Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Robotic and Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: The Learning Curve of Robotic Surgery

Clinical advantages of robotic gastrectomy for clinical stage I/II gastric cancer: a multi-institutional prospective single-arm study

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.

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a European perspective

Gastrectomy is the mainstay treatment for gastric cancer. To reduce the associated patient burden, minimally invasive gastrectomy was introduced in almost 30 years ago. The increase in the availability of surgical robotic systems led to the first robotic-assisted gastrectomy to be performed in 2002 in Japan. Robotic gastrectomy however, particularly in Europe, has not yet gained significant traction. Most reports to date are from Asia, predominantly containing observational studies. These cohorts are commonly different in the tumour stage, location (particularly with regards to gastroesophageal junctional tumours) and patient BMI compared to those encountered in Europe. To date, no randomised clinical trials have been performed comparing robotic gastrectomy to either laparoscopic or open equivalent. Cohort studies show that robotic gastrectomy is equal oncological outcomes in terms of survival and lymph node yield. Operative times in the robotic group are consistently longer compared to laparoscopic or open gastrectomy, although evidence is emerging that resectional surgical time is equal. The only reproducibly significant difference in favour of robot-assisted gastrectomy is a reduction in intra-operative blood loss and some studies show a reduction in the risk of pancreatic fistula formation.

Gastric Cancer Etiology and Management in Asia and the West

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.

Pancreatic Complications After Conventional Laparoscopic Radical Gastrectomy Versus Robotic Radical Gastrectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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.

Comparison of Surgical Outcomes Between Robotic and Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for cT1 Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of patients are treated by robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG); however, it remains unclear whether RDG is clinically comparable with conventional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG). This study aimed to clarify the feasibility of RDG from safety aspects.

METHODS

The study included 109 cT1 gastric cancer patients who underwent RDG at Shizuoka Cancer Center from January 2012 to April 2015. Short-term outcomes were compared with 160 cT1 gastric cancer patients who underwent LDG during the same period.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were well matched. The RDG patients experienced longer operative times (323 min) than LDG patients (285 min; P < 0.001), although all other surgical outcomes were comparable between the groups. Drain amylase levels on POD 1 were significantly lower in the RDG group compared to LDG cases (median 452 U/L and 892 U/L; P < 0.001). The incidence of all complications was similar across the study patients, although intra-abdominal infectious complications tended to be lower in the RDG group than in the LDG group (2.8 and 8.1%; P = 0.112).

CONCLUSIONS

RDG was comparable to LDG in terms of feasibility for cT1 gastric cancer. RDG has the potential to reduce pancreas damage and thus to decrease intra-abdominal infectious complications.

A New Robot-assisted Billroth-I Reconstruction: Details of the Technique and Early Results

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for gastric tumor is considered a demanding procedure because of lymph node dissection and reconstruction. Billroth-I (B-I) reconstruction after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is commonly performed extracorporeally because of the complexity of an intracorporeal procedure. Robotic surgery overcomes some limitations of laparoscopy, allowing to reproduce the basic maneuvers of open surgery. We describe a new technique to perform robotic B-I anastomosis.

METHODS

Between January 2012 and February 2015, 5 patients underwent distal gastrectomy with intracorporeal B-I-stapled anastomosis. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, histopathologic features, and perioperative data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Median operative time was 170 minutes (145 to 180 min). There were no conversions. Contrast swallow was routinely performed on the third postoperative day. Median postoperative hospitalization was 7 days (range: 6 to 8). No major complications or mortality were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic distal gastrectomy with intracorporeal B-I anastomosis is a safe and promising technique in selected cases of gastric tumors.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer

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

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

Background

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is a new surgical method alternative for gastric cancer. However, few studies have evaluated the outcomes of RG for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the short-and long-term outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) with D2 lymph node dissection for AGC.

