|
1
|
Chen J, Wang F, Wang Y, Zhou J, Yang Y, Zhao Z, Wu R, Wang L, Ren J. A comparison of postoperative outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy: a comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review. BMC Surg 2025; 25:212. [PMID: 40375289 PMCID: PMC12079958 DOI: 10.1186/s12893-025-02934-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2024] [Accepted: 04/24/2025] [Indexed: 05/18/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The application of robot-assisted technology in gastric cancer surgery is gradually gaining attention from surgeons. In this meta-analysis, our main objective was to assess whether robot-assisted techniques are more advantageous than laparoscopic-assisted technology in total gastrectomy. METHODS We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for clinical studies published before October 2023 comparing robotic-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for gastric cancer. Non-clinical studies, data unavailability, or fewer than 50 included cases were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias by determining the quality of the observational studies. Statistical meta-analysis and drawing were performed using the Software Review Manager version 5.3 and Stata version 16.0. P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS Nine studies that included 1,864 patients with gastric cancer were included, published between 2012 and 2023. The results of the analysis showed that RATG has advantages in the following aspects: intraoperative blood loss was 17.69 ml lower in the RATG group than in the LATG group (WMD: -17.69,95% CI:-20.90 ∼ -14.49; P < 0.05); In terms of the number of resected lymph nodes, the RATG group had 2.65 more than the LATG group (WMD: 2.65,95% CI:0.88 ∼ -4.42); P < 0.05); the time to start liquid and postoperative hospital stays were 0.62 and 0.90 days shorter in the RATG group than in the LATG group, respectively (WMD: -0.62,95%CI: -1.06 ∼ -0.19; P < 0.05), (WMD: -0.90,95%CI: -1.43 ∼ -0.37; P < 0.05)); the incidence of major complications and pancreas fistula in the RATG group was 0.59% and 0.17% lower than in the LATG group, respectively (OR: 0.59,95% CI: 0.38 ∼ 0.93; P < 0.05), (OR: 0.17,95% CI: 0.03 ∼ 0.94; P < 0.05). However, the analysis showed that the operative time in the RATG group was 30.96 min longer than in the LATG group (WMD: 30.96,95% CI: 21.24 ∼ 40.69; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this meta-analysis, we concluded that robotic-assisted technology may be a worthwhile technique to apply in the surgical treatment of total gastrectomy. However, this meta-analysis has the limitations that the included studies were all non-randomized controlled trials and published in Asian countries, and more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed for further validation in the future. THE REGISTERED NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER The study protocol for this meta-analysis is registered on the PROSPERO website under registration number CRD42024500512.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jianhua Chen
- Department of General Surgery, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangzhou University, 98 Nantong West Road, Yangzhou, 225001, People's Republic of China
- General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital, Yangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Fei Wang
- Department of Clinical Medical College, The Yangzhou School of Clinical Medicine, Dalian Medical University, Yangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Yong Wang
- Department of General Surgery, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangzhou University, 98 Nantong West Road, Yangzhou, 225001, People's Republic of China
| | - Jie Zhou
- Department of Clinical Medical College, The Yangzhou School of Clinical Medicine, Dalian Medical University, Yangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Yapeng Yang
- Department of General Surgery, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangzhou University, 98 Nantong West Road, Yangzhou, 225001, People's Republic of China
| | - Ziming Zhao
- Department of General Surgery, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangzhou University, 98 Nantong West Road, Yangzhou, 225001, People's Republic of China
| | - Rongfan Wu
- Department of General Surgery, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangzhou University, 98 Nantong West Road, Yangzhou, 225001, People's Republic of China
| | - Liuhua Wang
- Department of General Surgery, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangzhou University, 98 Nantong West Road, Yangzhou, 225001, People's Republic of China
- Yangzhou Key Laboratory of Basic and Clinical Transformation of Digestive and Metabolic Diseases, Yangzhou, People's Republic of China
- General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital, Yangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Jun Ren
- Department of General Surgery, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangzhou University, 98 Nantong West Road, Yangzhou, 225001, People's Republic of China.
- Yangzhou Key Laboratory of Basic and Clinical Transformation of Digestive and Metabolic Diseases, Yangzhou, People's Republic of China.
- General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital, Yangzhou, People's Republic of China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Du R, Wan Y, Shang Y, Lu G. Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: The Largest Systematic Reviews of 68,755 Patients and Meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2025; 32:351-373. [PMID: 39419891 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-16371-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2024] [Accepted: 10/02/2024] [Indexed: 10/19/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rui Du
- State Key Laboratory of Holistic Integrative Management of Gastrointestinal Cancers and National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, 710032, China
- Institute for Biomedical Sciences of Pain, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an 710038, China
| | - Yue Wan
- State Key Laboratory of Holistic Integrative Management of Gastrointestinal Cancers and National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, 710032, China
| | - Yulong Shang
- State Key Laboratory of Holistic Integrative Management of Gastrointestinal Cancers and National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, 710032, China.
| | - Guofang Lu
- State Key Laboratory of Holistic Integrative Management of Gastrointestinal Cancers and National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, 710032, China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Kim IH, Kang SJ, Choi W, Seo AN, Eom BW, Kang B, Kim BJ, Min BH, Tae CH, Choi CI, Lee CK, An HJ, Byun HK, Im HS, Kim HD, Cho JH, Pak K, Kim JJ, Bae JS, Yu JI, Lee JW, Choi J, Kim JH, Choi M, Jung MR, Seo N, Eom SS, Ahn S, Kim SJ, Lee SH, Lim SH, Kim TH, Han HS. Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline). J Gastric Cancer 2025; 25:5-114. [PMID: 39822170 PMCID: PMC11739648 DOI: 10.5230/jgc.2025.25.e11] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/24/2024] [Accepted: 12/24/2024] [Indexed: 01/19/2025] Open
Abstract
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area. Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version. Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- In-Ho Kim
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seung Joo Kang
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Wonyoung Choi
- Center for Gastric Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
| | - An Na Seo
- Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
| | - Bang Wool Eom
- Center for Gastric Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
| | - Beodeul Kang
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Bum Jun Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University Medical Center, Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang, Korea
| | - Byung-Hoon Min
- Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chung Hyun Tae
- Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chang In Choi
- Department of Surgery, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea
| | - Choong-Kun Lee
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Ho Jung An
- Division of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Vincent's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Suwon, Korea
| | - Hwa Kyung Byun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yongin, Korea
| | - Hyeon-Su Im
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Ulsan University Hospital, Ulsan University College of Medicine, Ulsan, Korea
| | - Hyung-Don Kim
- Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jang Ho Cho
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea
| | - Kyoungjune Pak
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea
| | - Jae-Joon Kim
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Korea
| | - Jae Seok Bae
- Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Korea
| | - Jeong Il Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jeong Won Lee
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital, Cheonan, Korea
| | - Jungyoon Choi
- Division of Oncology/Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Ansan, Korea
| | - Jwa Hoon Kim
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Miyoung Choi
- National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA), Seoul, Korea
| | - Mi Ran Jung
- Department of Surgery, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea
| | - Nieun Seo
- Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sang Soo Eom
- Department of Surgery, Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Goyang, Korea
| | - Soomin Ahn
- Department of Pathology and Translational Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Soo Jin Kim
- Department of Radiology, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
| | - Sung Hak Lee
- Department of Hospital Pathology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sung Hee Lim
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Tae-Han Kim
- Department of Surgery, Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Changwon, Korea.
| | - Hye Sook Han
- Department of Internal Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Cheongju, Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Kossenas K, Moutzouri O, Georgopoulos F. Robotic vs laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with Billroth I and II reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg 2024; 19:30. [PMID: 39699804 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-02193-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2024] [Accepted: 12/11/2024] [Indexed: 12/20/2024]
Abstract
Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of gastric cancer, however, its comparative safety and efficacy against the laparoscopic approach (LDG), remains unclear, especially when accounting the reconstruction method as a confounder. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of RDG vs LDG In patIents with gastric cancer, undergoing Billroth I and II reconstruction. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We searched Pubmed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library, up to October 22nd, 2024. The primary outcomes analyzed were the blood loss, operative duration, and the number of harvested lymph nodes and the secondary outcomes included overall complications, time to oral intake, duration of hospitalization and time to first flatus. Random-effects models were used to calculate weighted mean differences (WMD) and Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. P values were also calculated. Sensitivity analysis was performed for outcomes with moderate to high heterogeneity. Five studies were included, involving 811 patients (RDG: n = 289, LDG: n = 522). RDG was associated with a significantly longer operative duration compared to LDG (WMD = 34.14 min, 95%CI 10.92 to 57.35, P = 0.004, I2 = 91%). RDG patients initiated oral intake earlier (WMD = -0.20 days, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.01, P = 0.03, I2 = 45%). RDG resulted in shorter hospital stays (WMD = -1.48 days, 95%CI -2.91 to -0.04, P = 0.04, I2 = 86%). RDG patients had a faster return to bowel function (time to first flatus) (WMD = -0.33 days, 95%CI -0.50 to -0.15, P = 0.00003, I2 = 57%). No statistically significant differences were observed regarding blood loss between RDG and LDG (WMD = -3.88 mL, 95%CI -21.63 to 13.87, P = 0.67, I2 = 78%). There was no statistically significant difference in complication rates (OR = 0.61, 95%CI 0.36 to 1.03, P = 0.06, I2 = 0%). No significant differences were observed regarding the number of lymph nodes harvested (WMD = -0.49, 95%CI -3.02 to 2.04, P = 0.70, I2 = 24%). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the findings of operative duration and time to first flatus. RDG with BI/ BII requires longer operative duration, but it associated with faster recovery compared to LDG. No differences were observed between RDG and LDG with regards to overall complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and blood loss, showing that RDG is as safe and oncological equivalent to LDG. Future studies particularly, multi-center randomized clinical trials, should have a longer follow up period and examine the type of reconstruction separately. PROSPERO registration: CRD42024605895.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Konstantinos Kossenas
- Department of Basic and Clinical Sciences, University of Nicosia Medical School, 21 Ilia Papakyriakou, 2414 Engomi, P.O. Box 24005, 1700, Nicosia, Cyprus.
