients (n = 2084) with GC stages I-III who underwent LG or RG between 2009 and 2017 were analyzed. Generalized boosted method was used to estimate a propensity score derived from all available preoperative characteristics. Long-term outcomes were compared using the adjusted Kaplan-Meier method and the weighted Cox proportional hazards regression model.

RESULTS

After propensity score weighting, the population was balanced. Patients who underwent RG showed reduced blood loss (16 mL less, P = 0.025), sufficient lymph node harvest from the initial period, and no changes in surgical outcomes over time. With 52-month median follow-up, no difference was noted in 5-year overall survival in unweighted [91.5% in LG vs 94% in RG; hazard ratio (HR), 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.46-1.1; P = 0.126] and weighted populations (94.2% in LG vs 93.2% in RG; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.52-1.48; P = 0.636). There were no differences in 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS), with unweighted 5-year RFS of 95.4% for LG and 95.2% for RG (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.55-1.64; P = 0.845) and weighted 5-year RFS of 96.3% for LG and 95.3% for RG (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.66-2.33; P = 0.498).

CONCLUSIONS

After balancing covariates, RG demonstrated reliable surgical outcomes from the beginning. Long-term survival after RG and LG for GC was similar.

Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, and robotic distal gastrectomy for early and locally advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of early and locally advanced gastric cancer remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive evaluation of major surgical approaches for operable distal gastric cancer.

METHODS

Systematic review and network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were performed to compare open distal gastrectomy, laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy, and robotic distal gastrectomy. Risk ratio, weighted mean difference, and 95% credible intervals were used as pooled effect size measures.

RESULTS

Seventeen randomized controlled trials (5,909 patients) were included. Overall, 2,776 (46.8%) underwent open distal gastrectomy, 2,964 (50.1%) laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy, and 141 (3.1%) robotic distal gastrectomy. Among these 3 groups, there were no significant differences in 30-day mortality, anastomotic leak, and overall complications. Compared to open distal gastrectomy, laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy was associated with significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss, early postoperative pain, time to first flatus, and hospital length of stay. Similarly, robotic distal gastrectomy was associated with significantly reduced blood loss and time to first flatus compared to open distal gastrectomy. No differences were found in the total number of harvested lymph nodes, tumor-free resection margins, 5-year overall, and disease-free survival. The subgroup analysis in locally advanced gastric cancer showed trends toward reduced blood loss, time to first flatus, and hospital length of stay with minimally invasive approaches but similar overall and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy and robotic distal gastrectomy performed by well-trained experienced surgeons, even in the setting of locally advanced gastric cancer, seem associated with improved short-term outcomes with similar overall and disease-free survival compared with open distal gastrectomy.

[Evidence in minimally invasive oncological gastric surgery]

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to systematically review the current evidence on laparoscopic and robotic distal and total gastrectomy in comparison to open surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search of EMBASE and PubMed was conducted and 197 randomized (RCT) and non-randomized (non-RCT) studies were identified. An evaluation of early gastric cancer (EGC) and advanced (AGC) gastric cancer was carried out.

RESULTS

For EGC and laparoscopic distal resection (LDG) and total gastrectomy (LTG) a total of 10 RCT and 6 non-RCT, including 4329 patients (laparoscopic 2010 vs. open 2319) were identified. At a high evidence level (1+, 1++) there was no significant difference in terms of feasibility, intraoperative outcome and oncological quality, mortality and long-term oncological outcome compared to open gastrectomy (OG). After LDG and LTG patients showed a significantly faster early postoperative recovery and lower total morbidity. In contrast, the operation times were significant longer compared to ODG and OTG. For distal AGC and LDG in 6 RCT, including 2806 patients (LDG 1410 vs. ODG 1369) comparable results could be found also with a high evidence level (1++). The evidence for LTG in cases of AGC was lower (2-, 2+). Currently ,only 6 non-RCT with a total of 1090 patients (LTG 539 vs. OTG 551) are available, which showed comparable results to LDG but further high-quality RCTs are necessary. Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is currently being evaluated. According to the first studies RG for EGC seems to be equivalent to LDG; however, the evidence is currently low (3 to 2-).

Robotic gastric surgery: a monocentric case series and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

The technical complexity of D2 lymphadenectomy and esophago-jejunal anastomosis are the main factors that limit the application of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer. Robotic assisted gastric surgery provides potential technical advantages over conventional laparoscopy but an improvement in clinical outcomes after robotic surgery has not been demonstrated yet.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Data from 128 consecutive patients who had undergone robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer at our center institution from April 2017 to June 2020 where retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively updated database. A narrative review was then carried out on PubMed, Embase and Scopus using the following keywords: "gastric cancer," "robotic surgery," "robotic gastrectomy" and "robotic gastric surgery".

