Meta-analysis of outcomes compared between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Evaluating the Role of Robotic Surgery Gastric Cancer Treatment: A Comprehensive Review by the Robotic Global Surgical Society (TROGSS) and European Federation International Society for Digestive Surgery (EFISDS) Joint Working Group

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy (RAMIG) represents a significant advancement in the surgical management of gastric cancer, offering superior dexterity, enhanced visualization, and improved ergonomics compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). This review systematically evaluates the current evidence on perioperative outcomes, oncological efficacy, learning curves, and economic considerations, providing insights into RAMIG's potential role in modern gastric cancer surgery.

METHODS

A thorough analysis of retrospective, prospective, and meta-analytic studies was conducted to compare RAMIG with LG. Key outcomes, including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, lymph node retrieval, postoperative complications, learning curve duration, and cost-effectiveness, were assessed. Emphasis was placed on both short-term and long-term oncological outcomes to determine the clinical value of RAMIG.

RESULTS

Evidence indicates that RAMIG is associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity rates, and a shorter learning curve, with proficiency achieved after 11-25 cases compared to 40-60 cases for LG. The robotic platform's articulated instruments and enhanced three-dimensional visualization enable more precise lymphadenectomy, particularly in complex anatomical regions. Despite these advantages, operative time remains longer, and costs remain higher due to system acquisition, maintenance, and consumable expenses. However, emerging data suggest a gradual narrowing of cost disparities. While short-term outcomes are favorable, further high-quality, multicenter studies are needed to validate long-term oncological efficacy and survival outcomes.

CONCLUSION

RAMIG offers significant technical and clinical advantages over conventional LG, particularly in terms of precision and learning efficiency. However, the long-term oncological benefits and economic feasibility require further validation. Future research should focus on cost optimization, advanced technological integration such as near-infrared fluorescence and artificial intelligence, and multicenter trials to solidify RAMIG's role as a standard approach for gastric cancer surgery.

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

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

Current standards of surgical management of gastric cancer: an appraisal

PURPOSE

Gastric cancer (GC) is the fifth most common malignancy worldwide and portends a grim prognosis due to a lack of appreciable improvement in 5-year survival. We aimed to analyze the available literature and summarize the current standards of surgical care for curative and palliative intent treatment of GC.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on the PubMed database for studies on the management of GC.

RESULTS

Endoscopic resection is an acceptable treatment option for T1a tumors. The role of optimal resection margin for GC remains unclear. D2 lymph node dissection remains the standard of care with splenectomy needed selectively for splenic hilum involvement. A distal pancreatic resection should be avoided. The advantage of bursectomy and omentectomy in GC surgery is not clear. Multi-visceral resection may be considered for locally advanced GC in carefully selected patients. Minimally invasive approaches are non-inferior to open surgery. Surgery should be abandoned prior even in metastatic GC within the frame of multimodal therapy approach.

CONCLUSION

Various trials have conclusively shown improved patient outcomes when well-established surgical standards are followed.

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

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

A meta-analysis of robotic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy in gastric cancer treatment

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) shows potential as an alternative to open gastrectomy (OG), the gold standard in the surgical management of gastric cancer (GC). This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the short-term efficacy and safety of RG versus OG for GC.A systematic literature search was conducted on RG with OG for GC in randomized and semi-randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Published materials and conference papers in English and trace references included in the literature were manually searched. The retrieval period was set to end in February 2021. The quality of the included studies was evaluated, and meta-analysis was conducted using the software STATA 15.1. Eleven studies with 6693 patients were included. Major blood loss (weighted mean differences (WMD) = -114.63, 95 % CI, -182.37-46.88, P = 0.001), hospital stay (WMD = -2.21, 95 % CI, -4.32-0.09, P = 0.041), and postoperative complications (odds ratio (OR) = OR = 0.57, 95 % CI, 0.35-0.93, P = 0.025) were fewer in the RS group, and R0 resection (odds ratio (OR) = 6.26, 95 % CI, 2.733-14.35, P = 0.000) occurred more frequently in the RG group than in the OG group. But positive lymph nodes (WMD = -2.09, 95 % CI,-3.73-0.45, P = 0.012) occurred less frequently in the RG group than in the OG group, and operative time was longer in the RG group than in the OG group (WMD = 83.21, 95 % CI, 19.88-146.55, P = 0.010). RG not only provides a technique for the treatment of GC but is also safe and feasible. This finding needs to be verified by multicenter, large-sample randomized controlled trials in the future.

