Surgical stress after robot-assisted distal gastrectomy and its economic implications

Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)

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.

A systematic review on the effectiveness of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes: robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer patients with visceral obesity

The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the comparative efficacy of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery in treating gastric cancer among patients characterized by a high visceral fat area (VFA). In April 2024, we conducted a comprehensive literature review using major international databases, such as PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. We restricted our selection to articles written in English, excluding reviews, protocols without published data, conference abstracts, and irrelevant content. Our analysis focused on continuous data using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and standard mean differences (SMDs), while dichotomous data were assessed with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. We set the threshold for statistical significance at P < 0.05. Data extraction included baseline characteristics, primary outcomes (such as operative time, major complications, lymph node yield, and anastomotic leakage), and secondary outcomes. The meta-analysis included three cohort studies totaling 970 patients. The robotic-assisted group demonstrated a significantly longer operative time compared to the laparoscopic group, with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of - 55.76 min (95% CI - 74.03 to - 37.50; P < 0.00001). This group also showed a reduction in major complications, with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.48 (95% CI 1.09-5.66; P = 0.03) and fewer occurrences of abdominal infections (OR 3.17, 95% CI 1.41-7.14; P = 0.005), abdominal abscesses (OR 3.83, 95% CI 1.53-9.57; P = 0.004), anastomotic leaks (OR 4.09, 95% CI 1.73-9.65; P = 0.001), and pancreatic leaks (OR 8.93, 95% CI 2.33-34.13; P = 0.001). However, no significant differences were observed between the groups regarding length of hospital stay, overall complications, estimated blood loss, or lymph node yield. Based on our findings, robot-assisted gastric cancer surgery in obese patients with visceral fat appears to be correlated with fewer major complications compared to laparoscopic surgery, while maintaining similar outcomes in other surgical aspects. However, it is important to note that robot-assisted procedures do tend to have longer operative times.

Fluorescence-guided Two-port Robotic Gastrectomy Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Gastrectomy: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial

Objective

To compare the number of retrieved lymph nodes between conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (CLG) and robotic gastrectomy integrated with fluorescence guidance and a two-port system (integrated robotic gastrectomy, IRG).

Background

The benefits of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer have not yet been established. Using built-in features of robotic system, further benefit can be provided to the patients with effective lymphadenectomy and enhanced recovery.

Methods

A nonrandomized controlled trial was performed by a single surgeon at single-center, tertiary referral hospital between January 2018 and October 2021. Overall, 140 patients scheduled to undergo minimally invasive subtotal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the number of retrieved lymph nodes. Secondary endpoints were complications, hospital stay, pain score, body image, and operative cost.

Results

This study analyzed 124 patients in the per-protocol group (IRG, 64; CLG, 60). The number of retrieved lymph nodes was higher in the IRG group than those in the CLG group (IRG vs CLG; 42.1 ± 17.9 vs 35.1 ± 14.6, P = 0.019). Moreover, other surgical parameters, such as hospital stay (4.1 ± 1.0 vs 5.2 ± 1.8, P < 0.001) and body image scale (better in 4 of the 10 questions), were significantly better in the IRG than in the CLG.

Conclusions

Robotic surgical procedures integrated with fluorescence guidance and a reduced-port system yielded more retrieved lymph nodes. In addition, the IRG group showed better perioperative surgical outcomes, particularly regarding the length of hospital stay and postoperative body image.

Trial registration

NCT03396354.

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

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.

Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Breast Surgery: Recent Evidence with Comparative Clinical Outcomes

In recent times, robot-assisted surgery has been prominently gaining pace to minimize overall postsurgical complications with minimal traumatization, due to technical advancements in telerobotics and ergonomics. The aim of this review is to explore the efficiency of robot-assisted systems for executing breast surgeries, including microsurgeries, direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, deep inferior epigastric perforators-based surgery, latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction, and nipple-sparing mastectomy. Robot-assisted surgery systems are efficient due to 3D-based visualization, dexterity, and range of motion while executing breast surgery. The review describes the comparative efficiency of robot-assisted surgery in relation to conventional or open surgery, in terms of clinical outcomes, morbidity rates, and overall postsurgical complication rates. Potential cost-effective barriers and technical skills were also delineated as the major limitations associated with these systems in the clinical sector. Furthermore, instrument articulation of robot-assisted surgical systems (for example, da Vinci systems) can enable high accuracy and precision surgery due to its promising ability to mitigate tremors at the time of surgery, and shortened learning curve, making it more beneficial than other open surgery procedures.