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Ninety-eight patients underwent robotic distal gastrectomy and 30 underwent robotic total gastrectomy. The mean value of estimated blood loss was 99.5 ml. No patients required conversion to laparoscopy or open surgery. The median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 42. No tumor involvement of the proximal or distal margin was found in any patient. The median time to first flatus and first oral feeding was on postoperative day 3 and 5, respectively. We registered 6 leakages (4.6%), namely, 1 duodenal stump leakage and 5 anastomotic leakages. No 30-day surgical related mortality was recorded. The median length of hospital stay was 10.5 days (range 4-37).

CONCLUSIONS

Published data and our experience suggest that the robotic approach for gastric cancer is safe and feasible with potential advantages over conventional laparoscopy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis of 1170 patients

BACKGROUND

The robotic surgical system has several technical advantages over laparoscopic instruments. The technical feasibility and safety of robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer have been reported by increasing number of studies. However, the long-term survival and recurrence outcomes after RG for locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) have seldom been reported. This study aimed to compare long-term oncologic outcomes for patients with locally AGC after RG or laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

METHODS

This study comprised 1170 patients underwent RG or LG, respectively, for locally AGC between March 2010 and February 2017. The primary outcome was the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary endpoint included 3-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence patterns. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce confounding bias. The outcomes were compared in PSM cohort.

RESULTS

After PSM, a well-balanced cohort of 816 patients (408 in each group) were included in the analysis. The 3-year DFS rate was 76.2% in the robotic group and 70.1% in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.076). The 3-year OS rates was 76.7% in the robotic group and 73.3% in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.246). In the subgroup analyses for potential confounding variables, neither 3-year DFS nor 3-year OS survival were significantly different between the two groups (all P > 0.05). The two groups showed similar recurrence patterns within 3 years after surgery (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

For patients with locally AGC, RG can result in comparable long-term survival outcomes without an increase in recurrence rate.

Current status of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy

Robotic systems were developed to overcome limitations of laparoscopic surgery with its mechanical advantages. Along with the technical advances, robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer is increasing. However, the evidence regarding safety and efficacy for robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer is not mature yet. Although studies are limited, it is evident that robotic gastrectomy has a longer operation and less blood loss compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy. Studies revealed long-term oncological outcomes after robotic gastrectomy was comparable to those after laparoscopic gastrectomy. Taken together, robotic gastrectomy with systemic lymph node dissection is suggested as a safe procedure with equivalent short- and long-term oncologic outcomes to either laparoscopic or open gastrectomy for the surgical treatment of gastric cancer. However, high cost is the most significant barrier to justify robotic surgery as a routine and standard treatment for patients with gastric cancer. In the meanwhile, robotic surgery will be expansively used as long as technologic developments continue.

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

Aim:

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

Materials and Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Robot-assisted laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy for early-stage gastric cancer: Case series of initial experience

BACKGROUND

In the last decade's robotic gastrectomy (RG) has increasingly widespread as a valid minimally invasive option for treatment of gastric cancer. In literature, evidence of its routine use is not yet well established. The aims of this study are to report our initial experience and to present possible advantages of our hybrid operative technique for subtotal gastrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospectively, we analyzed data from 41 patients (22 male and 19 female) who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (RALG) with D2 lymphadenectomy using the da Vinci XI robotic system. Inclusion criteria were gastric cancer in the middle or lower portion of the stomach amenable of radical subtotal gastrectomy without preoperative suspicion of positive lymph-nodes or other organs involving and distant metastasis. All the procedures were performed by attending surgeons.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 270 min with one case of conversion to open surgery. The mean age was 71.4 (IQR 68.2-76.8) with 43.9% of patients classified as ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score ≥3. The median of lymph-nodes retrieved was 25 (IQR 19-35). No intra-operative complications occurred. Time to resume a soft diet was 5 days. Patients were hospitalized a median of 7 days. According to pathological AJCC-TNM, 21 patients were classified as advanced gastric cancer. Post-operative morbidity was recorded in 9 patients (21.9%) with major complications requiring surgical operation in 4 patients (9.8%). Elevated ASA score, fewer lymph-nodes retrieved and ICU recovery requirements were significant increased in patients with major complications.

CONCLUSION

The preliminary results demonstrated that robot-assisted laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy is safe and feasible. In particular, we found that the da Vinci platform improves surgeon abilities to perform an adequate lymphadenectomy and digestive reconstruction. Further studies are necessary to better clarify the role of this high-cost technology in minimally invasive treatment of gastric cancer.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREA COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

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

Background

To date, robotic surgery has been widely used worldwide. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) in gastric cancer patients to determine whether RG can replace laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was applied to perform the study. Pubmed, Cochrane Library, WanFang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP databases were comprehensively searched for studies published before May 2020 that compared RG with LG. Next, two independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The quality of the literature was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and the data analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Random effects or fixed effects models were applied according to heterogeneity.