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

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

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.

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

Importance

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

Objectives

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

Evidence review

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

Findings

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

Conclusions

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

Robotic surgery for the upper gastrointestinal tract: Current status and future perspectives

More than 4000 da Vinci Surgical Systems have been installed worldwide. Robotic surgery using the da Vinci Surgical System has been increasingly performed in the last decade, especially in urology and gynecology. The da Vinci Surgical System has not become standard in surgery of the upper gastrointestinal tract because of a lack of clear benefits in comparison with conventional minimally invasive surgery. We initiated robotic gastrectomy and esophagectomy for patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer in 2009, and we have demonstrated the potential advantages of the da Vinci Surgical System in reducing postoperative local complications after gastrectomy and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy after esophagectomy. However, robotic surgery has the disadvantages of a longer operative time and higher costs than the conventional approach. In this review article, we present the current status of robotic surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, as well as future perspectives on this approach, based on our experience and a review of the literature.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Phase III evidence in the shape of a series of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses has shown that laparoscopic gastrectomy is safe and gives better short-term results with respect to the traditional open technique for early-stage gastric cancer. In fact, in the East laparoscopic gastrectomy has become routine for early-stage gastric cancer. In contrast, the treatment of advanced gastric cancer through a minimally invasive way is still a debated issue, mostly due to worries about its oncological efficacy and the difficulty of carrying out an extended lymphadenectomy and intestinal reconstruction after total gastrectomy laparoscopically. Over the last ten years the introduction of robotic surgery has implied overcoming some intrinsic drawbacks found to be present in the conventional laparoscopic procedure. Robot-assisted gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy has been shown to be safe and feasible for the treatment of gastric cancer patients. But unfortunately, most available studies investigating the robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared to laparoscopic and open technique are so far retrospective and there have not been phase III trials. In the present review we looked at scientific evidence available today regarding the new high-tech surgical robotic approach, and we attempted to bring to light the real advantages of robot-assisted gastrectomy compared to the traditional laparoscopic and open technique for the treatment of gastric cancer.

Robotic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy in the treatment of gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been developed to improve surgical quality and to overcome the limitations of conventional open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis is to comprehensively compare the safety and efficacy between robotic surgery and open surgery for treating gastric cancer.

METHODS

Major databases were searched for retrospective case-matched studies comparing RG and OG for treating gastric cancer. A list of these studies, published in English from 1990 to 2016, was obtained independently by two reviewers from databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Web of Science. Intraoperative data, oncological outcomes and postoperative complications were compared using Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

Seven studies involving 5970 patients with 606 cases of RG and 5364 cases of OG were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to OG, RG has a significantly longer operation time [weighted mean differences (WMD) = 63.72, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 33.83-93.61, P < 0.0001], lower blood loss (WMD: -129.74, 95 % CI -178.31 to -81.16, P < 0.00001) and shorter hospital stay (WMD = -2.39, 95 % CI -2.92 to -1.87; P < 0.00001). No statistical difference was noted based on the rate of overall postoperative complication, wound infection, bleeding, ileus and obstruction, abdominal collections and abscesses, and the rate of anastomotic leak in the RG versus OG. Postoperative oncological outcomes showed that there were also no statistical differences among the number of retrieved lymph nodes, proximal resection margin, distal resection margin except for tumor size (WMD = -1.60; 95 % CI -2.96 to -0.25; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that RG will be more accessible than conventional OG for gastric cancer. However, more prospective, well-designed, multicenter, randomized controlled trials are necessary to further evaluate the safety and efficacy as well as the long-term outcome of this technology.

Robotic surgery for upper gastrointestinal cancer: Current status and future perspectives

Robotic surgery with the da Vinci Surgical System has been increasingly applied in a wide range of surgical specialties, especially in urology and gynecology. However, in the field of upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract, the da Vinci Surgical System has yet to be standard as a result of a lack of clear benefits in comparison with conventional minimally invasive surgery. We have been carrying out robotic gastrectomy and esophagectomy for operable patients with resectable upper GI malignancies since 2009, and have demonstrated the potential advantages of the use of the robot in possibly reducing postoperative local complications including pancreatic fistula following gastrectomy and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy after esophagectomy, even though there have been a couple of problems to be solved including longer duration of operation and higher cost. The present review provides updates on robotic surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer based on our experience and review of the literature.