Assessment for the minimal invasiveness of laparoscopic liver resection by interleukin-6 and thrombospondin-1

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has been introduced as a minimally invasive technique for the treatment of various field. However, there are few reports that have scientifically investigated the minimally invasive nature of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

AIM

To investigate whether LLR is scientifically less invasive than open liver resection.

METHODS

During December 2011 to April 2015, blood samples were obtained from 30 patients who treated with laparoscopic (n = 10, 33%) or open (n = 20, 67%) partial liver resection for liver tumor. The levels of serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) and plasma thrombospondin-1 (TSP-1) were measured using ELISA kit at four time points including preoperative, immediate after operation, postoperative day 1 (POD1) and POD3. Then, we investigated the impact of the operative approaches during partial hepatectomy on the clinical time course including IL-6 and TSP-1.

RESULTS

Serum level of IL-6 on POD1 in laparoscopic hepatectomy was significantly lower than those in open hepatectomy (8.7 vs 30.3 pg/mL, respectively) (P = 0.003). Plasma level of TSP-1 on POD3 in laparoscopic hepatectomy was significantly higher than those in open hepatectomy (1704.0 vs 548.3 ng/mL, respectively) (P = 0.009), and have already recovered to preoperative level in laparoscopic approach. In patients with higher IL-6 Levels on POD1, plasma level of TSP-1 on POD3 was significantly lower than those in patients with lower IL-6 Levels on POD1. Multivariate analysis showed that open approach was the only independent factor related to higher level of IL-6 on POD1 [odds ratio (OR), 7.48; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.28-63.3; P = 0.02]. Furthermore, the higher level of serum IL-6 on POD1 was significantly associated with lower level of plasm TSP-1 on POD3 (OR, 5.32; 95%CI: 1.08-32.2; P = 0.04) in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

In partial hepatectomy, laparoscopic approach might be minimally invasive surgery with less IL-6 production compared to open approach.

Comparison of Long-Term and Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of PSM and RCT Studies

Background

To investigate the perioperative and oncological outcomes of gastric cancer (GC) after robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy (RG versus LG), we carried out a meta-analysis of propensity score matching (PSM) studies and randomized controlled study (RCT) to compare the safety and overall effect of RG to LG for patients with GC.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible PSM and RCT studies before July 2021. Data on perioperative and oncological outcomes were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, we identified 19 PSM studies and 1 RCT of RG versus LG, enrolling a total of 13,446 patients (6,173 and 7,273 patients underwent RG and LG, respectively). The present meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant differences in tumor size, proximal resection margin distance, distal resection margin distance, abdominal bleeding, ileus, anastomosis site leakage, duodenal stump leakage rate, conversion rate, reoperation, overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate between the two groups. Alternatively, comparing RG with LG, RG has a longer operative time (p < 0.00001), less blood loss (p <0.0001), earlier time to first flatus (p = 0.0003), earlier time to oral intake (p = 0.0001), shorter length of stay (p = 0.0001), less major complications (p = 0.0001), lower overall complications (p = 0.0003), more retrieved lymph nodes (P < 0.0001), and more cost (p < 0.00001).

Conclusions

In terms of oncological adequacy and safety, RG is a feasible and effective treatment strategy for gastric cancer but takes more cost in comparison with LG.

Short-term Outcomes of Robotic Gastrectomy vs Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Patients With Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer may be associated with decreased incidence of intra-abdominal infectious complications, including pancreatic fistula, leakage, and abscess. Prospective randomized clinical trials comparing laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and RG are thus required.