| | - Olga Moutzouri
- Department of Basic and Clinical Sciences, University of Nicosia Medical School, 21 Ilia Papakyriakou, 2414 Engomi, P.O. Box 24005, 1700, Nicosia, Cyprus
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Triemstra L, den Boer RB, Rovers MM, Hazenberg CEVB, van Hillegersberg R, Grutters JPC, Ruurda JP. A systematic review on the effectiveness of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy. Gastric Cancer 2024; 27:932-946. [PMID: 38990413 PMCID: PMC11335791 DOI: 10.1007/s10120-024-01534-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2024] [Accepted: 06/30/2024] [Indexed: 07/12/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy (RAMIG) is increasingly used as a surgical approach for gastric cancer. This study assessed the effectiveness of RAMIG and studied which stages of the IDEAL-framework (1 = Idea, 2A = Development, 2B = Exploration, 3 = Assessment, 4 = Long-term follow-up) were followed. METHODS The Cochrane Library, Embase, Pubmed, and Web of Science were searched for studies on RAMIG up to January 2023. Data collection included the IDEAL-stage, demographics, number of participants, and study design. For randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and long-term studies, data on intra-, postoperative, and oncologic outcomes, survival, and costs of RAMIG were collected and summarized. RESULTS Of the 114 included studies, none reported the IDEAL-stage. After full-text reading, 18 (16%) studies were considered IDEAL-2A, 75 (66%) IDEAL-2B, 4 (4%) IDEAL-3, and 17 (15%) IDEAL-4. The IDEAL-stages were followed sequentially (2A-4), with IDEAL-2A studies still ongoing. IDEAL-3 RCTs showed lower overall complications (8.5-9.2% RAMIG versus 17.6-19.3% laparoscopic total/subtotal gastrectomy), equal 30-day mortality (0%), and equal length of hospital stay for RAMIG (mean 5.7-8.5 days RAMIG versus 6.4-8.2 days open/laparoscopic total/subtotal gastrectomy). Lymph node yield was similar across techniques, but RAMIG incurred significantly higher costs than laparoscopic total/subtotal gastrectomy ($13,423-15,262 versus $10,165-10,945). IDEAL-4 studies showed similar or improved overall/disease-free survival for RAMIG. CONCLUSION During worldwide RAMIG implementation, the IDEAL-framework was followed in sequential order. IDEAL-3 and 4 long-term studies showed that RAMIG is similar or even better to conventional surgery in terms of hospital stay, lymph node yield, and overall/disease-free survival. In addition, RAMIG showed reduced postoperative complication rates, despite higher costs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Triemstra
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, G04.228, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - R B den Boer
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, G04.228, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - M M Rovers
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - C E V B Hazenberg
- Department of Vascular Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - R van Hillegersberg
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, G04.228, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - J P C Grutters
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboudumc University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - J P Ruurda
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, G04.228, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Yu X, Lei W, Zhu L, Qi F, Liu Y, Feng Q. Robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Surg 2024:S1015-9584(24)01268-5. [PMID: 38942631 DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2024.06.051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2023] [Revised: 12/19/2023] [Accepted: 06/19/2024] [Indexed: 06/30/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xianzhe Yu
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Chengdu Second People's Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China; Lung Cancer Center, Lung Cancer Institute, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Wenyi Lei
- Department of Dermatology, The Second People's Hospital of Guiyang, Guiyang, Guizhou Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Lingling Zhu
- Lung Cancer Center, Lung Cancer Institute, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Fan Qi
- Department of Intensive Care Unit, The Second People's Hospital of Guiyang, Guiyang, Guizhou Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Yanyang Liu
- Lung Cancer Center, Lung Cancer Institute, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China.
| | - Qingbo Feng
- Department of General Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Affiliated Digestive Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, Guizhou Province, People's Republic of China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Kitazono M, Fujita M, Uchiyama S, Eguchi M, Ikeda N. Robotic vs. laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A propensity score-matched retrospective comparative study at a single institution. Asian J Surg 2024; 47:2598-2605. [PMID: 38538396 DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2024.03.086] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2023] [Revised: 11/01/2023] [Accepted: 03/06/2024] [Indexed: 06/05/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although robotic surgery is becoming more widespread worldwide, it is still in its infancy. This study aimed to confirm the safety and feasibility of the induction of robotic-assisted gastric surgery at a local hospital. METHODS For five years, between 2016 and 2020, 42 laparoscopic and 71 robotic distal gastrectomies were performed at the same institution. Patients diagnosed with gastric cancer were retrieved from the database. Propensity score matching was performed based on covariates such as Age, Sex, BMI, the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status, Tumor Location, pT, and pN. Clinicopathological characteristics, surgical performance, postoperative outcomes, and pathological data were retrospectively collected and compared by the Chi-square test, the Fisher's exact test, the Student's t-test, and the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS Billroth II reconstruction was often selected for the robotic group more than the laparoscopic group (59.4% and 15.6%, respectively). In addition, the number of lymph nodes harvested after D2 dissection tended to be more significant in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (52.1 ± 7.6 and 29.1 ± 3.7, respectively; p = 0.00934). The mean operative time was 271.4 ± 10.5 min for the robotic group and 220.8 ± 12.3 min for the laparoscopic group (p = 0.00005). There were no differences in short-term clinical outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Although a single-center, small comparative study, the results showed that the robotic surgery group was not inferior to the laparoscopic group in feasibility and safety. Moreover, robotic surgery enables harvesting a higher number of lymph nodes, which may be more advantageous than laparoscopic surgery. This study also showed that as the surgeon gains experience with robotic surgery, its operative time becomes significantly shorter.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Masaki Kitazono
- Department of Surgery, Nanpuh Hospital, Kagoshima-city, 892-8512, Japan.
| | - Makoto Fujita
- Division of Medical Support, Nanpuh Hospital, Kagoshima-city, 892-8512, Japan
| | | | - Mayumi Eguchi
- Department of Surgery, Nanpuh Hospital, Kagoshima-city, 892-8512, Japan
| | - Naotaka Ikeda
- Department of Surgery, Nanpuh Hospital, Kagoshima-city, 892-8512, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Chan KS, Oo AM. Establishing the Learning Curve of Laparoscopic and Robotic Distal Gastrectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 2023; 27:2946-2982. [PMID: 37658172 DOI: 10.1007/s11605-023-05812-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2023] [Accepted: 08/04/2023] [Indexed: 09/03/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kai Siang Chan
- Department of General Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, 11 Jalan Tan Tock Seng, Singapore, 308433, Singapore.