Patients and methods

We retrospectively evaluated 454 patients with AGC who underwent RG or LG with D2 lymph node dissection for AGC between August 2013 and March 2017. The short-and long-term outcomes were compared between the propensity score-matched groups.

Results

The RG group was associated with longer operation time, less intraoperative blood loss, and higher hospital cost. Additionally, there was a tendency favoring RG in terms of number of harvested lymph nodes, time to first flatus, time to first start diet, and postoperative hospital stay, although the differences were not statistically significant. The overall postoperative complication rate was 13.4% and 11.6% in the RG and LG groups, respectively, with no significant difference (P=0.686). The 3-year overall survival and recurrence rates of the RG and LG groups were also comparable (78.6% vs 74.1%, P=0.483; 18.8% vs 21.4%, P=0.617; respectively).

Conclusion

RG with D2 lymph node dissection is safe and feasible for AGC in terms of both short- and long-term outcomes. High-volume randomized controlled trials with sufficient follow-up are needed to confirm this rationale.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of robot-assisted versus laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer

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.

Impact of an Ultrasonically Activated Device in Robot-Assisted Distal Gastrectomy

Objective

Robot-assisted gastrectomy is increasingly used for the treatment of gastric cancer, although it remains a time-consuming procedure. An ultrasonically activated device might be useful to shorten operation times. This study therefore assessed the effect of ultrasonically activated device use on procedural times and on other early surgical outcomes.

Methods

Consecutive patients (N = 42) who underwent robot-assisted distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer were included. Clinicopathological characteristics and early surgical outcomes were compared between robotic-assisted gastrectomy procedures using an ultrasonically activated device (U group, n = 21) and those without it (NU group, n = 21).

Results

There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the groups; however, the median operation time was significantly less in the U group than in the NU group (291 vs 351 minutes, P = 0.006). In detail, the median duration of console time until dividing the duodenum was less in the U group (70 vs 102 minutes, P < 0.001). Estimated blood loss, incidence of postoperative morbidity, and duration of postoperative hospital stay were not different between the groups.

Conclusions

An ultrasonically activated device reduced the operation time of robot-assisted gastrectomy without increasing blood loss and morbidity.

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

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

Polish Consensus on Treatment of Gastric Cancer; update 2017

The "Polish Research on Gastric Cancer" project has been continued since 1986. The main aim of this project, which is a multicenter and interdisciplinary research, is enhancing the treatment results of gastric cancer patients by developing and promoting the use of optimal methods for diagnosis and treatment, both surgical as well as combined. One of the more important achievements of the project is the development and publication of a document named "Polish Consensus on Treatment of Patients with Gastric Cancer", whose first version was published in 1998. Following versions were updated adequately to changing trends in the proceedings in patients with gastric cancer. A scientific symposium on "Polish Consensus on Treatment of Gastric Cancer - update 2016" was held in 3-4 June 2016 in Cracow. During the symposium a panel session was held during which all authors publicly presented the Consensus assumptions to be discussed further. Moreover, the already mentioned session was preceded by a correspondence as well as a working meeting in order to consolidate the position. It has to be underlined that the directions and guidelines included in the Consensus are not the arbitrarily assumed rules of conduct in a legal aspect and as such every doctor/team of doctors is entitled to make different decisions as long as they are beneficial to a patient with gastric cancer. The Consensus discusses as follows: a) recommended qualifications (stage of advancement, pathological, lymph node topography and the extent of lymphadenectomy, division of cancer of the gastroesophageal junction), b) rules for diagnostics including recommendations regarding endoscopic examination and clinical evaluation of the advancement stage, c) recommendations regarding surgical treatment (extent of resection, extent of lymphadenectomy, tactics of proceedings in cancer of the gastroesophageal junction), d) recommendations regarding combined treatment with chemotherapy or radiotherapy, e) place of endoscopic and less invasive surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer. This publication is a summary of the arrangements made in the panel session during the abovementioned scientific symposium in Cracow in 2016.