Objective

To compare the short-term surgical outcomes of RG with those of LG for patients with gastric cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this phase 3, prospective superiority randomized clinical trial of RG vs LG regarding reduction of complications, 241 patients with resectable gastric cancer (clinical stages I-III) were enrolled between April 1, 2018, and October 31, 2020.

Interventions

LG vs RG.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was the incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications. Secondary end points were incidence of any complications, surgical results, postoperative courses, and oncologic outcomes. The modified intention-to-treat population excluded patients who had been randomized and met the postrandomization exclusion criteria. There was also a per-protocol population for analysis of postoperative complications.

Results

This study enrolled 241 patients, with 236 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population (150 men [63.6%]; mean [SD] age, 70.8 [10.7] years). There was no significant difference in the incidence of intra-abdominal infectious complications (per-protocol population: 10 of 117 [8.5%] in the LG group vs 7 of 113 [6.2%] in the RG group). Of 241 patients, 122 were randomly assigned to the LG group, and 119 patients were randomly assigned to the RG group. Two of the 122 patients (1.6%) in the LG group converted from LG to open surgery, and 4 of 119 patients (3.4%) in the RG group converted from RG to open or laparoscopic surgery, with no significant difference. Finally, 117 patients in the LG group completed the procedure, and 113 in the RG group completed the procedure; these populations were defined as the per-protocol population. The overall incidence of postoperative complications of grade II or higher was significantly higher in the LG group (23 [19.7%]) than in the RG group (10 [8.8%]) (P = .02). Even in analysis limited to grade IIIa or higher, the complication rate was still significantly higher in the LG group (19 [16.2%]) than in the RG group (6 [5.3%]) (P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found no reduction of intra-abdominal infectious complications with RG compared with LG for gastric cancer.

Trial Registration

umin.ac.jp/ctr Identifier: UMIN000031536.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy of Da Vinci robotic or laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer

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.

Improved perioperative outcomes and reduced inflammatory stress response in malignant robot-assisted colorectal resections: a retrospective cohort study of 298 patients

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly implemented for the resection of colorectal cancer, although the scientific evidence for adopting this technique is still limited. This study’s main objective was to compare short-term complication rates, oncological outcomes, and the inflammatory stress response after colorectal resection for cancer performed laparoscopic or robot-assisted.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing the robot-assisted approach to laparoscopic surgery for elective malignant colorectal neoplasm. Certified colorectal and da Vinci ® robotic surgeons performed resections at a Danish tertiary colorectal high volume center from May 2017 to March 2019. We analyzed the two surgical groups using uni- and multivariate regression analyses to detect differences in intra- and postoperative clinical outcomes and the inflammatory stress response.

Results

Two hundred and ninety-eight patients were enrolled in the study. Significant differences favoring robot-assisted surgery was demonstrated for; length of hospital stay (4 days, interquartile range (4, 5) versus 5 days, interquartile range (4–7), p < 0.001), and intraoperative blood loss (50 mL, interquartile range (20–100) versus 100 mL, interquartile range (50–150), p < 0.001) compared to laparoscopic surgery. The inflammatory stress response was significantly higher after laparoscopic compared to robot-assisted surgery reflected by an increase in C-reactive protein concentration (exponentiated coefficient = 1.23, 95% confidence interval (1.06–1.46), p = 0.008). No differences between the two groups were found concerning mortality, microradical resection rate, conversion to open surgery, and surgical or medical short-term complication rates.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted surgery is feasible and can be safely implemented for colorectal resections. The robot-assisted approach, when compared to laparoscopic surgery, was associated with improved intra- and postoperative outcomes. Extensive prospective studies are needed to determine the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer.

Reduction in postoperative complications by robotic surgery: a case-control study of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer

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.

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

Background

To date, robotic surgery has been widely used worldwide. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) in gastric cancer patients to determine whether RG can replace laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was applied to perform the study. Pubmed, Cochrane Library, WanFang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP databases were comprehensively searched for studies published before May 2020 that compared RG with LG. Next, two independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The quality of the literature was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and the data analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Random effects or fixed effects models were applied according to heterogeneity.