| | - Aung Myint Oo
- Department of General Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, 11 Jalan Tan Tock Seng, Singapore, 308433, Singapore
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
- Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Loureiro P, Barbosa JP, Vale JF, Barbosa J. Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery: Short-Term Outcomes-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 25,521 Patients. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2023; 33:782-800. [PMID: 37204324 DOI: 10.1089/lap.2023.0136] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/20/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pedro Loureiro
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
| | - José Pedro Barbosa
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
- Department of Community Medicine, Information and Decision in Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
- Department of Stomatology, São João University Hospital Center, Porto, Portugal
| | | | - José Barbosa
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
- Department of Surgery and Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
- Department of General Surgery, São João University Hospital Center, Porto, Portugal
| |
Collapse
|
|
10
|
Kim TH, Kim IH, Kang SJ, Choi M, Kim BH, Eom BW, Kim BJ, Min BH, Choi CI, Shin CM, Tae CH, Gong CS, Kim DJ, Cho AEH, Gong EJ, Song GJ, Im HS, Ahn HS, Lim H, Kim HD, Kim JJ, Yu JI, Lee JW, Park JY, Kim JH, Song KD, Jung M, Jung MR, Son SY, Park SH, Kim SJ, Lee SH, Kim TY, Bae WK, Koom WS, Jee Y, Kim YM, Kwak Y, Park YS, Han HS, Nam SY, Kong SH. Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2022: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach. J Gastric Cancer 2023; 23:3-106. [PMID: 36750993 PMCID: PMC9911619 DOI: 10.5230/jgc.2023.23.e11] [Citation(s) in RCA: 154] [Impact Index Per Article: 77.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2023] [Revised: 01/22/2023] [Accepted: 01/25/2023] [Indexed: 02/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tae-Han Kim
- Department of Surgery, Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Changwon, Korea
| | - In-Ho Kim
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seung Joo Kang
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center Seoul, Seoul, Korea
| | - Miyoung Choi
- National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA), Seoul, Korea
| | - Baek-Hui Kim
- Department of Pathology, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Bang Wool Eom
- Center for Gastric Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
| | - Bum Jun Kim
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Medical Center, Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang, Korea
| | - Byung-Hoon Min
- Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chang In Choi
- Department of Surgery, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan, Korea
| | - Cheol Min Shin
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seungnam, Korea
| | - Chung Hyun Tae
- Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Woman's University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chung Sik Gong
- Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center and University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Dong Jin Kim
- Department of Surgery, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
| | | | - Eun Jeong Gong
- Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea
| | - Geum Jong Song
- Department of Surgery, Soonchunhyang University, Cheonan, Korea
| | - Hyeon-Su Im
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, Korea
| | - Hye Seong Ahn
- Department of Surgery, Seoul Metropolitan Government-Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hyun Lim
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, University of Hallym College of Medicine, Anyang, Korea
| | - Hyung-Don Kim
- Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jae-Joon Kim
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Korea
| | - Jeong Il Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jeong Won Lee
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Catholic Kwandong University, College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea
| | - Ji Yeon Park
- Department of Surgery, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
| | - Jwa Hoon Kim
- Division of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Kyoung Doo Song
- Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea
| | - Minkyu Jung
- Division of Medical Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea
| | - Mi Ran Jung
- Department of Surgery, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea
| | - Sang-Yong Son
- Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea
| | - Shin-Hoo Park
- Department of Surgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Soo Jin Kim
- Department of Radiology, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
| | - Sung Hak Lee
- Department of Hospital Pathology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
| | - Tae-Yong Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Woo Kyun Bae
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School and Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea
| | - Woong Sub Koom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yeseob Jee
- Department of Surgery, Dankook University Hospital, Cheonan, Korea
| | - Yoo Min Kim
- Department of Surgery, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yoonjin Kwak
- Department of Pathology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Young Suk Park
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Hye Sook Han
- Department of Internal Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Cheongju, Korea.
| | - Su Youn Nam
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea.
| | - Seong-Ho Kong
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital and Seoul National University College of Medicine Cancer Research Institute, Seoul, Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
|
11
|
Li ZY, Zhou YB, Li TY, Li JP, Zhou ZW, She JJ, Hu JK, Qian F, Shi Y, Tian YL, Gao GM, Gao RZ, Liang CC, Shi FY, Yang K, Wen Y, Zhao YL, Yu PW. Robotic Gastrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Cohort Study of 5402 Patients in China. Ann Surg 2023; 277:e87-e95. [PMID: 34225299 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000005046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 25.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zheng-Yan Li
- Department of General Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Yan-Bing Zhou
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China
| | - Tai-Yuan Li
- Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China
| | - Ji-Peng Li
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China
| | - Zhi-Wei Zhou
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jun-Jun She
- Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
| | - Jian-Kun Hu
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery & Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Feng Qian
- Department of General Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Yan Shi
- Department of General Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Yu-Long Tian
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China
| | - Geng-Mei Gao
- Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China
| | - Rui-Zi Gao
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China
| | - Cheng-Cai Liang
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Fei-Yu Shi
- Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
| | - Kun Yang
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery & Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Yan Wen
- Department of General Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Yong-Liang Zhao
- Department of General Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Pei-Wu Yu
- Department of General Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
12
|
Sun T, Wang Y, Liu Y, Wang Z. Perioperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies and randomized controlled trials. BMC Surg 2022; 22:427. [DOI: 10.1186/s12893-022-01881-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2022] [Accepted: 12/08/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
|
13
|
Huang W, Liu S, Chen J. Surgical and short-term outcomes in robotic and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer with enhanced recovery after surgery protocol: A propensity score matching analysis. Front Surg 2022; 9:944395. [PMID: 36277282 PMCID: PMC9583927 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.944395] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2022] [Accepted: 09/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aims to evaluate the short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) and robot-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) for gastric cancer (GC) with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols. METHODS We reviewed the medical records of 202 patients undergoing radical distal gastrectomy; among them, 67 cases were assisted through RADG, while 135 cases were assisted through LADG along with ERAS. We retrospectively collected the medical records in succession from a database (January 2016-March 2019). We adopted propensity score matching to compare surgical and short-term outcomes of both groups. RESULTS After the successful examination of 134 cases, including 67 receiving RADG and 67 undergoing LADG, the operative times were noted as 5.78 ± 0.96 h for the RADG group and 4.47 ± 1.01 h for the LADG group (P < 0.001). The blood loss was noted as 125.52 ± 101.18 ml in the RADG group and 164.93 ± 109.32 ml in the LADG group (P < 0.05). The shorter time to first flatus was 38.82 ± 10.56 h in the RADG group and 42.88 ± 11.25 h in the LADG group (P < 0.05). In contrast, shorter days of postoperative hospital stay were 5.94 ± 1.89 days in the RADG group and 6.64 ± 1.92 days in the LADG group (P < 0.05). Also, the RADG group (84483.03 ± 9487.37) was much more costly than the LADG group (65258.13 ± 8928.33) (P < 0.001). The postoperative overall complication rates, numbers of dissected lymph nodes, visual analogue scale (VAS), and time to start a liquid diet for the RADG group and the LADG group were similar. CONCLUSIONS In this research, we concluded that RADG provides surgical benefits and short-term outcomes compared to LADG for GC with ERAS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Weijia Huang
- Department of Gastrointestinal Gland Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China
- Guangxi Laboratory of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery for Gastrointestinal Cancer, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China
- Guangxi Clinical Research Center for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China
- Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Engineering Research Center for Artificial Intelligence Analysis of Multimodal Tumor Images, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China
| | - Siyu Liu
- Department of Gastrointestinal Gland Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China
- Guangxi Laboratory of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery for Gastrointestinal Cancer, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China
- Guangxi Clinical Research Center for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China
- Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Engineering Research Center for Artificial Intelligence Analysis of Multimodal Tumor Images, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China
| | - Junqiang Chen
- Department of Gastrointestinal Gland Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China
- Guangxi Laboratory of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery for Gastrointestinal Cancer, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China
- Guangxi Clinical Research Center for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China
- Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Engineering Research Center for Artificial Intelligence Analysis of Multimodal Tumor Images, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
14
|
Coit DG, Strong VE. Fifty years of progress in gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol 2022; 126:865-871. [PMID: 36087088 PMCID: PMC9469502 DOI: 10.1002/jso.27060] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2022] [Accepted: 08/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
