Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Gastroenterol. Oct 7, 2019; 25(37): 5641-5654
Published online Oct 7, 2019. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i37.5641
Table 1 General clinical and pathological data of patients
VariableAll patients
Propensity score matching
RSPSHL
LSPSHL
P-valueRSPSHL
LSPSHL
P-value
(n = 35)%(n = 608)%(n = 35)%(n = 140)%
Age, yr155.3 ± 10.456.9 ± 10.60.42455.3 ± 10.455.1 ± 11.50.925
Sex0.3450.615
Female617.115625.7617.11712.1
Male2982.945274.32982.912387.9
BMI, kg/m2[1]23.0 ± 2.722.2 ± 3.00.15223.0 ± 2.723.1 ± 3.00.858
ASA score0.0140.944
I411.418630.6411.41913.6
II2880.040165.92880.010977.8
III38.6213.538.6128.6
cT classification0.0370.211
T21028.610016.41028.62215.7
T31542.920734.11542.96949.3
T4a1028.630149.51028.64935.0
cN classification0.4830.541
N01337.121234.81337.15740.7
N11440.018730.61440.03927.9
N2411.412220.0411.42115.0
N3411.48914.6411.42316.4
cTNM stage0.0940.137
IB25.7559.025.7139.3
IIA720.010617.4720.01812.9
IIB1337.110417.11337.13122.1
IIIA720.013722.5720.02215.7
IIIB38.610917.938.62920.7
IIIC38.69716.038.62719.3
Depth of invasion0.2010.617
pT1a514.3315.1514.3107.1
pT1b411.4528.6411.42417.1
pT225.755925.7107.1
pT31645.728346.51645.75740.7
pT4a822.918730.8822.93927.9
Metastatic LNs0.3080.649
N01645.719431.91645.75438.6
N1617.117428.7617.12014.3
N2617.112019.7617.12316.4
N3720.012019.7720.04330.7
pTNM stage0.0380.102
IA720.0447.2720.02920.7
IB38.6457.438.685.7
IIA617.19115.0617.12316.4
IIB617.19315.3617.11611.4
IIIA617.112220.1617.185.7
IIIB25.714924.525.73122.1
IIIC514.36410.5514.32517.9
Charlson score0.4670.132
02571.543972.22571.59064.3
1617.112921.2617.14330.7
≥2411.4406.6411.475.0
Primary site0.4580.335
Upper2160.040266.12160.09668.6
Middle1440.020633.91440.04431.4
Table 2 Operative outcomes after propensity score matching
VariableRSPSHL (n = 35)%LSPSHL (n = 140)%P-value
Total operative time, min1221.3 ± 40.3189.1 ± 43.8<0.001
Docking time, min230 (26-34)-
OR time, min1186.0 ± 35.3189.1 ± 43.80.698
EBL, mL113.7 ± 4.362.4 ± 29.3<0.001
SHDT, min120.4 ± 4.524.1 ± 8.90.018
First step, min18.4 ± 3.58.7 ± 4.00.685
Second step, min16.7 ± 2.69.8 ± 5.60.002
Third step, min15.2 ± 2.15.6 ± 3.00.458
SHBL, mL12.2 ± 1.910.0 ± 4.5<0.001
No. of SGVs13.5 ± 1.23.6 ± 1.10.637
No. of PGAs (yes)2262.98157.90.591
No. of SUPAs (yes)411.42014.30.870
No. of SLPAs (yes)12.9750.928
Terminal branches of SpA0.754
Concentrated type2365.78862.9
Distributed type1234.35237.1
Splenic injury38.61913.60.608
Vascular injury7201712.10.350
No.10 metastatic LN411.41510.70.855
No.10 retrieved LN13.1 ± 1.43.3 ± 2.50.650
Total retrieved LNs137.8 ± 13.140.6 ± 13.60.274
Table 3 Noncompliance rate of nodal dissection between robotic spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy and laparoscopic spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy
VariableRSPSHL
LSPSHL
P-value
CompliantNoncompliantCompliantNoncompli-ant
cT classification
cT2376160.791
cT36931390.761
cT44619290.741
cN classification
cN04922360.868
cN16815230.825
cN22211100.647
cN3138150.848
cTNM stage
I11581.000
II91618310.950
III3533450.909
BMI, kg/m2
< 25111438680.449
≥ 252818160.139
Total132256840.757
Table 4 Short-term operative outcomes and postoperative complications according to the Clavien–Dindo classification
VariableRSPSHL (n = 35)%LSPSHL (n = 140)%P-value
Time to ambulation, d12.4 ± 0.92.1 ± 1.00.107
Flatus passage, d13.2 ± 0.93.5 ± 1.30.199
Liquid diet, d14.8 ± 1.15.4 ± 1.70.049
Soft diet, d17.0 ± 2.47.5 ± 1.50.125
Drain removal, d19.2 ± 2.19.6 ± 2.00.296
Nasojejunal tube removal, d13.9 ± 1.64.8 ± 2.50.044
LOS, d114.7 ± 13.414.4 ± 11.50.894
Overall complications514.32517.90.616
Grade I–II38.61712.10.632
Anastomotic fistula25.732.1
Digestive hemorrhage-10.7
Lymphatic fistula-64.3
Intestinal obstruction-10.7
Intraperitoneal infection12.942.9
Wound infection-10.7
Fat liquefaction-10.7
Grade III-IV25.785.71
Anastomotic fistula-10.7
Digestive hemorrhage12.932.1
Lymphatic fistula-21.4
Intestinal obstruction-10.7
Intraperitoneal infection12.910.7
30-day mortality00
In-hospital mortality00
Table 5 Time difference between the first and second steps among robotic spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy patients
VariableFirst step time (min)1Second step time (min)1P-value
Total RSPSHL (n = 35)8.4 ± 3.56.7 ± 2.60.024
EG (n = 20)10.0 ± 3.47.5 ± 2.60.013
LG (n = 15)6.3 ± 2.35.8 ± 2.20.548

  • Citation: Wang JB, Liu ZY, Chen QY, Zhong Q, Xie JW, Lin JX, Lu J, Cao LL, Lin M, Tu RH, Huang ZN, Lin JL, Zheng HL, Que SJ, Zheng CH, Huang CM, Li P. Short-term efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy via Huang's three-step maneuver for advanced upper gastric cancer: Results from a propensity score-matched study. World J Gastroenterol 2019; 25(37): 5641-5654
  • URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v25/i37/5641.htm
  • DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v25.i37.5641