Combat with esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A critical review of the literature

Esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage (EJAL) is considered to be one of the most serious complications after total gastrectomy (TG), despite improvements in surgical instruments and technique. The occurrence of EJAL would cause poorer quality of life, prolonged hospital stay, and increased surgery-related costs and mortality. Although there is ever-increasing knowledge about EJAL, the optimal management is controversial. In the present review, we aim to demonstrate the effective management by focus on the possible risk factors, potentially useful preventive strategies, and several kinds of treatments in esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Current evidence

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.

Development of stereo endoscope system with its innovative master interface for continuous surgical operation

Background

Although robotic laparoscopic surgery has various benefits when compared with conventional open surgery and minimally invasive surgery, it also has issues to overcome and one of the issues is the discontinuous surgical flow that occurs whenever control is swapped between the endoscope system and the operating robot arm system. This can lead to problems such as collision between surgical instruments, injury to patients, and increased operation time. To achieve continuous surgical operation, a wireless controllable stereo endoscope system is proposed which enables the simultaneous control of the operating robot arm system and the endoscope system.

Methods

The proposed system consists of two improved novel master interfaces (iNMIs), a four-degrees of freedom (4-DOFs) endoscope control system (ECS), and a simple three-dimensional (3D) endoscope. In order to simultaneously control the proposed system and patient side manipulators of da Vinci research kit (dVRK), the iNMIs are installed to the master tool manipulators of dVRK system. The 4-DOFs ECS consists of four servo motors and employs a two-parallel link structure to provide translational and fulcrum point motion to the simple 3D endoscope. The images acquired by the endoscope undergo stereo calibration and rectification to provide a clear 3D vision to the surgeon as available in clinically used da Vinci surgical robot systems. Tests designed to verify the accuracy, data transfer time, and power consumption of the iNMIs were performed. The workspace was calculated to estimate clinical applicability and a modified peg transfer task was conducted with three novice volunteers.

Results

The iNMIs operated for 317 min and moved in accordance with the surgeon’s desire with a mean latency of 5 ms. The workspace was calculated to be 20378.3 cm³, which exceeds the reference workspace of 549.5 cm³. The novice volunteers were able to successfully execute the modified peg transfer task designed to evaluate the proposed system’s overall performance.

Conclusions

The experimental results verify that the proposed 3D endoscope system enables continuous surgical flow. The workspace is suitable for the performance of numerous types of surgeries. Therefore, the proposed system is expected to provide much higher safety and efficacy for current surgical robot systems.

New totally intracorporeal reconstructive approach after robotic total gastrectomy: Technical details and short-term outcomes

AIM

To show outcomes of our series of patients that underwent a total gastrectomy with a robotic approach and highlight the technical details of a proposed solution for the reconstruction phase.

METHODS

Data of gastrectomies performed from May 2014 to October 2016, were extracted and analyzed. Basic characteristics of patients, surgical and clinical outcomes were reported. The technique for reconstruction (Parisi Technique) consists on a loop of bowel shifted up antecolic to directly perform the esophago-enteric anastomosis followed by a second loop, measured up to 40 cm starting from the esojejunostomy, fixed to the biliary limb to create an enteroenteric anastomosis. The continuity between the two anastomoses is interrupted just firing a linear stapler, so obtaining the Roux-en-Y by avoiding to interrupt the mesentery.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients were considered in the present analysis. Estimated blood loss was 126.55 ± 73 mL, no conversions to open surgery occurred, R0 resections were obtained in all cases. Hospital stay was 5 (3-17) d, no anastomotic leakage occurred. Overall, a fast functional recovery was shown with a median of 3 (3-6) d in starting a solid diet.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery and the adoption of a tailored reconstruction technique have increased the feasibility and safety of a minimally invasive approach for total gastrectomy. The present series of patients shows its implementation in a western center with satisfying short-term outcomes.

Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer in UK: current status and future perspectives

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.

Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

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.