Results

A total of 19 studies including 7275 patients were included in the meta-analyses, of which 4598 patients were in the LG group and 2677 in the RG group. Compared with LG, RG was associated with longer operative time (WMD = −32.96, 95% CI −42.08 ~ −23.84, P < 0.001), less blood loss (WMD = 28.66, 95% CI 18.59 ~ 38.73, P < 0.001), and shorter time to first flatus (WMD = 0.16 95% CI 0.06 ~ 0.27, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference between RG and LG in terms of the hospital stay (WMD = 0.23, 95% CI −0.53 ~ 0.98, P = 0.560), overall postoperative complication (OR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 ~ 1.25, P = 0.430), mortality (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 ~ 1.90, P = 0.450), the number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = −0.96, 95% CI −2.12 ~ 0.20, P = 0.100), proximal resection margin (WMD = −0.10, 95% CI −0.29 ~ 0.09, P = 0.300), and distal resection margin (WMD = 0.15, 95% CI −0.21 ~ 0.52, P = 0.410). No significant differences were found between the two treatments in overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 ~ 1.18, P = 0.640), recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 ~ 1.21, P = 0.530), and recurrence rate (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 ~ 1.21, P = 0.500).

Conclusions

The results of this study suggested that RG is as acceptable as LG in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. RG can be performed as effectively and safely as LG. Moreover, more randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques with rigorous study designs are still essential to evaluate the value of the robotic surgery for gastric cancer.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s12957-020-02080-7.

Morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a large cohort study

BACKGROUND

Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of gastric cancer in recent year. However, whether RDG could reduce the morbidity when compared to laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes of RDG and LDG for gastric cancer and identify the related risk factors.

METHODS

Between March 2010 and August 2019, consecutive patients undergoing RDG or LDG (519 and 957 patients, respectively) at our institution were included in this study. Postoperative complications were stratified according to the Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification. We performed one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, and evaluated postoperative morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes in PSM 1032 patients undergoing RDG or LDG.

RESULTS

After PSM, the two groups were well-balanced. The mean blood loss of the RDG group was about 27 mL less than that of the LDG group (112.1 vs 139.0 mL, P < 0.001). The RDG group had more retrieved lymph nodes than that in the LDG group (32.7 v 30.2, P < 0.001). The RDG group showed a similar overall (9.9% vs 10.7%, P = 0.682), severe (2.7% vs 3.7%, P = 0.376), local (5.6% vs 5.2%, P = 0.783), and systemic complication rates (5.4% vs 6.0%, P = 0.688). There were no significant differences in mortality between the two groups (RDG 0% vs LDG 0.2%, P = 1.000). Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in most stratified parameters. Age > 65 years and ASA III were identified as two major risk factors for complications.

CONCLUSION

RDG could be a safe and feasible in treating gastric cancer compared to LDG. However, we did not observe significant reduction in postoperative complications of RDG compared with LDG, although the use of robotic system is assumed to provide a technically superior operative environment.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Experience and technique of simultaneous robotic resection for synchronous advanced gastric and rectal cancers: a case report

Background

Recently, robotic surgery has become more common as a minimally invasive treatment for gastric cancer (GC) and rectal cancer (RC). Herein, we report successful simultaneous robotic gastrectomy and low anterior resection in a patient with advanced GC and RC.

Case presentation

A 76-year-old woman who presented with bloody stool was found to have advanced GC with lymph node metastases and advanced RC. Simultaneous robotic distal gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection and Billroth I reconstruction and low anterior resection with D3 lymph node dissection were performed. Preoperatively, multidisciplinary medical staff discussed the case in detail and conducted a simulation with the robot, operating room, and patient. The total operative time was 648 min (console time, 520 min), and the estimated blood loss was small. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 10 without any adverse events. In this case, careful simulation of the patient cart setting and planning of the best port layout resulted in a successful surgical outcome despite this being our first simultaneous total robotic surgery for advanced GC and RC.

Conclusions

Simultaneous robotic surgery for advanced GC and RC may be technically feasible and could provide an option for future minimally invasive treatment.