Who may benefit from robotic gastrectomy?: A subgroup analysis of multicenter prospective comparative study data on robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy

AIMS

Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer has been proven to be a feasible and safe minimally invasive procedure. However, our previous multicenter prospective study indicated that robotic gastrectomy is not superior to laparoscopic gastrectomy. This study aimed to identify which subgroups of patients would benefit from robotic gastrectomy rather than from conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy.

METHODS

A prospective multicenter comparative study comparing laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy was previously conducted. We divided the patients into subgroups according to obesity, type of gastrectomy performed, and extent of lymph node dissection. Surgical outcomes were compared between the robotic and laparoscopic groups in each subgroup.

RESULTS

A total of 434 patients were enrolled into the robotic (n = 223) and laparoscopic (n = 211) surgery groups. According to obesity and gastrectomy type, there was no difference in the estimated blood loss (EBL), number of retrieved lymph nodes, complication rate, open conversion rate, and the length of hospital stay between the robotic and laparoscopic groups. According to the extent of lymph node dissection, the robotic group showed a significantly lower EBL than did the laparoscopic group after D2 dissection (P = 0.021), while there was no difference in EBL in patients that did not undergo D2 dissection (P = 0.365).

CONCLUSION

Patients with gastric cancer undergoing D2 lymph node dissection can benefit from less blood loss when a robotic surgery system is used.

Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence

The aim of this meta-analysis was to comprehensively compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and open rectal cancer surgery (ORCS). Electronic database (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library) searches were conducted for all relevant studies that compared the short-term and long-term outcomes between RRCS and ORCS. Odds ratios (ORs), mean differences, and hazard ratios were calculated. Seven studies involving 1074 patients with rectal cancer were identified for this meta-analysis. Compared with ORCS, RRCS is associated with a lower estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD]: −139.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −159.11 to −120.86; P < 0.00001), shorter hospital stay length (MD: −2.10, 95% CI: −3.47 to −0.73; P = 0.003), lower intraoperative transfusion requirements (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.99, P = 0.05), shorter time to flatus passage (MD: −0.97, 95% CI = −1.06 to −0.88, P < 0.00001), and shorter time to resume a normal diet (MD: −1.71.95% CI = −3.31 to −0.12, P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in surgery-related complications, oncologic clearance, disease-free survival, and overall survival between the two groups. However, RRCS was associated with a longer operative time. RRCS is safe and effective.

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

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

Robotic surgery for gastric cancer

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

Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Robotic surgery for gastric cancer overcomes technical difficulties with laparoscopic gastrectomy. Its benefits include reduced intraoperative bleeding and shorter hospital stays; it is also easier to learn. Because accuracy increases during lymphadenectomy, a larger number of lymph nodes is likely to be retrieved using robotic gastrectomy. Higher costs and longer operation times have hindered the widespread adaptation and use of robotic surgery. In this review, we summarize the current status and issues regarding robotic gastrectomy.

Potential advantages of robotic radical gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in comparison with conventional laparoscopic approach: a single institutional retrospective comparative cohort study

BACKGROUND

We have previously reported that laparoscopic approach improved short-term postoperative courses even for advanced gastric adenocarcinoma, but not morbidity, in comparison with open approach. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of the use of the surgical robot, da Vinci Surgical System, in minimally invasive radical gastrectomy on short-term outcomes.

METHODS

A single institutional retrospective cohort study was performed (UMIN000011749). Five hundred twenty-six patients who underwent radical gastrectomy were enrolled. Eighty-eight patients who agreed to uninsured use of the surgical robot underwent robotic gastrectomy, whereas the remaining 438 patients who wished for laparoscopic (lap) approach with health insurance coverage underwent conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy.