Status and Prospects of Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Our Experience and a Review of the Literature

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.

Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery

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.

Robotic valvuloplastic esophagogastrostomy using double flap technique following proximal gastrectomy: technical aspects and short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Valvuloplastic esophagogastrostomy by double flap technique (VEG-DFT) is a promising procedure to prevent reflux after proximal gastrectomy (PG), and is achieved by the burial of the abdominal esophagus into the gastric submucosa; however, laparoscopic VEG-DFT is technically demanding due to complicated suturing and ligation maneuvers. The present study was designed to determine the feasibility and safety of robotic VEG-DFT.

METHODS

After robotic PG, seromuscular flaps were extracorporeally created at the anterior wall of the remnant stomach through a small umbilical incision. Then, using a robot, the posterior wall of the esophagus was fixed to the cranial end of the mucosal window, and layer-to-layer sutures were placed between the anterior aspects of esophagus and the remnant stomach. Finally, the anastomosis was covered by seromuscular flaps. Short-term outcomes of 12 consecutive patients who underwent VEG-DFT between January 2014 and December 2015 were assessed.

RESULTS

Operations were successfully completed using robotic assistance in all patients. Median operative, surgeon console, and anastomosis times were 406 (324-613 min), 267 (214-483), and 104 (76-186) min, respectively, and median estimated blood loss was 31 (5-130) ml. The first six cases were required to reach a learning plateau. Both mortality and morbidity rates within 30 days after surgery were 0%. Postoperative hospital stay was 10 (9-30) days. No postoperative reflux esophagitis was observed, whereas anastomotic stenosis, which required endoscopic balloon dilation, developed in three patients (25%) in postoperative month 2. There was a significant association between the total number of stitches used for VEG-DFT and anastomotic stenosis (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic assistance may be useful for VEG-DFT with a short learning curve. Attention is required to prevent postoperative anastomotic stenosis possibly caused by an excessive number of stitches for esophagogastrostomy.

Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches to Gastric Resection

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.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

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

Comparison of short outcomes between laparoscopic and experienced robotic gastrectomy: A meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the short-term outcomes between experienced robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

We searched the PubMed, Springer Link, Elsevier, and Embase databases for articles published in English before June 2015 using an electronic literature search and including cross-referenced articles. Three studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. The outcomes evaluated were operation time, estimated blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, complication, and postoperative hospital stay.

RESULTS:

Of a total of 562 patients, 165 underwent RG and 397 underwent LG. Operation time was significantly longer in the RG group [weighted mean difference (WMD): 21.49, 95% confidence interval (CI): 12.48-30.50, P < 0.00001). Estimated blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, complication, and postoperative hospital stay were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION:

Experienced RG has similar short-term outcomes to LG that is performed by sophisticated laparoscopic surgeons, except for operation time.

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

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

Robotic gastrectomy for elderly gastric cancer patients: comparisons with robotic gastrectomy in younger patients and laparoscopic gastrectomy in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery for gastric cancer has been adopted to overcome technical difficulties in performing laparoscopic gastrectomy. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of robotic gastrectomy in elderly gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy from 2003 to 2010 in a single high-volume center were included in this study. We retrospectively compared preoperative characteristics, perioperative factors, and oncological parameters among an elderly (≥70 years old) robotic gastrectomy group (n = 49), a younger (<70 years old) robotic gastrectomy group (n = 321), and an elderly laparoscopic gastrectomy group (n = 132).

