Clinical Outcome of Robotic Gastrectomy in Gastric Cancer in Comparison with Laparoscopic Gastrectomy: A Case-Control Study

Evaluating the safety of robotic total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer against the conventional laparoscopic approach: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Gastric cancer poses a significant global health challenge, necessitating effective surgical interventions. A critical gap in the literature exists, as most studies do not differentiate between various surgical approaches, i.e., total, distal, and subtotal gastrectomy, and level of lymphadenectomy, when comparing robotic to conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy. This leads to a lack of clear evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) specifically in the context of total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy.This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the safety of RTG with D2 lymphadenectomy compared to conventional laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG). A literature search was conducted up to November 1, 2024, following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included studies comparing RTG and LTG, focusing on anastomotic leakage, Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ III complications, conversion rates, mortality, overall complications, and reoperation rates. Data were synthesized using odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD), with statistical heterogeneity assessed using the I2 statistic. Five studies comprising 1131 patients (432 RTG, 700 LTG) were included. No significant differences were found in the following outcomes: anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.79 [95% CI: 0.35, 1.78], I2 = 0%, P = 0.57), Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ III complications (OR = 0.86 [95% CI: 0.51, 1.45], I2 = 0%, P = 0.56), conversion to open surgery (OR = 0.34 [95% CI: 0.10, 1.18], I2 = 0%, P = 0.09), mortality (OR = 1.78 [95% CI: 0.23, 13.48], I2 = 0%, P = 0.58), overall complications (OR = 0.84 [95% CI: 0.62, 1.14], I2 = 0%, P = 0.26), and reoperation rates (OR = 0.88 [95% CI: 0.29, 2.67], I2 = 0%, P = 0.82). Sensitivity analysis proves the robustness of the findings. The analysis shows no significant differences in safety outcomes between RTG and LTG for gastric cancer, indicating both techniques are comparable. RTG may be a viable alternative to LTG, especially in centers with appropriate robotic capabilities. Further research is warranted to investigate long-term outcomes and the learning curve of robotic surgery.PROSPERO Registration: CRD42024606570.

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.

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.

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: The largest meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has progressed rapidly in the last decade, overcoming many obstacles in laparoscopic technology. We compared surgical performance and short-term clinical outcomes between RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). In total, 163 patients with gastric cancer were randomly treated with RG (n=102) or LG (n=61). D2 lymphadenectomy was achieved in all patients. Digestive tract reconstruction in the RG group was performed by intracorporeal hand sewing, but extracorporeal anastomosis in the LG group was performed with a 25-mm circular stapler or linear stapler. Compared with the LG group, the RG group had less intraoperative blood loss (P=0.005) and more lymph nodes retrieved (P=0.000). Postoperative complications between the 2 groups were not significantly different during the 11-month follow-up (P=0.063). Compared with LG, RG is a feasible and safe approach with minimally invasive, satisfactory intracorporeal digestive tract reconstruction, and fast recovery. Multicenter randomized controlled studies of larger numbers of patients are needed.

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

Background

Advanced minimally invasive techniques including robotic surgery are being employed with increasing frequency around the world, primarily in order to improve the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy (RG).

Methods

Studies, which compared surgical outcomes between LG and RG, were retrieved from medical databases before May 2017. Outcomes of interest were estimated as weighted mean difference (WMD) or risk ratio (RR) using the random-effects model. The software Review Manage version 5.1 was used for all calculations.

Results

Nineteen comparative studies with 5953 patients were included in this analysis. Compared with LG, RG was associated with longer operation time (WMD = −49.05 min; 95% CI: -58.18 ~ −39.91, P < 0.01), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = 24.38 ml; 95% CI: 12.32 ~ 36.43, P < 0.01), earlier time to oral intake (WMD = 0.23 days; 95% CI: 0.13 ~ 0.34, P < 0.01), and a higher expense (WMD = −3944.8 USD; 95% CI: -4943.5 ~ −2946.2, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding time to flatus, hospitalization, morbidity, mortality, harvested lymph nodes, and cancer recurrence.