Results

A total of 19 studies including 7275 patients were included in the meta-analyses, of which 4598 patients were in the LG group and 2677 in the RG group. Compared with LG, RG was associated with longer operative time (WMD = −32.96, 95% CI −42.08 ~ −23.84, P < 0.001), less blood loss (WMD = 28.66, 95% CI 18.59 ~ 38.73, P < 0.001), and shorter time to first flatus (WMD = 0.16 95% CI 0.06 ~ 0.27, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference between RG and LG in terms of the hospital stay (WMD = 0.23, 95% CI −0.53 ~ 0.98, P = 0.560), overall postoperative complication (OR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 ~ 1.25, P = 0.430), mortality (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 ~ 1.90, P = 0.450), the number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = −0.96, 95% CI −2.12 ~ 0.20, P = 0.100), proximal resection margin (WMD = −0.10, 95% CI −0.29 ~ 0.09, P = 0.300), and distal resection margin (WMD = 0.15, 95% CI −0.21 ~ 0.52, P = 0.410). No significant differences were found between the two treatments in overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 ~ 1.18, P = 0.640), recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 ~ 1.21, P = 0.530), and recurrence rate (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 ~ 1.21, P = 0.500).

Conclusions

The results of this study suggested that RG is as acceptable as LG in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. RG can be performed as effectively and safely as LG. Moreover, more randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques with rigorous study designs are still essential to evaluate the value of the robotic surgery for gastric cancer.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s12957-020-02080-7.

Trends of robotic-assisted surgery for thyroid, colorectal, stomach and hepatopancreaticobiliary cancer: 10 year Korea trend investigation

BACKGROUND

The current position of robotic surgery in the field of minimally invasive surgery remains ambiguous. We evaluated long-term trends of robotic general surgery and the future direction of its development.

METHODS

Data on robotic cancer surgeries between 2005 and 2014 were retrospectively collected by volunteer institutions in the Republic of Korea. Spearman's correlation and logistic regression analyses were used to compare robotic and laparoscopic surgery trends in general surgery.

RESULTS

The odds that robotic surgery was performed instead of laparoscopic surgery significantly decreased in the fields of colorectal, stomach, and hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery (odds ratio [OR]: 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-0.97; OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.88-0.92; and OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.65-0.78, respectively), except for thyroid surgery (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.25-1.30). Of the total numbers of each procedure, proportions of robotic intersphincteric resections, abdominoperineal resections, and pylorus-preserving surgery performed significantly increased (r = 0.98, P < .001; r = 0.78, P = .01; and r = 0.86, P = .007, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of robotic surgery failed to preponderate that of laparoscopic surgery, except for thyroid surgery. Robotic surgery is increasingly preferred for limited fields or complex surgeries, but the use of robotics in simple surgeries has decreased.

Outcomes of Gastric Resection in the Establishment of a Comprehensive Oncologic Robotic Program

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy is increasingly utilized for the treatment of gastric malignancies. However, the benefits of robotic surgery have been questioned. This study describes short-term outcomes in the establishment of a comprehensive robotic program for gastric malignancies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic-assisted gastric resections between 2013 and 2018 were studied. Preoperative measures and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Finally we studied and analyzed robotic and open gastrectomy for the management of gastric adenocarcinoma (GC) at the same institution between 2000 and 2018 for quality benchmarking.