RESULTS

The elderly robotic group presented with more comorbidities than the younger robotic group. Except for number of retrieved lymph nodes (36.5 vs. 41.5; P = 0.007), short-term operative outcomes including complications and pathological parameters were comparable between the two robotic groups. The elderly robotic group showed comparable disease-specific survival to the younger robotic group although overall survival was worse. Compared to their laparoscopic counterparts, the elderly robotic group showed longer mean operation time (227 vs. 174 min). Nevertheless, the incidence and severity of postoperative complications was not different between the two elderly groups. Overall and disease-specific survival were also comparable between the elderly groups. In multivariate analysis, age and surgical approach were not risk factors for overall and major complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of robotic gastrectomy in the elderly did not differ from those in younger robotic gastrectomy patients and were comparable to those in elderly patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy. Thus, robotic gastrectomy could be a safe and feasible approach in elderly patients.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Current considerations

Radical gastrectomy with an adequate lymphadenectomy is the main procedure which makes it possible to cure patients with resectable gastric cancer (GC). A number of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis provide phase III evidence that laparoscopic gastrectomy is technically safe and that it yields better short-term outcomes than conventional open gastrectomy for early-stage GC. While laparoscopic gastrectomy has become standard therapy for early-stage GC, especially in Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea, the use of minimally invasive techniques is still controversial for the treatment of more advanced tumours, principally due to existing concerns about its oncological adequacy and capacity to carry out an adequately extended lymphadenectomy. Some intrinsic drawbacks of the conventional laparoscopic technique have prevented the worldwide spread of laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer and, despite technological advances in recent year, it remains a technically challenging procedure. The introduction of robotic surgery over the last ten years has implied a notable mutation of certain minimally invasive procedures, making it possible to overcome some limitations of the traditional laparoscopic technique. Robot-assisted gastric resection with D2 lymph node dissection has been shown to be safe and feasible in prospective and retrospective studies. However, to date there are no high quality comparative studies investigating the advantages of a robotic approach to GC over traditional laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. On the basis of the literature review here presented, robot-assisted surgery seems to fulfill oncologic criteria for D2 dissection and has a comparable oncologic outcome to traditional laparoscopic and open procedure. Robot-assisted gastrectomy was associated with the trend toward a shorter hospital stay with a comparable morbidity of conventional laparoscopic and open gastrectomy, but randomized clinical trials and longer follow-ups are needed to evaluate the possible influence of robot gastrectomy on GC patient survival.

Minimally invasive surgery for upper gastrointestinal cancer: Our experience and review of the literature

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, characterized by minimal access, has been increasingly performed worldwide. It not only results in better cosmetic outcomes, but also reduces intraoperative blood loss and postoperative pain, leading to faster recovery; however, endoscopically enhanced anatomy and improved hemostasis via positive intracorporeal pressure generated by CO2 insufflation have not contributed to reduction in early postoperative complications or improvement in long-term outcomes. Since 1995, we have been actively using MIS for operable patients with resectable upper GI cancer and have developed stable and robust methodology in conducting totally laparoscopic gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer and prone thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer using novel technology including da Vinci Surgical System (DVSS). We have recently demonstrated that use of DVSS might reduce postoperative local complications including pancreatic fistula after gastrectomy and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy after esophagectomy. In this article, we present the current status and future perspectives on MIS for gastric and esophageal cancer based on our experience and a review of the literature.

A development of assistant surgical robot system based on surgical-operation-by-wire and hands-on-throttle-and-stick

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery offers several advantages compared with open surgery and conventional minimally invasive surgery. However, one issue that needs to be resolved is a collision between the robot arm and the assistant instrument. This is mostly caused by miscommunication between the surgeon and the assistant. To resolve this limitation, an assistant surgical robot system that can be simultaneously manipulated via a wireless controller is proposed to allow the surgeon to control the assistant instrument.

METHODS

The system comprises two novel master interfaces (NMIs), a surgical instrument with a gripper actuated by a micromotor, and 6-axis robot arm. Two NMIs are attached to master tool manipulators of da Vinci research kit (dVRK) to control the proposed system simultaneously with patient side manipulators of dVRK. The developments of the surgical instrument and NMI are based on surgical-operation-by-wire concept and hands-on-throttle-and-stick concept from the earlier research, respectively. Tests for checking the accuracy, latency, and power consumption of the NMI are performed. The gripping force, reaction time, and durability are assessed to validate the surgical instrument. The workspace is calculated for estimating the clinical applicability. A simple peg task using the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery board and an in vitro test are executed with three novice volunteers.