As with every human malignancy, the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of patients with gastric cancer have undergone enormous evidence-based change over the last 50 years, largely as a result of increasingly rapid developments in technology and science. Some of the changes in clinical practice have derived from prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs), whereas others have come from study of meticulously maintained prospective databases, which define the disease's natural history over time, and occasionally from in-depth analysis of a single patient with an unexpectedly good or poor outcome. Herein we summarize the more important changes in gastric cancer management and the data supporting those changes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel G Coit
- Department of Surgery, Gastric and Mixed Tumor Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Vivian E Strong
- Department of Surgery, Gastric and Mixed Tumor Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
15
|
Ali M, Wang Y, Ding J, Wang D. Postoperative outcomes in robotic gastric resection compared with laparoscopic gastric resection in gastric cancer: A meta-analysis and systemic review. Health Sci Rep 2022; 5:e746. [PMID: 35989947 PMCID: PMC9382053 DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.746] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2022] [Revised: 05/12/2022] [Accepted: 06/19/2022] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Muhammad Ali
- Department of Gastrointestinal SurgeryNorthern Jiangsu People's HospitalYangzhouChina
- General Surgery Institute of YangzhouYangzhou UniversityYangzhouChina
- Medical College of Yangzhou UniversityYangzhouChina
| | - Yang Wang
- Department of Gastrointestinal SurgeryNorthern Jiangsu People's HospitalYangzhouChina
- Medical College of Yangzhou UniversityYangzhouChina
| | - Jianyue Ding
- Department of Gastrointestinal SurgeryNorthern Jiangsu People's HospitalYangzhouChina
- Medical College of Yangzhou UniversityYangzhouChina
| | - Daorong Wang
- Department of Gastrointestinal SurgeryNorthern Jiangsu People's HospitalYangzhouChina
- General Surgery Institute of YangzhouYangzhou UniversityYangzhouChina
| |
Collapse
|
|
16
|
Baral S, Arawker MH, Sun Q, Jiang M, Wang L, Wang Y, Ali M, Wang D. Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Mega Meta-Analysis. Front Surg 2022; 9:895976. [PMID: 35836604 PMCID: PMC9273891 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.895976] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2022] [Accepted: 06/09/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shantanu Baral
- Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, YangzhouChina
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, YangzhouChina
- General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Yangzhou University, YangzhouChina
| | - Mubeen Hussein Arawker
- Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, YangzhouChina
- General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Yangzhou University, YangzhouChina
| | - Qiannan Sun
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, YangzhouChina
- General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Yangzhou University, YangzhouChina
- Yangzhou Key Laboratory of Basic and Clinical Transformation of Digestive and Metabolic Diseases, YangzhouChina
| | - Mingrui Jiang
- Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, YangzhouChina
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, YangzhouChina
- General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Yangzhou University, YangzhouChina
| | - Liuhua Wang
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, YangzhouChina
- General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Yangzhou University, YangzhouChina
- Yangzhou Key Laboratory of Basic and Clinical Transformation of Digestive and Metabolic Diseases, YangzhouChina
| | - Yong Wang
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, YangzhouChina
- General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Yangzhou University, YangzhouChina
- Yangzhou Key Laboratory of Basic and Clinical Transformation of Digestive and Metabolic Diseases, YangzhouChina
| | - Muhammad Ali
- Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, YangzhouChina
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, YangzhouChina
- General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Yangzhou University, YangzhouChina
| | - Daorong Wang
- Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, YangzhouChina
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, YangzhouChina
- General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Yangzhou University, YangzhouChina
- Yangzhou Key Laboratory of Basic and Clinical Transformation of Digestive and Metabolic Diseases, YangzhouChina
- Correspondence: Daorong Wang
| |
Collapse
|
|
17
|
Gong S, Li X, Tian H, Song S, Lu T, Jing W, Huang X, Xu Y, Wang X, Zhao K, Yang K, Guo T. Clinical efficacy and safety of robotic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2022; 36:2734-2748. [PMID: 35020057 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08994-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2021] [Accepted: 12/31/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shiyi Gong
- Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, 750000, Ningxia, China.,Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, 204 West Donggang R.D., Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China.,Institution of Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine, The Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China.,Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, 222 West Donggang R.D., Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China
| | - Xiong Li
- Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, 750000, Ningxia, China.,Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, 204 West Donggang R.D., Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China.,Institution of Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine, The Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China.,Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, 222 West Donggang R.D., Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China
| | - Hongwei Tian
- Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, 204 West Donggang R.D., Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China.,Department of Clinical Medicine, The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China
| | - Shaoming Song
- Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, 204 West Donggang R.D., Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China.,Institution of Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine, The Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China.,Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, 222 West Donggang R.D., Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China
| | - Tingting Lu
- Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, 204 West Donggang R.D., Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China.,Institution of Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine, The Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China.,Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, 222 West Donggang R.D., Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China.,Key Laboratory of Evidence-Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China
| | - Wutang Jing
- Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, 204 West Donggang R.D., Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China
| | - Xianbin Huang
- Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, 204 West Donggang R.D., Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China.,Department of Clinical Medicine, The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China
| | - Yongcheng Xu
- Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, 204 West Donggang R.D., Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China
| | - Xingqiang Wang
- Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, 204 West Donggang R.D., Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China
| | - Kaixuan Zhao
- Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, 750000, Ningxia, China.,Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, 204 West Donggang R.D., Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China
| | - Kehu Yang
- Institution of Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine, The Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China. .,Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, 222 West Donggang R.D., Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China. .,Key Laboratory of Evidence-Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China.
| | - Tiankang Guo
- Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, 750000, Ningxia, China. .,Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, 204 West Donggang R.D., Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China. .,Department of Clinical Medicine, The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
18
|
Park SH, Kim JM, Park SS. Current Status and Trends of Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy in Korea. Medicina (B Aires) 2021; 57:medicina57111195. [PMID: 34833413 PMCID: PMC8621245 DOI: 10.3390/medicina57111195] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2021] [Revised: 10/28/2021] [Accepted: 11/01/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shin-Hoo Park
- Division of Foregut Surgery, Department of Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, Goryeodae-ro 73, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Korea;
- Division of Foregut Surgery, Department of Surgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, Goryeodae-ro 73, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Korea
| | - Jong-Min Kim
- Department of Surgery, Min General Surgery Hospital, 155 Dobong-ro, Gangbuk-gu, Seoul 01171, Korea;
| | - Sung-Soo Park
- Division of Foregut Surgery, Department of Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, Goryeodae-ro 73, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Korea;
- Division of Foregut Surgery, Department of Surgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, Goryeodae-ro 73, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Korea
- Correspondence: or ; Tel.: +82-2-920-6772; Fax: +82-2-928-1631
| |
Collapse
|
|
19
|
Marano L, Fusario D, Savelli V, Marrelli D, Roviello F. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Updates Surg 2021; 73:1673-1689. [PMID: 34031848 PMCID: PMC8500879 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-021-01059-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2020] [Accepted: 04/19/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luigi Marano
- Unit of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Strada delle Scotte, 4, 53100, Siena, Italy.
| | - Daniele Fusario
- Unit of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Strada delle Scotte, 4, 53100, Siena, Italy
| | - Vinno Savelli
- Unit of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Strada delle Scotte, 4, 53100, Siena, Italy
| | - Daniele Marrelli
- Unit of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Strada delle Scotte, 4, 53100, Siena, Italy
| | - Franco Roviello
- Unit of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Strada delle Scotte, 4, 53100, Siena, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
20
|
Zhang Z, Zhang X, Liu Y, Li Y, Zhao Q, Fan L, Zhang Z, Wang D, Zhao X, Tan B. Meta-analysis of the efficacy of Da Vinci robotic or laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021; 100:e27012. [PMID: 34449473 PMCID: PMC8389896 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000027012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2021] [Revised: 07/20/2021] [Accepted: 08/05/2021] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic-assisted gastrectomy has been used for treating gastric cancer since 2002. This meta-analysis was conducted to systematically evaluate the efficacy of Da Vinci robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy (RDG) or laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy (LDG) in patients with gastric cancer. METHODS We conducted searches in domestic and foreign databases, and collected literature in Chinese and English on the efficacy of RDG and LDG for gastric cancer that have been published since the inception of the database. RevMan 5.4.1 was used for meta-analysis and drawing and Stata14.0 was used for publication bias analysis. RESULTS A total of 3293 patients in 15 studies were included, including 1193 patients in the RDG group and 2100 patients in the LDG groups respectively. The meta-analysis showed that intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower and the number of resected lymph nodes was higher in the RDG group compared to that in the LDG group. In addition, the times to first postoperative food intake and postoperative hospital stay were shortened, and there was a longer length of distal resection margin and prolonged duration of operation. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups with respect to the first postoperative anal exhaust time, length of proximal resection margin, total postoperative complication rate, postoperative anastomotic leakage rate, incidence of postoperative gastric emptying disorder, pancreatic fistula rate, recurrence rate, and mortality rate. CONCLUSION RDG is a safe and feasible treatment option for gastric cancer, and it is non-inferior or even superior to LDG with respect to therapeutic efficacy and radical treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zibo Zhang
- Hebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital and Hebei Provincial Tumor Hospital, Third Department of Surgery, Shijiazhuang, Hebe, China
| | - Xiaolin Zhang
- Hebei Medical University, School of Public Health, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China
| | - Yu Liu
- Hebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital and Hebei Provincial Tumor Hospital, Third Department of Surgery, Shijiazhuang, Hebe, China
| | - Yong Li
- Hebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital and Hebei Provincial Tumor Hospital, Third Department of Surgery, Shijiazhuang, Hebe, China
| | - Qun Zhao
- Hebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital and Hebei Provincial Tumor Hospital, Third Department of Surgery, Shijiazhuang, Hebe, China
| | - Liqiao Fan
- Hebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital and Hebei Provincial Tumor Hospital, Third Department of Surgery, Shijiazhuang, Hebe, China
| | - Zhidong Zhang
- Hebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital and Hebei Provincial Tumor Hospital, Third Department of Surgery, Shijiazhuang, Hebe, China
| | - Dong Wang
- Hebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital and Hebei Provincial Tumor Hospital, Third Department of Surgery, Shijiazhuang, Hebe, China
| | - Xuefeng Zhao
- Hebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital and Hebei Provincial Tumor Hospital, Third Department of Surgery, Shijiazhuang, Hebe, China
| | - Bibo Tan
- Hebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital and Hebei Provincial Tumor Hospital, Third Department of Surgery, Shijiazhuang, Hebe, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
21
|
Vining CC, Skowron KB, Hogg ME. Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes. Updates Surg 2021; 73:799-814. [PMID: 33484423 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-021-00973-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2020] [Accepted: 01/06/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
The use of the robotic platform for gastrointestinal surgery was introduced nearly 20 years ago. However, significant growth and advancement has occurred primarily in the last decade. This is due to several advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery allowing for more complex dissections and reconstructions. Several randomized controlled trials and retrospective reviews have demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery with improved short-term outcomes. Unfortunately, there are currently no universally accepted or implemented training programs for robotic surgery and robotic surgery experience varies greatly. Additionally, several limitations to the robotic platform exist resulting in a distinct learning curve associated with various procedures. Therefore, implementation of robotic surgery requires a multidisciplinary team approach with commitment and investment from clinical faculty, operating room staff and hospital administrators. Additionally, there is a need for wider distribution of educational modules to train more surgeons and reduce the associated learning curve. This article will focus on the implementation of the robotic platform for surgery of the pancreas, stomach, liver, colon and rectum with an emphasis on the associated learning curve, educational platforms to develop proficiency and perioperative outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles C Vining
- Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Kinga B Skowron
- Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Melissa E Hogg
- Department of Surgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Walgreens Building, Floor 2, 2650 Ridge Road, Evanston, IL, 60201, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
22
|
Kinoshita T, Sato R, Akimoto E, Tanaka Y, Okayama T, Habu T. Reduction in postoperative complications by robotic surgery: a case-control study of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 2021; 36:1989-1998. [PMID: 33844086 PMCID: PMC8847173 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08483-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2020] [Accepted: 03/28/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Background Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is being increasingly performed globally; it is considered an evolved type of conventional laparoscopic surgery with excellent dexterity and precision, but higher costs and longer operation time. Thus, there is a need to identify the benefits from RG and its specific candidates. Methods This retrospective study analyzed data from a prospectively collected clinical database at our center. Data of patients with primary gastric cancer undergoing either robotic or laparoscopic radical gastrectomy from June 2014 to June 2020 were reviewed. Surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups, and multivariable analyses were performed to elucidate the relevant factors for postoperative complications in several subgroups. Results A total of 1172 patients were divided into those who underwent RG (n = 152) and those who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) (n = 1020). Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups, except the RG group included more patients undergoing total/proximal gastrectomy (TG/PG) and patients at clinical stage III. Compared with the LG group, the RG group had lower incidences of postoperative complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade III (2/152 (1.3%) versus 72/1020 (7.1%); P = 0.004), and intraabdominal complications ≥ grade II (6/152 (3.9%) versus 119/1020 (11.7%); P = 0.004). Multivariable analysis revealed that RG was a significant relevant factor for reducing overall postoperative complications (≥ grade III) (odds ratio (OR) 0.16, P = 0.013), and intraabdominal complications (≥ grade II) (OR 0.29, P = 0.002). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that this tendency was enhanced in patients undergoing TG/PG (OR 0.29, P = 0.021) or at clinical stage II/III (OR 0.10, P = 0.027). Conclusions RG reduces the incidence of postoperative complications compared with conventional LG and this tendency may be enhanced in technically complicated procedures with demanding anastomosis or D2 lymphadenectomy. Patients requiring such procedures would most benefit from RG.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Takahiro Kinoshita
- Gastric Surgery Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, 277-8577, Japan.
| | - Reo Sato
- Gastric Surgery Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, 277-8577, Japan
| | - Eigo Akimoto
- Gastric Surgery Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, 277-8577, Japan
| | - Yuya Tanaka
- Gastric Surgery Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, 277-8577, Japan
| | - Takafumi Okayama
- Gastric Surgery Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, 277-8577, Japan
| | - Takumi Habu
- Gastric Surgery Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, 277-8577, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
|
23
|
Incidence and risk factors of postoperative complications after robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an analysis of 817 cases based on 10-year experience in a large-scale center. Surg Endosc 2021; 35:7034-7041. [PMID: 33492501 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-08218-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2020] [Accepted: 12/03/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In this study, we investigated the incidence and risk factors for postoperative complications after robotic gastrectomy (RG) in patients with gastric cancer. METHODS A total of 817 patients who underwent RG for gastric cancer between March 2010 and August 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Postoperative complications were categorized according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, and possible risk factors were evaluated. RESULTS Among 817 patients who underwent RG, overall, severe, local and systemic complication rates were 13.8, 4.2, 7.0 and 6.9%, respectively. Multivariable analysis revealed that an age of 70 years or older (P < 0.001) and multiorgan resection (P = 0.031) were independent risk factors for the occurrence of overall complications. Multivariable analysis showed that an age of 70 years or older (P = 0.005) and surgeons' experience ≤ 25 cases (P = 0.004) were independent risk factors for severe complications. Regarding local complications, an age of 70 years or older (P < 0.001), multiorgan resection (P = 0.010) and surgeons' experience ≤ 25 cases (P = 0.005) were identified as independent risk factors. An age of 70 years or older (P < 0.001), a BMI of 25 or higher (P = 0.045) and the presence of comorbidity (P = 0.029) were identified as independent risk factors for systemic complications. CONCLUSIONS The present study demonstrated that RG is a safe and feasible procedure for the treatment of gastric cancer, and it has an acceptable postoperative morbidity. Elderly patients and insufficient surgeon experience were two major risk factors for the occurrence of complications following RG. We suggest that surgeons choose patients in good condition during their RG learning phase to reduce learning-associated morbidity.
Collapse
|
|
24
|
Wu HY, Lin XF, Yang P, Li W. Pooled analysis of the oncological outcomes in robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. J Minim Access Surg 2021; 17:287-293. [PMID: 33047686 PMCID: PMC8270045 DOI: 10.4103/jmas.jmas_69_20] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hong-Ying Wu
- Department of Geriatric Medicine II, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences Sichuan Translational Medicine Research Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China
| | - Xiu-Feng Lin
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Eastern Hospital, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences Sichuan Translational Medicine Research Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China
| | - Ping Yang
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Eastern Hospital, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences Sichuan Translational Medicine Research Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China
| | - Wei Li
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Eastern Hospital, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences Sichuan Translational Medicine Research Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
25
|
Guerrini GP, Esposito G, Magistri P, Serra V, Guidetti C, Olivieri T, Catellani B, Assirati G, Ballarin R, Di Sandro S, Di Benedetto F. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: The largest meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2020; 82:210-228. [PMID: 32800976 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.07.053] [Citation(s) in RCA: 110] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2020] [Accepted: 07/17/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
|
26
|
Qiu H, Ai JH, Shi J, Shan RF, Yu DJ. Effectiveness and safety of robotic versus traditional laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Ther 2020; 15:1450-1463. [PMID: 31939422 DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_798_18] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hua Qiu
- Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University; Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China
| | - Jun-Hua Ai
- Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China
| | - Jun Shi
- Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China