Conclusions

RG can be performed as safely as LG. However, it will take more effort to decrease operation time and expense.

Robotic Total Gastrectomy With Intracorporeal Robot-Sewn Anastomosis: A Novel Approach Adopting the Double-Loop Reconstruction Method

Gastric cancer constitutes a major health problem. Robotic surgery has been progressively developed in this field. Although the feasibility of robotic procedures has been demonstrated, there are unresolved aspects being debated, including the reproducibility of intracorporeal in place of extracorporeal anastomosis.Difficulties of traditional laparoscopy have been described and there are well-known advantages of robotic systems, but few articles in literature describe a full robotic execution of the reconstructive phase while others do not give a thorough explanation how this phase was run.A new reconstructive approach, not yet described in literature, was recently adopted at our Center.Robotic total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy and a so-called "double-loop" reconstruction method with intracorporeal robot-sewn anastomosis (Parisi's technique) was performed in all reported cases.Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected and a technical note was documented.All tumors were located at the upper third of the stomach, and no conversions or intraoperative complications occurred. Histopathological analysis showed R0 resection obtained in all specimens. Hospital stay was regular in all patients and discharge was recommended starting from the 4th postoperative day. No major postoperative complications or reoperations occurred.Reconstruction of the digestive tract after total gastrectomy is one of the main areas of surgical research in the treatment of gastric cancer and in the field of minimally invasive surgery.The double-loop method is a valid simplification of the traditional technique of construction of the Roux-limb that could increase the feasibility and safety in performing a full hand-sewn intracorporeal reconstruction and it appears to fit the characteristics of the robotic system thus obtaining excellent postoperative clinical outcomes.

Current status of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Although over 3000 da Vinci Surgical System (DVSS) devices have been installed worldwide, robotic surgery for gastric cancer has not yet become widely spread and is only available in several advanced institutions. This is because, at least in part, the advantages of robotic surgery for gastric cancer remain unclear. The safety and feasibility of robotic gastrectomy have been demonstrated in several retrospective studies. However, no sound evidence has been reported to support the superiority of a robotic approach for gastric cancer treatment. In addition, the long-term clinical outcomes following robotic gastrectomy have yet to be clarified. Nevertheless, a robotic approach can potentially overcome the disadvantages of conventional laparoscopic surgery if the advantageous functions of this technique are optimized, such as the use of wristed instruments, tremor filtering and high-resolution 3-D images. The potential advantages of robotic gastrectomy have been discussed in several retrospective studies, including the ability to achieve sufficient lymphadenectomy in the area of the splenic hilum, reductions in local complication rates and a shorter learning curve for the robotic approach compared to conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy. In this review, we present the current status and discuss issues regarding robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic and open resections for gastric carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) has been developed in the hope of improving surgical quality and overcoming the limitations of conventional laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy (LAG) and open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to determine the extent of evidence in support of these ideals.

METHODS

A systematic review of the three operation types (RAG, LAG and OG) was carried out to evaluate short-term outcomes including duration of operation, retrieved lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, resection margin status, technical postoperative complications and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Nine non-randomized observational clinical studies involving 7200 patients satisfied the eligibility criteria. RAG was associated with longer operating times than LAG and OG (weighted mean difference 61.99 and 65.73 min respectively; P ≤ 0.001). The number of retrieved lymph nodes and the resection margin length in RAG were comparable with those of LAG and OG. Estimated blood loss as significantly less in RAG than in OG (P = 0.002), but not LAG. Mean hospital stay for RAG was similar to that for LAG (P = 0.14). In contrast, hospital stay was significantly shorter, by a mean of 2.18 days, for RAG compared with OG (P < 0.001). Postoperative complications were similar for all three operative approaches.

CONCLUSION

Short-term oncological outcomes of RAG were comparable with those of the other approaches. LAG was a shorter procedure and less expensive than RAG. Future studies involving RAG should focus on minimizing duration of operation and reducing cost.