RESULTS

The NMI was operated for 185 min and reflected the surgeon's decision successfully with a mean latency of 132 ms. The gripping force of the surgical instrument was comparable to that of conventional systems and was consistent even after 1000 times of gripping motion. The reaction time was 0.4 s. The workspace was calculated to be 8397.4 cm(3). Recruited volunteers were able to execute the simple peg task within the cut-off time and successfully performed the in vitro test without any collision.

CONCLUSIONS

Various experiments were conducted and it is verified that the proposed assistant surgical robot system enables collision-free and simultaneous operation of the dVRK's robot arm and the proposed assistant robot arm. The workspace is appropriate for the performance of various kinds of surgeries. Therefore, the proposed system is expected to provide higher safety and effectiveness for the current surgical robot system.

Comparison of the long-term outcomes of robotic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer and conventional laparoscopic approach: a single institutional retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer (GC) has been increasingly performed over the last decade. The technical feasibility and safety of RG for GC, predominantly early GC, have previously been reported; however, few studies have evaluated the oncological outcomes. This study aimed to determine the long-term outcomes of RG for GC compared with those of conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

METHODS

Of the 521 consecutive patients with GC who underwent radical gastrectomy at our institution between 2009 and 2012, 84 consecutive patients who underwent RG and 437 patients who received LG were enrolled in this study. Long-term outcomes including the 3-year overall survival (3yOS) and 3-year recurrence-free survival rates (3yRFS) were examined retrospectively.

RESULTS

In the RG group, the 3yOS rates stratified by pathological stage according to the Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma (IA, IB, II, and III) were 94.7, 90.9, 89.5, and 62.5 %, respectively. No differences in 3yOS (RG, 86.9 % vs. LG, 88.8 %; p = 0.636) or 3yRFS (RG, 86.9 % vs. LG, 86.3 %; p = 0.905) were observed between the groups. 3yOS was strongly associated with cancer recurrence within 3 years (p < 0.001), while 3yRFS was associated with tumor size ≥ 30 mm (p < 0.001), clinical stage ≥ IB (p < 0.001), estimated blood loss ≥ 50 mL (p = 0.033), and postoperative pancreatic fistula CD grade ≥ III) (p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

RG for GC was feasible and safe from the oncological point of view in a cohort including a considerable number of patients with advanced GC.

Multicenter Prospective Comparative Study of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To compare short-term surgical outcomes including financial cost of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND

Despite a lack of supporting evidence, robotic surgery has been increasingly adopted as a minimally invasive modality for the treatment of gastric cancer because of its assumed technical superiority over conventional laparoscopy.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter comparative study was conducted. Patients were matched according to the surgeon, extent of gastric resection, and sex. The primary endpoint was morbidity and mortality. Outcomes were analyzed on an intention-to-treat and per-protocol basis.

RESULTS

A total of 434 patients were enrolled for treatment with either robotic (n = 223) or laparoscopic (n = 211) gastrectomy for intention-to-treat analysis, and a total of 370 patients (n = 185 per treatment) were compared in per-protocol analysis. Results were similar between both analyses. In per-protocol analysis, both groups showed similar overall complication rates (robotic = 11.9% vs laparoscopic = 10.3%) and major complication rates (robotic = 1.1% vs laparoscopic = 1.1%) with no operative mortality in either group. Patients treated with robotic surgery showed significantly longer operative time (robotic = 221 minutes vs laparoscopic = 178 minutes; P < 0.001) and significantly higher total costs (robotic = US$13,432 vs laparoscopic = US$8090; P < 0.001), compared with those who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy. No significant differences between groups were noted in estimated blood loss, rates of open conversion, diet build-up, or length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of robotic systems is assumed to provide a technically superior operative environment for minimally invasive surgery. However, our analysis of perioperative surgical outcomes indicated that robotic gastrectomy is not superior to laparoscopic gastrectomy. Clinical trials identification: NCT01309256.