| | - Ren-Feng Shan
- Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China
| | - Dong-Jun Yu
- Department of Anesthesiology, Jiangxi Cancer Hospital, The Second People's Hospital of Jiangxi Province, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
27
|
Watson MD, Trufan SJ, Gower NL, Hill JS, Salo JC. Effect of Surgical Approach on Node Harvest in Robotic Gastrectomy. Am Surg 2020. [DOI: 10.1177/000313481908500827] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
There has been increasing utilization of minimally invasive surgical approaches. This study evaluates the effect of surgical approach on total lymph node harvest in gastrectomy. Patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma between 2007 and 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Data collected included age, gender, race, BMI, neoadjuvant therapy, tumor stage, surgical approach, and total number of lymph nodes harvested. The total number of harvested lymph nodes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test for univariate analysis and a Poisson regression model for multivariable analysis. One hundred four patients were identified. Median node harvest for open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches were 16, 17, and 36, respectively. Multivariable analysis controlling for gender, BMI, pathological T stage, and year of operation demonstrates that surgical approach is statistically significantly associated with lymph node harvest ( F = 83.4, P < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, robotic approach was associated with greater lymph node harvest than both open ( P < 0.0001) and laparoscopic ( P < 0.0001) approaches, whereas laparoscopic approach was associated with greater lymph node harvest than open ( P < 0.0001) approach. These data demonstrate that for patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma at our institution, robotic approach is associated with greater lymph node harvest than both laparoscopic and open approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael D. Watson
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Carolinas Medical Center, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina and
| | - Sally J. Trufan
- Department of Biostatistics, Carolinas Healthcare System, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina
| | - Nicole L. Gower
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Carolinas Medical Center, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina and
| | - Joshua S. Hill
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Carolinas Medical Center, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina and
| | - Jonathan C. Salo
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Carolinas Medical Center, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina and
| |
Collapse
|
|
28
|
Ju MR, Wang SC, Zeh HJ, Porembka MR. Minimally invasive gastrectomy for cancer and anastomotic options. J Surg Oncol 2020; 122:49-60. [PMID: 32200555 DOI: 10.1002/jso.25904] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2020] [Accepted: 03/09/2020] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
In this review article, we explore patient selection criteria for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) gastrectomy, present evidence on the risks and benefits of minimally invasive techniques, describe operative techniques focusing specifically on reconstruction options, and discuss the learning curve associated with these operations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michelle R Ju
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Sam C Wang
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Herbert J Zeh
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Matthew R Porembka
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
|
29
|
Marano L, Fusario D, Savelli V, Verre L, Neri A, Marrelli D, Roviello F. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: protocol for umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. BMJ Open 2020; 10:e033634. [PMID: 32111613 PMCID: PMC7050371 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033634] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2019] [Revised: 01/20/2020] [Accepted: 02/07/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Laparoscopic surgery has been adopted in some parts of the world as an innovative approach to the resection of gastric cancers. However, in the modern era of surgical oncology, to overcome intrinsic limitations of the traditional laparoscopy, the robotic approach is advocated as able to facilitate the lymph node dissection and complex reconstruction after gastrectomy, to assure oncologic safety also in advanced gastric cancer patients. Previous meta-analyses highlighted a lower complication rate as well as bleeding in the robotic approach group when compared with the laparoscopic one. This potential benefit must be balanced against an increased time of intervention. The aim of this umbrella review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature for surgeons and policymakers in order to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared with the laparoscopic approach for gastric cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS We will perform a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases for all articles published up to May 2019 and reference list of relevant publications for systematic review and meta-analyses comparing the outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer. Studies will be selected by two independent reviewers based on prespecified eligibility criteria and the quality will be assessed according to AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) checklist. All information will be collected using piloted and standardised data-extraction forms in DistillerSR developed following the Joanna Briggs Institute's recommended extraction items. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This umbrella review will inform clinical and policy decisions regarding the benefits and harms of RG for treating gastric cancer. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and the popular press. Formal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42019139906.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luigi Marano
- Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Siena, Italy
| | - Daniele Fusario
- Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Siena, Italy
| | - Vinno Savelli
- Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Siena, Italy
| | - Luigi Verre
- Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Siena, Italy
| | - Alessandro Neri
- Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Siena, Italy
| | - Daniele Marrelli
- Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Siena, Italy
| | - Franco Roviello
- Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Siena, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
30
|
Desiderio J, Trastulli S, D'Andrea V, Parisi A. Enhanced recovery after surgery for gastric cancer (ERAS-GC): optimizing patient outcome. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 5:11. [PMID: 32190779 DOI: 10.21037/tgh.2019.10.04] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2019] [Accepted: 10/05/2019] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Significant advances were achieved, in last decades, in the management of surgical patients with gastric cancer. This has led to the concept of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) with the objective of reducing the length of hospital stay, accelerating postoperative recovery and reducing the surgical stress. The ERAS protocols have many items, including the pre-operative patient education, early mobilization and feeding starting from the first postoperative day. This review aims to highlight possible advantages on postoperative functional recovery outcomes after gastrectomy in patients undergoing an ERAS program, current lack of evidences and future perspectives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacopo Desiderio
- Department of Digestive Surgery, St. Mary's Hospital, Terni, Italy.,Department of Surgical Sciences, La Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Vito D'Andrea
- Department of Surgical Sciences, La Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Amilcare Parisi
- Department of Digestive Surgery, St. Mary's Hospital, Terni, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
31
|
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. World J Surg Oncol 2019; 17:86. [PMID: 31122260 PMCID: PMC6533666 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-019-1628-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2019] [Accepted: 05/14/2019] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
|
32
|
Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery: What Happened Last Year? CURRENT SURGERY REPORTS 2019. [DOI: 10.1007/s40137-019-0235-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
|
|
33
|
Uyama I, Suda K, Nakauchi M, Kinoshita T, Noshiro H, Takiguchi S, Ehara K, Obama K, Kuwabara S, Okabe H, Terashima M. Clinical advantages of robotic gastrectomy for clinical stage I/II gastric cancer: a multi-institutional prospective single-arm study. Gastric Cancer 2019; 22:377-385. [PMID: 30506394 DOI: 10.1007/s10120-018-00906-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 150] [Impact Index Per Article: 25.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/03/2018] [Accepted: 11/24/2018] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer (GC) has been increasingly performed for a decade; however, evidence for its use as a standard treatment has not yet been established. The present study aimed to determine the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of RG for GC. METHODS This multi-institutional, single-arm prospective study, which included 330 patients from 15 institutions, was designed to compare morbidity rate of RG with that of a historical control (conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy, LG). This trial was approved for Advanced Medical Technology ("Senshiniryo") B. The included patients were operable patients with cStage I/II GC. The primary endpoint was morbidity (Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ IIIa). The specific hypothesis was that RG could reduce the morbidity rate to less than half of that with LG (6.4%). A sample size of 330 was considered sufficient (one-sided alpha 0.05, power 80%). RESULTS Among the 330 study patients, the protocol treatment was suspended in 4 patients. Thus, 326 patients fully enrolled and completed the study. The median patient age and BMI were 66 years and 22.4 kg/m2, respectively. Distal gastrectomy was performed in 253 (77.6%) patients. The median operative time and estimated blood loss were 313 min and 20 mL, respectively. No 30-day mortality was seen, and morbidity showed a significant reduction to 2.45% with RG (p = 0.0018). CONCLUSIONS RG for cStage I/II GC is safe and feasible. It may be effective in reducing morbidity with LG.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ichiro Uyama
- Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan.
| | - Koichi Suda
- Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan
| | - Masaya Nakauchi
- Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan
| | - Takahiro Kinoshita
- Gastric Surgery Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan
| | - Hirokazu Noshiro
- Department of Surgery, Saga University Faculty of Medicine, Saga, Japan
| | - Shuji Takiguchi
- Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan
- Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya City University, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Kazuhisa Ehara
- Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Saitama Cancer Center, Saitama, Japan
| | - Kazutaka Obama
- Department of Surgery, Kyoto City Hospital, Kyoto, Japan
- Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Shiro Kuwabara
- Digestive Surgery, Niigata City General Hospital, Niigata, Japan
| | - Hiroshi Okabe
- Department of Surgery, Otsu City Hospital, Otsu, Japan
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
34
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
|
35
|
Abstract