RESULTS

Forty six patients (pts.) underwent robotic-assisted gastric resections. 26 (56.5%) were male, with a median age of 62 y (range: 29-87). Pathology included GC, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, neuroendocrine tumors, metastatic lesions, and benign processes. 19 pts. underwent total gastrectomy, 16 distal gastrectomy, four subtotal gastrectomy, and seven wedge resection. Pts. undergoing distal gastrectomy and wedge resection experienced shorter operative times and length of stay than total gastrectomy (P < 0.01; P < 0.01). Four operations (8.8%) were converted to open and 13 pts (28.3%) had postoperative complications, including an 8.7% readmission rate. Median lymph nodes retrieved during total, subtotal, and distal gastrectomy were 20 (13-46), 12.5 (0-26), and 16.5 (0-34), respectively. All pts. underwent margin negative resection. Median follow-up for GC was 21 mo, and 60% of pts. received adjuvant therapy at a median of 59d (range: 23-106).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic gastrectomy is a feasible alternative to open gastrectomy. Our results will help establish benchmarks to improve perioperative outcomes, especially length of stay and time to initiation of therapy.

Oncological Robot-Assisted Gastrectomy: Technical Aspects and Ongoing Data

Robotic surgery through the da Vinci Surgical System has been widely spread for many procedures across the globe for several years. At the same time, robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC) remains mostly available only in specialized centers in minimally invasive surgery and stomach neoplasm. The robotic platform has been introduced to overcome possible drawbacks of the laparoscopic approach. The safety and the feasibility of robotic radical gastrectomy have been reported in many retrospective case series and nonrandomized prospective studies. However, the superiority of robotic gastrectomy over the laparoscopic access has not yet been proven. This study aimed to report the technical aspects of robot-assisted gastrectomy for GC as well as the latest evidence on this subject.

Global hospital and operative costs associated with various ventral cavity procedures: a comprehensive literature review and analysis across regions

Objectives: The aim of this literature review was to provide a comprehensive report on hospital costs, and cost components, for a range of ventral cavity surgical procedures across three regions of focus: (1) Americas, (2) Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and (3) Asia-Pacific. Methods: A structured search was performed and utilized a combination of controlled vocabulary (e.g., "Hepatectomy", "Colectomy", "Costs and Cost Analysis") and keywords (e.g. "liver resection", "bowel removal", "economics"). Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they reported hospital-related costs associated with the procedures of interest. Cost outcomes included operating room (OR) time costs, total OR costs, ward stay costs, total admission costs, OR cost per minute and ward cost per day. All costs were converted to 2018 USD. Results: Total admission costs were observed to be highest in the Americas, with an average cost of $15,791. The average OR time cost per minute was found to vary by region: $24.83 (Americas), $14.29 (Asia-Pacific), and $13.90 (EMEA). A cost-breakdown demonstrated that OR costs typically comprised close to 50%, or more, of hospital admission costs. This review also demonstrates that decreasing OR time by 30 min provides cost savings approximately equivalent to a 1-day reduction in ward time. Conclusion: This literature review provided a comprehensive assessment of hospital costs across various surgical procedures, approaches, and geographical regions. Our findings indicate that novel processes and healthcare technologies that aim to reduce resources such as operating time and hospital stay, can potentially provide resource savings for hospital payers.

Short-term efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy via Huang's three-step maneuver for advanced upper gastric cancer: Results from a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been considered to be significantly better than laparoscopic surgery for complicated procedures.

AIM

To explore the short-term effect of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy (SPSHL) for advanced gastric cancer (GC) by Huang’s three-step maneuver.

METHODS

A total of 643 patients who underwent SPSHL were recruited from April 2012 to July 2017, including 35 patients who underwent robotic SPSHL (RSPSHL) and 608 who underwent laparoscopic SPSHL (LSPSHL). One-to-four propensity score matching was used to analyze the differences in clinical data between patients who underwent robotic SPSHL and those who underwent laparoscopic SPSHL.