Robotic surgery for gastric tumor: current status and new approaches

Surgical techniques have evolved tremendously over this past century. To maximize the efficacy and minimize the invasiveness of laparoscopic surgery, researchers have sought to implement wider application of robotics. Nevertheless, both optimism without sound evidence and fear of new technology obscure the appropriate uses of robotic surgery. In the present review, we attempted to provide a balanced perspective on the current state of robotic gastrectomy, outlining evidence and opportunities for the use thereof. Although evidence is limited, the use of robotics is feasible for gastric cancer surgery, and less than 10 cases of robotic surgery are needed to become proficient therein. Compared to the clinical impact of laparoscopy on gastric cancer surgery, the additional benefits of robotic surgery to patients seem to be limited. Despite additional costs and longer surgeries, robotic surgery reportedly does not offer surgical outcomes superior to those for laparoscopic surgery, according to a recent multicenter study. Meanwhile, however, our in-depth review of retrospective and prospective reports revealed that robots could expand the indications of minimally invasive gastrectomy for patients requiring total gastrectomy and D2 lymph node dissection. Moreover, we found that robotic gastrectomy is associated with a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes, less bleeding, fewer complications, and shorter hospital stay, compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy. Accordingly, new surgical approaches using advanced technologies, such as near infrared detectors, the Tilepro^® multi-input display, dual consoles, and the Single-Site^® system, are under investigation. In conclusion, measuring the additional benefits of robotic over laparoscopic surgery would be difficult and clinically insignificant. Thus, developing new surgical procedures that extend the benefits of conventional laparoscopic surgery to patients in whom minimally invasive surgery would not be possible is necessary to justify the greater use of robotic surgery.

Robot-assisted surgery for gastric cancer

Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer is a relatively new research field, with convincing results mostly stemming from Asian countries. The use of the robotic surgery platform, thus far assessed as a safe procedure, which is also easier to learn, sets the background for a wider spread of minimally invasive technique in the treatment of gastric cancer. This review will cover the literature published so far, analyzing the pros and cons of robotic surgery and highlighting the remaining study questions.

Assessing the safety and efficacy of full robotic gastrectomy with intracorporeal robot-sewn anastomosis for gastric cancer: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy is increasingly used in gastric cancer patients. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of full robotic gastrectomy with intracorporeal robot-sewn anastomosis for gastric cancer.

METHODS

Three hundred and eleven patients were randomized into an open gastrectomy group or a robotic gastrectomy group, and digestive restorations were performed under direct vision and with intracorporeal robot-sewn anastomosis, respectively. Length of postoperative hospital stay, number of lymph node dissections, surgical duration, blood loss, and complication rate after surgery were recorded.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the number of lymph node dissections (30.9 ± 10.4 vs. 29.3 ± 9.7 days, P = 0.281) or complication rates (10.3 vs. 9.3%, P = 0.756) between the two groups. Surgical duration was significantly longer in the robotic gastrectomy group than in the open gastrectomy group (242.7 ± 43.8 vs. 192.4 ± 31.5 min, P = 0.002), whereas blood loss was less (94.2 ± 51.5 vs. 152.8 ± 76.9 ml, P < 0.001), length of postoperative hospital stay was shorter (5.6 ± 1.9 vs. 6.7 ± 1.9 days, P = 0.021), and postoperative restoration of bowel function was earlier (2.6 ± 1.1 vs. 3.1 ± 1.2 days, P = 0.028).

CONCLUSION

Full robotic gastrectomy with intracorporeal robot-sewn anastomosis for gastric cancer is safe and does not increase the complication risk during or after surgery. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:397-404. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

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

Robotic surgery for gastric cancer

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

Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

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

Current status of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

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