Regional variation in treatment paradigms for gastric adenocarcinoma has attracted a great deal of interest. Between Asia and the West, major differences have been identified in tumor biology, implementation of screening programs, extent of surgical lymphadenectomy, and routine use of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant treatment strategies. Minimally invasive techniques, including both laparoscopic and robotic platforms, have been studied in both regions, with attention to safety, feasibility, and long-term oncologic outcomes. The purpose of this review is to discuss advances in the understanding of the etiology and underlying biology of gastric cancer, as well as the current state of management, focusing on the differences between Asia and the West.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ashley E Russo
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA; ,
| | - Vivian E Strong
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA; ,
| |
Collapse
|
|
36
|
Guerra F, Giuliani G, Formisano G, Bianchi PP, Patriti A, Coratti A. Pancreatic Complications After Conventional Laparoscopic Radical Gastrectomy Versus Robotic Radical Gastrectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2018; 28:1207-1215. [PMID: 29733241 DOI: 10.1089/lap.2018.0159] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recent reports have suggested that the use of the robot might reduce the rate of pancreatic complications following minimally invasive radical gastrectomy. METHODS By meta-analyzing the available literature, we aimed to elucidate possible differences between conventional laparoscopic and robotic radical gastrectomy on pancreatic morbidity. RESULTS More than 2000 patients from eight studies were eventually included in the analysis. The overall incidence of postoperative pancreatic complications was 2.2%, being 1.7% and 2.5% following robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), respectively. In particular, pancreatic fistula occurred in 2.7% of patients receiving robotic gastrectomy (RG) and 3.8% of patients receiving laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS The use of the robot showed a trend toward better outcomes compared with laparoscopy, despite the presence of more advanced disease and higher body mass index. The meta-analysis resulted in an odd ratio of 0.8 favoring RG over LG on pancreatic morbidity, although without statistical significance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco Guerra
- 1 Division of General, Oncological, and Vascular Surgery, Ospedali Riuniti Marche Nord , Pesaro, Italy
- 2 Division of Oncological and Robotic General Surgery, Careggi University Hospital , Florence, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Giuliani
- 3 Division of General and Minimally Invasive surgery, Misericordia Hospital , Grosseto, Italy
| | - Giampaolo Formisano
- 3 Division of General and Minimally Invasive surgery, Misericordia Hospital , Grosseto, Italy
| | - Paolo Pietro Bianchi
- 3 Division of General and Minimally Invasive surgery, Misericordia Hospital , Grosseto, Italy
| | - Alberto Patriti
- 1 Division of General, Oncological, and Vascular Surgery, Ospedali Riuniti Marche Nord , Pesaro, Italy
| | - Andrea Coratti
- 2 Division of Oncological and Robotic General Surgery, Careggi University Hospital , Florence, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
37
|
A systematic review of the learning curve in robotic surgery: range and heterogeneity. Surg Endosc 2018; 33:353-365. [DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6473-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2018] [Accepted: 09/20/2018] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
|
|
38
|
Lu J, Zheng HL, Li P, Xie JW, Wang JB, Lin JX, Chen QY, Cao LL, Lin M, Tu RH, Huang ZN, Huang CM, Zheng CH. A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Oncological, Cost, and Surgical Stress Analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 2018; 22:1152-1162. [PMID: 29736669 DOI: 10.1007/s11605-018-3785-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2018] [Accepted: 04/13/2018] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) has been rapidly adopted for gastric cancer (GC) treatment. However, whether RAG provides any significant outcome/cost advantages over laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for the experienced laparoscopist remains unclear. METHODS A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database identified 768 consecutive patients who underwent either RAG (n = 103) or LAG (n = 667) for GC between July 2016 and June 2017 at a large center. A 1:3 matched propensity score analysis was performed. The short-term outcomes and hospital costs between the two groups were compared. RESULTS A well-balanced cohort of 404 patients was analyzed (RAG:LAG = 1:3 match). The mean operation times were 226.6 ± 36.2 min for the RAG group and 181.8 ± 49.8 min for the LAG group (p < 0.001). The total numbers of retrieved lymph nodes were similar in the RAG and LAG groups (means 38 and 40, respectively, p = 0.115). The overall and major complication rates (RAG, 13.9% vs. LAG, 12.5%, p = 0.732 and RAG, 3.0% vs. LAG, 1.3%, p = 0.373, respectively) were similar. RAG was much more costly than LAG (1.3 times, p < 0.001) mainly due to the amortization and consumables of the robotic system. According to cumulative sum (CUSUM), the learning phases were divided as follows: phase 1 (cases 1-21), phase 2 (cases 22-63), and phase 3 (cases 64-101), in the robotic group. The surgical stress (SS) was higher in the robotic group compared with the laparoscopic group in phase 1 (p < 0.05). However, the SS did not differ significantly between the two groups in phase 3. CONCLUSIONS RAG is a feasible and safe surgical procedure for GC, especially in the post-learning curve period. However, further studies are warranted to evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes and to elucidate whether RAG is cost-effective when compared to LAG.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jun Lu
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
- Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Hua-Long Zheng
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
- Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Ping Li
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
- Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Jian-Wei Xie
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
- Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Jia-Bin Wang
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
- Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Jian-Xian Lin
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
- Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Qi-Yue Chen
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
- Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Long-Long Cao
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
- Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Mi Lin
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
- Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Ru-Hong Tu
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
- Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Ze-Ning Huang
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China
- Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
- Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Chang-Ming Huang
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
- Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
- Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
| | - Chao-Hui Zheng
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
- Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
- Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
39
|
Liu HB, Wang WJ, Li HT, Han XP, Su L, Wei DW, Cao TB, Yu JP, Jiao ZY. Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg 2018; 55:15-23. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.05.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2018] [Revised: 04/11/2018] [Accepted: 05/07/2018] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
|
|
40
|
Wang Y, Zhao X, Song Y, Cai A, Xi H, Chen L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of robot-assisted versus laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96:e8797. [PMID: 29310358 PMCID: PMC5728759 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000008797] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) has been used for gastric cancer since 2002. This meta-analysis was carried out to evaluate whether RAG is safer and more effective than conventional laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for gastric cancer. METHODS We performed a manual search for these 2 types of operations (RAG and LAG) in the PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases up to April 30, 2016. Twelve nonrandomized controlled trials that reported on RAG and LAG for gastric cancer were included. Outcomes evaluated included operation time, number of retrieved lymph nodes, blood loss, length of the resection margin, complications, and postoperative hospital stay. RESULTS A total of 3744 patients in 12 studies were included (1134 patients in the RAG group and 2610 patients in the LAG group). The operation time was significantly shorter in the LAG group [weighted mean difference (WMD) 42.0 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI 28.11-55.89) minutes; P < .00001], while the loss of blood volume was lower in the RAG group (P = .01). The number of retrieved lymph nodes, duration of postoperative stay, length of the proximal resection margin, length of the distal resection margin, and postoperative complications were similar between groups. CONCLUSION We conclude that RAG is a safe and appropriate treatment for gastric cancer patients in comparison to LAG. Nevertheless, RAG is not superior to LAG. Future research on RAG should focus on comparing the differences in retrieved lymph nodes in different tiers, evaluating the postoperative recovery and reducing the cost of the treatment.
Collapse
|
|
41
|
Hagen ME, Balaphas A, Podetta M, Rohner P, Jung MK, Buchs NC, Buehler L, Mendoza JM, Morel P. Robotic single-site versus multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a case-matched analysis of short- and long-term costs. Surg Endosc 2017; 32:1550-1555. [PMID: 29052069 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5843-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2017] [Accepted: 08/22/2017] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Multiport laparoscopy is the gold-standard approach for cholecystectomy, and single-port laparoscopy has been developed to further reduce its invasiveness. A specific robotic single-port platform (da Vinci single-site, Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has been released in 2011, which could technically facilitate single-site cholecystectomy. Current data show its feasibility; however, detailed short- and long-term analyses of costs and comparisons relative to multiport laparoscopy are not available to date. METHODS Patients who underwent robotic single-site cholecystectomy for benign, clinically noninflammatory disease between 2011 and 2015 were matched for disease, age, gender, BMI, ASA classification, diagnosis, and elapsed year of surgery to a cohort of multiport cholecystectomies. Demographic, perioperative, and long-term data were collected retrospectively and analyzed. Perioperative and long-term costs including re-operations due to the primary procedure until February 2017 were compared across both cohorts. RESULTS 99 patients who underwent robotic single-site cholecystectomy were matched to 99 patients with multiport cholecystectomy. A higher rate of outpatient procedures in the robotic cohort (31.3 vs. 17.2%, p = 0.0305) was found, and demographic parameters and perioperative clinical outcomes were similar. Perioperative costs were significantly higher for the robotic single-site patients (6158.0 vs. 4288.0 USD, p < 0.0001). With similar follow-up times of 59.0 and 58.9 months, respectively (p = 0.9552), significantly more patients of the robotic Single-Site cohort underwent follow-up surgery (7.1 vs. 0.0%, p = 0.0140), and follow-up costs were significantly higher for the robotic cohort (694.7 vs. 0.0 USD, p = 0.0145). CONCLUSION With similar early postoperative clinical results and a higher rate of re-operations, perioperative and long-term costs are significantly higher with robotic Single-Site cholecystectomy compared with multiport cholecystectomy. Considering the unclear clinical value of robotic single-site cholecystectomy and the significant short- and long-term costs, a call for further research and a debate as to who should bear the costs beyond the ones of the gold-standard treatment appear reasonable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Monika E Hagen
- Division of Digestive and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Geneva, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland.