RESULTS

In the robotic group, morbidity (robotic vs lap 2.3 vs 11.4 %, p = 0.009) and hospital stay following surgery (robotic vs lap 14 [2-31] vs 15 [8-136] days, p = 0.021) were significantly improved, even though operative time (p = 0.003) and estimated blood loss (p = 0.026) were slightly greater. In particular, local (robotic vs lap 1.1 vs 9.8 %, p = 0.007) rather than systemic (robotic vs lap 1.1 vs 2.5 %, p = 0.376) complication rates were attenuated using the surgical robot. Multivariate analyses revealed that non-use of the surgical robot (OR 6.174 [1.454-26.224], p = 0.014), total gastrectomy (OR 4.670 [2.503-8.713], p < 0.001), and D2 lymphadenectomy (OR 2.095 [1.124-3.903], p = 0.020) were the significant independent risk factors determining postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the surgical robot might reduce surgery-related complications, leading to further improvement in short-term postoperative courses following minimally invasive radical gastrectomy.

Robotic general surgery: current practice, evidence, and perspective

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

New insights into autonomic nerve preservation in high ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

AIM

To take a deeper insight into the relationship between the root of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) and the autonomic nerve plexuses around it by cadaveric anatomy and explore anatomical evidence of autonomic nerve preservation in high ligation of the IMA in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Anatomical dissection was performed on 11 formalin-fixed cadavers and 12 fresh cadavers. Anatomical evidence-based autonomic nerve preservation in high ligation of the IMA was performed in 22 laparoscopic curative resections of colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

As the upward continuation of the presacral nerves, the bilateral trunks of SHP had close but different relationships with the root of the IMA. The right trunk of SHP ran relatively far away from the root of IMA. When the apical lymph nodes were dissected close to the root of the IMA along the fascia space in front of the anterior renal fascia, the right trunk of SHP could be kept in suit under the anterior renal fascia. The left descending branches to SHP constituted a natural and constant anatomical landmark of the relationship between the root of IMA and the left autonomic nerves. Proximal to this, the left autonomic nerves surrounded the root of the IMA. Distally, the left trunk of the SHP departed from the root of IMA under the anterior renal fascia. When high ligation of the IMA was performed distal to it, the left trunk of SHP could be preserved. The distance between the left descending branches to SHP and the origin of IMA varied widely from 1.3 cm to 2.3 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

The divergences of the bilateral autonomic nerve preservation around the root of the IMA may contribute to provide anatomical evidence for more precise evaluation of the optimal position of high ligation of the IMA in the future.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Analysis of laparoscopy-assisted gastric cancer operations performed by inexperienced junior surgeons

To clarify whether gastric cancer patients can benefit from laparoscopy-assisted surgery completed by junior surgeons under supervision of expert surgeons, data of 232 patients with gastric cancer underwent operation performed by inexperienced junior surgeons were reviewed. Of the 232 patients, 137 underwent laparoscopy- assisted resection and in 118 cases this approach was successful. All of these 118 patients were assigned to laparoscopic group in this study, 19 patients who were switched to open resection were excluded. All laparoscopic operations were performed under the supervision of expert laparoscopic surgeons. Some 95 patients receiving open resection were assigned to the open group. All open operations were completed independently by the same surgeons. Short-term outcomes including oncologic outcomes, operative time intra-operative blood loss, time to first flatus, time to first defecation, postoperative hospital stay and perioperative complication were compared between the two groups. The numbers of lymph nodes harvested in the laparoscopic and open groups were21.1±9.6 and 18.2±9.7 (p=0.029). There was no significant difference in the length of margins. The mean operative time was 215.9±32.2 min in laparoscopic group and 220.1±34.6min in the open group (p=0.866), and the mean blood loss in laparoscopic group was obviously less than that in open group (200.9±197.0ml vs 291.1±191.4ml; p=0.001). Time to first flatus in laparoscopic and open groups was 4.0±1.0 days and 4.3±1.2days respectively and the difference was not significant (p=0.135). Similarly no statically significant difference was noted for time to first defecation (4.7±1.6 vs 4.8±1.6, p=0.586). Eleven patients in the laparoscopic group and 19 in the open group suffered from peri-operative complications and the difference between the two groups was significant (9.3% vs 20.0%, p=0.026). The conversion rate for laparoscopic surgery was 13.9%. Patients with gastric cancer can benefit from laparoscopy-assisted operations completed by inexperienced junior surgeons under supervision of expert laparoscopic surgeons.