RESULTS

In all, 175 patients were matched, including 35 patients who underwent RSPSHL and 140 who underwent LSPSHL. After matching, there were no significant differences detected in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. Significant differences in total operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), splenic hilar blood loss (SHBL), splenic hilar dissection time (SHDT), and splenic trunk dissection time were evident between these groups (P < 0.05). Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in the overall noncompliance rate of lymph node (LN) dissection (62.9% vs 60%, P = 0.757), number of retrieved No. 10 LNs (3.1 ± 1.4 vs 3.3 ± 2.5, P = 0.650), total number of examined LNs (37.8 ± 13.1 vs 40.6 ± 13.6, P = 0.274), and postoperative complications (14.3% vs 17.9%, P = 0.616). A stratified analysis that divided the patients receiving RSPSHL into an early group (EG) and a late group (LG) revealed that the LG experienced obvious improvements in SHDT and length of stay compared with the EG (P < 0.05). Logistic regression showed that robotic surgery was a significantly protective factor against both SHBL and SHDT (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

RSPSHL is safe and feasible, especially after overcoming the early learning curve, as this procedure results in a radical curative effect equivalent to that of LSPSHL.

The MicroHand S robotic-assisted versus Da Vinci robotic-assisted radical resection for patients with sigmoid colon cancer: a single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Sigmoid colon cancer is a lethal disease and has a strong indication for surgery. Robotic-assisted surgery is one of the promising alternative treatment for this disease. Nowadays, the MicroHand S surgical system and the Da Vinci surgical system have been assembled in China. However, there is still no report to study the therapeutic effects of the two robotic-assisted surgical systems. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare clinical and economic outcomes of patients with sigmoid colon cancer undergoing robot-assisted radical surgery via The MicroHand S or Da Vinci surgical system.

METHODS

The clinical data of 45 patients with sigmoid colon cancer undergoing the MicroHand S or Da Vinci robotic-assisted surgery at The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University from January 2017 to January 2019 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients received MicroHand S robotic-assisted radical surgery and 24 patients received Da Vinci robot-assisted radical surgery. No significant differences were observed in terms of operation time, number of lymph node harvested, blood loss, intestinal exhaust time, time of oral feeding resumption, volume of abdominal cavity 24-h drainage, hospital stay, complication and rate of conversion, removal time of drainage tube and catheter between MicroHand S and Da Vinci group. However, the MicroHand S group had significantly lower hospitalization costs (P = 0.002) and shorter time to get out of bed after surgery (P = 0.04). In addition, no recurrence and metastases were observed in both groups during the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with sigmoid colon cancer, the Da Vinci surgical system did not show obvious clinical advantages compared to the MicroHand S surgical system in surgical outcomes. However, the MicroHand S surgical platform showed advantages in terms of the hospitalization costs and length of postoperative bedtime. The outcome of this study will probably result in a shift to the MicroHand S surgical system as treatment preference in China.

Effects of deep neuromuscular blockade on the stress response during laparoscopic gastrectomy Randomized controlled trials

Maintaining deep neuromuscular block during surgery improves surgical space conditions. However, its effects on patient outcomes have not been well documented. We examined whether maintaining deep neuromuscular blockade during surgery could decrease the stress response compared to moderate neuromuscular blockade. Patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy were randomly allocated to either the moderate (train-of-four counts of 1–2) or deep (post-tetanic counts of 1–2) neuromuscular blockade group. The primary outcome variable was the postoperative blood level of interleukin-6, and the secondary outcome variables were intraoperative or postoperative blood levels of tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-1β, interleukin-8, and C-reactive protein. A total of 96 patients were recruited and 88 (44 in each group) were included in the analyses. The levels of tumor necrosis factor-α and interleukin-1β measured at the end of surgery, interleukin-6 and interleukin-8 measured at 2 h postoperatively, and C-reactive protein measured at 48 h postoperatively were all significantly increased compared to the preoperative values, but there were no differences between the moderate and deep neuromuscular block groups. We found no differences in surgical stress response measured using determining levels of interleukin-6 and other mediators released between the moderate and deep neuromuscular blockade groups in patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy.

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.

Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopy-Assisted Proximal Gastrectomy for Early Gastric Cancer in the Upper Location: Comparison of Oncological Outcomes, Surgical Stress, and Nutritional Status

Background:

An increasing amount of attention has been paid to minimally invasive function-preserving gastrectomy, with an increase in incidence of early gastric cancer in the upper stomach. This study aimed to compare oncological outcomes, surgical stress, and nutritional status between robot-assisted proximal gastrectomy (RAPG) and laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy (LAPG).