| | - Alexandre Balaphas
- Division of Digestive and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Geneva, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Michele Podetta
- Division of Digestive and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Geneva, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Peter Rohner
- Division of Digestive and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Geneva, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Minoa K Jung
- Division of Digestive and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Geneva, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Nicolas C Buchs
- Division of Digestive and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Geneva, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Leo Buehler
- Division of Digestive and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Geneva, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Jona M Mendoza
- Division of Digestive and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Geneva, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Philippe Morel
- Division of Digestive and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Geneva, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
|
42
|
Affiliation(s)
- Gabriel Herrera-Almario
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Vivian E Strong
- Gastric and Mixed Tumor Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
43
|
Chen K, Pan Y, Zhang B, Maher H, Wang XF, Cai XJ. Robotic versus laparoscopic Gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis. BMC Surg 2017; 17:93. [PMID: 28836986 PMCID: PMC5571509 DOI: 10.1186/s12893-017-0290-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 76] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2017] [Accepted: 08/17/2017] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ke Chen
- Department of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310016, China
| | - Yu Pan
- Department of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310016, China
| | - Bin Zhang
- Department of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310016, China
| | - Hendi Maher
- School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310058, China
| | - Xian-Fa Wang
- Department of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310016, China
| | - Xiu-Jun Cai
- Department of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310016, China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
44
|
Alhossaini RM, Altamran AA, Seo WJ, Hyung WJ. Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Current evidence. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2017; 1:82-89. [PMID: 29863139 PMCID: PMC5881341 DOI: 10.1002/ags3.12020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2017] [Accepted: 05/16/2017] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
The robotic system has gained wide acceptance in specialties such as urological and gynecological surgery. It has also been applied in the field of upper gastrointestinal surgery. Since the first implementation of the robotic system for the treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma, the procedure has been found to be safe and feasible. Although robotic gastrectomy does not meet our expectations and yield better results than laparoscopic gastrectomy, this procedure seems to provide several advantages over laparoscopy such as reduced blood loss, shorter learning curves and increased number of retrieved lymph nodes. However, as many case series, including a recent multicenter study, have revealed, higher cost and longer operation time are the major limitations of robotic gastrectomy. Furthermore, there are no results from well-designed randomized clinical trials comparing the two procedures. New procedures in much more technically demanding cases will test the genuine benefits of robotic gastrectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rana M Alhossaini
- Department of Surgery Yonsei University College of Medicine Seoul Korea.,Gastric Cancer Center Yonsei Cancer Center Yonsei University Health System Seoul Korea.,Robot and MIS Center Severance Hospital Yonsei University Health System Seoul Korea
| | - Abdulaziz A Altamran
- Department of Surgery Yonsei University College of Medicine Seoul Korea.,Gastric Cancer Center Yonsei Cancer Center Yonsei University Health System Seoul Korea.,Robot and MIS Center Severance Hospital Yonsei University Health System Seoul Korea
| | - Won Jun Seo
- Department of Surgery Yonsei University College of Medicine Seoul Korea.,Gastric Cancer Center Yonsei Cancer Center Yonsei University Health System Seoul Korea.,Robot and MIS Center Severance Hospital Yonsei University Health System Seoul Korea
| | - Woo Jin Hyung
- Department of Surgery Yonsei University College of Medicine Seoul Korea.,Gastric Cancer Center Yonsei Cancer Center Yonsei University Health System Seoul Korea.,Robot and MIS Center Severance Hospital Yonsei University Health System Seoul Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
45
|
Sajid MS, Hebbar M, Sayegh ME. Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer in UK: current status and future perspectives. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 2:44. [PMID: 28616600 DOI: 10.21037/tgh.2017.04.06] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2017] [Accepted: 04/07/2017] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
The aim of this study is to review the literature and report the various minimally invasive methods used to treat gastric cancer in the UK and compare it with worldwide practice. Published randomised studies, non-randomised studies and case series reporting the use of minimal invasive approach to treat gastric cancer were retrieved from the search of standard medical electronic databases and their outcomes were highlighted suggesting their effectiveness. Several randomised, controlled trials and meta-analyses have proven the clinical and oncological safety of the laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Similarly, robot-assisted gastrectomy, EMR (endoscopic mucosal resection) and ESD (endoscopic sub-mucosal dissection) have also been proven feasible and safe to treat gastric cancer of various stages in prospective and retrospective comparative studies. However, UK based studies on minimally invasive surgery to treat gastric cancer is scarce and the paucity of trials led to uncertain outcomes. Laparoscopic gastrectomy, robot-assisted gastrectomy, EMR and ESD are feasible procedures in terms of clinical and oncological safety but mainly being practiced in Asian countries with high prevalence of stomach cancer. The UK based practice is still small and limited but the introduction of MIGOCS and STOMACH trial might help to widen the application of this technique.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Muhammad Shafique Sajid
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, UK
| | - Madhusoodhana Hebbar
- Department of General and Laparoscopic Surgery, Western Sussex Hospitals Foundation NHS Trust, Worthing Hospital, Worthing, UK
| | - Mazin E Sayegh
- Department of General and Laparoscopic Surgery, Western Sussex Hospitals Foundation NHS Trust, Worthing Hospital, Worthing, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
46
|
Tokunaga M, Kaito A, Sugita S, Watanabe M, Sunagawa H, Kinoshita T. Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 2:57. [PMID: 28616612 PMCID: PMC5460092 DOI: 10.21037/tgh.2017.05.09] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/26/2017] [Accepted: 04/27/2017] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
The number of robotic gastrectomy (RG) performed per year has been increasing, particularly in East Asia where the incidence of gastric cancer is high and approximately half of the cases are diagnosed as early gastric cancer. With articulated devices of RG, surgeons are able to perform every procedure more meticulously, which can result in less bleeding and damage to organs. There are many single arm and comparative studies, and these study showed similar trends, which included relatively less estimated blood loss and longer operation time following RG than laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), equivalent number of harvested lymph nodes and similar length of postoperative hospital stay between RG and LG. Considering the results of these retrospective comparative studies, RG seems to be as feasible as LG in terms of early surgical outcomes. However, medical expense of RG is approximately twice as much as that of LG. Lack of solid evidence in terms of long-term outcomes is another problem. Considering the higher medical expenses associated with RG, its superiority in terms of long-term survival outcomes needs to be confirmed in the future for it to be accepted more widely.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Masanori Tokunaga
- Gastric Cancer Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan
| | - Akio Kaito
- Gastric Cancer Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan
| | - Shizuki Sugita
- Gastric Cancer Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan
| | - Masahiro Watanabe
- Gastric Cancer Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan
| | - Hideki Sunagawa
- Gastric Cancer Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan
| | - Takahiro Kinoshita
- Gastric Cancer Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
|
47
|
Status and Prospects of Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Our Experience and a Review of the Literature. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2017. [PMID: 28626474 PMCID: PMC5463113 DOI: 10.1155/2017/7197652] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Since the first report of robotic gastrectomy, experienced laparoscopic surgeons have used surgical robots to treat gastric cancer and resolve problems associated with laparoscopic gastrectomy. However, compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy, the superiority of robotic procedures has not been clearly proven. There are several advantages to using robotic surgery for gastric cancer, such as reduced estimated blood loss during the operation, a shorter learning curve, and a larger number of examined lymph nodes than conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy. The increased operation time observed with a robotic system is decreasing because surgeons have accumulated experience using this procedure. While there is limited evidence, long-term oncologic outcomes appear to be similar between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy. Robotic procedures have a significantly greater financial cost than laparoscopic gastrectomy, which is a major drawback. Recent clinical studies tried to demonstrate that the benefits of robotic surgery outweighed the cost, but the overall results were disappointing. Ongoing studies are investigating the benefits of robotic gastrectomy in more complicated and challenging cases. Well-designed randomized control trials with large sample sizes are needed to investigate the benefits of robotic gastrectomy compared with laparoscopic surgery.
Collapse
|
|
48
|
Parisi A, Reim D, Borghi F, Nguyen NT, Qi F, Coratti A, Cianchi F, Cesari M, Bazzocchi F, Alimoglu O, Gagnière J, Pernazza G, D’Imporzano S, Zhou YB, Azagra JS, Facy O, Brower ST, Jiang ZW, Zang L, Isik A, Gemini A, Trastulli S, Novotny A, Marano A, Liu T, Annecchiarico M, Badii B, Arcuri G, Avanzolini A, Leblebici M, Pezet D, Cao SG, Goergen M, Zhang S, Palazzini G, D’Andrea V, Desiderio J. Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23:2376-2384. [PMID: 28428717 PMCID: PMC5385404 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i13.2376] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2016] [Revised: 01/23/2017] [Accepted: 03/15/2017] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM To investigate the role of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer and determine surgical, clinical, and oncological outcomes. METHODS This is a propensity score-matched case-control study, comparing three treatment arms: robotic gastrectomy (RG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), open gastrectomy (OG). Data collection started after sharing a specific study protocol. Data were recorded through a tailored and protected web-based system. Primary outcomes: harvested lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, complications rate. Among the secondary outcomes, there are: operative time, R0 resections, POD of mobilization, POD of starting liquid diet and soft solid diet. The analysis includes the evaluation of type and grade of postoperative complications. Detailed information of anastomotic leakages is also provided. RESULTS The present analysis was carried out of 1026 gastrectomies. To guarantee homogenous distribution of cases, patients in the RG, LG and OG groups were 1:1:2 matched using a propensity score analysis with a caliper = 0.2. The successful matching resulted in a total sample of 604 patients (RG = 151; LG = 151; OG = 302). The three groups showed no differences in all baseline patients characteristics, type of surgery (P = 0.42) and stage of the disease (P = 0.16). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the LG (95.93 ± 119.22) and RG (117.91 ± 68.11) groups compared to the OG (127.26 ± 79.50, P = 0.002). The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was similar between the RG (27.78 ± 11.45), LG (24.58 ± 13.56) and OG (25.82 ± 12.07) approach. A benefit in favor of the minimally invasive approaches was found in the length of hospital stay (P < 0.0001). A similar complications rate was found (P = 0.13). The leakage rate was not different (P = 0.78) between groups. CONCLUSION Laparoscopic and robotic surgery can be safely performed and proposed as possible alternative to open surgery. The main highlighted benefit is a faster postoperative functional recovery.
Collapse
|
|
49
|
|
|
50
|
Gholami S, Cassidy MR, Strong VE. Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches to Gastric Resection. Surg Clin North Am 2017; 97:249-264. [PMID: 28325185 DOI: 10.1016/j.suc.2016.11.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
Minimally invasive gastric resections carry several advantages, including less intraoperative blood loss, faster recovery time, reduced pain, and decreased hospital length of stay and quicker return to work. Numerous trials have proved that laparoscopic and robotic-assisted gastrectomy provides equivalent surgical and oncologic outcomes to open approaches. As with any minimally invasive approach, advanced minimally invasive training and good judgment by a surgeon are paramount in selecting patients in whom a minimally invasive approach is feasible. With increasing research in patient populations with more advanced disease, the indications are likely to continue to expand.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sepideh Gholami
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, C-1272, New York, NY 10065, USA.
| | - Michael R Cassidy
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, C-1272, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Vivian E Strong
- Gastric and Mixed Tumor Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, H-1217, New York, NY 10065, USA
| |
Collapse
|