Effectiveness and safety of robotic versus traditional laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Gastrectomy is considered the gold standard treatment for gastric cancer patients. Currently, there are two minimally invasive surgical methods to choose from, robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Nevertheless, it is still unclear which is superior between the two. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of RG and LG for gastric cancer. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases until September 2018 in studies that compared RG and LG in gastric cancer patients. Operative and postoperative outcomes analyzed were assessed. The quality of the evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. Twenty-four English studies were analyzed. The meta-analysis revealed that the RG group had a significantly longer operation time, lower intraoperative blood loss, and higher perioperative costs compared to the LG group. However, there were no differences in complications, conversion rate, reoperation rate, mortality, number of lymph nodes harvested, days of first flatus, postoperative hospitalization time, and survival rate between the two groups. RG was shown to be associated with decreased intraoperative blood loss and increased perioperative cost and operation time compared to LG. Several higher-quality original studies and prospective clinical trials are required to confirm the advantages of RG.

Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Gastrectomy among Gastric Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Short-Term Analysis from a Single Institution in China

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci robotic system was considered an effectively alternative treatment option for early gastric cancer patients in recent years. The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted gastrectomy in our center.

METHODS

This study included 33 patients who underwent robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) and 88 patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) between January 2016 and April 2018. Clinicopathological characteristics, surgical parameters, postoperative recovery, and the learning curves of RAG were evaluated.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics between two groups were well balanced. The operation time of RAG was longer than that of LAG (333.1 ± 61.4 min vs. 290.6 ± 39.0 min, p = 0.001), and the estimated blood loss was 62.4 ± 41.2 ml in the RAG group and 77.7 ± 32.3 ml in the LAG group (p = 0.005), respectively. The mean number of examined lymph nodes in RAG was less than that in LAG (30.3 ± 10.2 vs. 37.4 ± 13.7, p = 0.008). However, RAG had an advantage in the dissection of No. 9 lymph nodes (3.4 ± 2.1 vs. 2.5 ± 1.6, p = 0.039). The incidence of postoperative complications was similar in both groups (p = 0.735). There were no significant differences in terms of postoperative recovery between the two groups. The learning curve of RAG showed that the CUSUM value decreased from the 8th case, which suggested a rapid learning curve among experienced surgeons on LAG operations.

CONCLUSIONS

RAG was safe and feasible for gastric cancer patients, with superiority in the dissection of No. 9 lymph nodes.

Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer: short-term outcomes at a mono-institution

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted surgery, a developed technology, is becoming more and more accepted by surgeons. However, the comparison between robotic-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) and conventional laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is seldom reported, or usually the sample sizes reported are small. The current research was designed to compare the short-term outcomes of RATG and LATG with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC in a mono-institution from China.

METHODS

A total of 205 patients from June 2015 to October 2018 were included in this study. Among them, 106 patients underwent LATG, and 99 patients underwent RATG. The patients' clinicopathological characteristics, surgical performance and short-term outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The clinicopathological characteristics showed no difference between the LATG group and the RATG group. However, compared with the LATG group, the operation time was longer (P = 0.000), and the operative blood loss (P = 0.000) and the volume of abdominal drainage was less (P = 0.000) in the RATG group. Moreover, the RATG took less time to remove abdominal drainage tube than LATG (P = 0.000). The plasma levels of CRP at 72 h post-operation was lower (P = 0.000), and the number of retrieved lymph nodes was more (P = 0.000) in the RATG group. Nevertheless, the postoperative length of stay (P = 0.890), the time to first flatus (P = 0.448), the postoperative complication (P = 0.915) and the visual analogue pain score at 24 h post-operation (P = 0.457) were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RATG with D2 lymphadenectomy shows safety and feasibility for AGC and could be served as an alternative treatment for AGC in the future.

Comparative analysis of robotic gastrectomy and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in terms of their long-term oncological outcomes: a meta-analysis of 3410 gastric cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the long-term oncological outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) are limited despite the increased commonality of this method as an alternative for gastric cancer treatment. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes of RG in comparison to that of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

METHODS

The PubMed, ISI Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were comprehensively searched for studies that compared RG and LG in terms of their long-term survival outcomes. The hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and relapse-free survival (RFS) were obtained, while the odds ratio (OR) was recorded for the recurrence rate. A sensitivity analysis was performed. Egger's test and Begg's test were applied to evaluate publication bias.

RESULTS

Eight studies were identified and involved 3410 gastric cancer patients (RG, 1009; LG, 2401). The two groups had no significant differences in OS (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.80-1.20; P = 0.81), DFS (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.33-5.59; P = 0.67), RFS (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.19; P = 0.53), or recurrence rate (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.71-1.19; P = 0.53). Moreover, the two techniques were comparable in length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative complication rate, 30-day mortality rate, and rate of conversion to open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term oncological outcomes, expressed as OS, DFS, RFS, and recurrence rate, were similar between RG and LG. However, more randomized controlled trials with rigorous study designs and patient cohorts are needed to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of RG in patients with gastric cancer.

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.