Methods:

Eighty-nine patients were enrolled in this retrospective study between November 2011 and December 2013. Among them, 27 patients underwent RAPG and 62 underwent LAPG. Perioperative parameters, surgical stress, nutritional status, disease-free survival, and overall survival were compared between the 2 groups.

Results:

Sex, age, and comorbidity were similar in the RAPG and LAPG groups. There were also similar perioperative outcomes regarding operation time, complications, and length of hospital stay between the groups. The reflux esophagitis rates following RAPG and LAPG were 18.5% and 14.5%, respectively (P = .842). However, patients in the RAPG group had less blood loss (P = .024), more harvested lymph nodes (P = .021), and higher costs than those in the LAPG group (P < .001). With regard to surgical stress, no significant differences were observed in C-reactive protein concentrations and white blood cell count on postoperative days 1, 3, and 7 between the groups (Ps > .05). There appeared to be higher hemoglobin levels at 6 months (P = .053) and a higher body mass index at 12 months (P = .056) postoperatively in patients in the RAPG group compared with those in the LAPG group, but this difference was not significant. Similar disease-free survival and overall survival rates were observed between the groups.

Conclusions:

RAPG could be an alternative to LAPG for patients with early gastric cancer in the upper stomach with comparable oncological safety and nutritional status. Further well-designed, prospective, large-scale studies are needed to validate these results.

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 Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Oncological, Cost, and Surgical Stress Analysis

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.

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.

The Advances of Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Laparoscopic gastrectomy is evolving. With the increasing expertise and experience of oncologic surgeons in the minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer, the indication for laparoscopic gastrectomy is expanding to advanced cases. Many studies have demonstrated the benefits of minimally invasive surgery, including reduced risk of surgery-related injury, reduced blood loss, less pain, and earlier recovery. In order to establish concrete evidence for the suitability of minimal invasive surgery for gastric cancer, many multicenter RCTs, comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery, are in progress. Advances in laparoscopic gastrectomy are moving toward increasingly minimally invasive approaches that enable the improvement of the quality of life of patients, without compromising on oncologic safety.

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.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the potential effectiveness of robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) in comparison to open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was carried out to identify studies comparing RAG and OG in gastric cancer. Participants of any age and sex were considered for inclusion in comparative studies of the two techniques independently from type of gastrectomy. A meta-analysis of short-term perioperative outcomes was performed to evaluate whether RAG is equivalent to OG. The primary outcome measures were set for estimated blood loss, operative time, conversion rate, morbidity, and hospital stay. Secondary among postoperative complications, wound infection, bleeding and anastomotic leakage were also analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 6 articles, 5 retrospective and 1 randomized controlled study, involving 6123 patients overall, with 689 (11.3%) cases submitted to RAG and 5434 (88.7%) to OG, satisfied the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. RAG was associated with longer operation time than OG (weighted mean difference 72.20 min; P < 0.001), but with reduction in blood loss and shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference -166.83 mL and -1.97 d respectively; P < 0.001). No differences were found with respect to overall postoperative complications (P = 0.65), wound infection (P = 0.35), bleeding (P = 0.65), and anastomotic leakage (P = 0.06). The postoperative mortality rates were similar between the two groups. With respect to oncological outcomes, no statistical differences among the number of harvested lymph nodes were found (weighted mean difference -1.12; P = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

RAG seems to be a technically valid alternative to OG for performing radical gastrectomy in gastric cancer resulting in safe complications.

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.

Evolving application of minimally invasive cancer operations at a tertiary cancer center

BACKGROUND

Patients and providers are increasingly interested in the utilization, safety, and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery (MIS). We reviewed 11 years of MIS resections (laparoscopic and robotic) for intra-abdominal malignancies.

METHODS

Patients who underwent gastrectomy, distal pancreatectomy, hepatic resection, and colorectal resection between 2004 and 2014 were identified. Cases were categorized as open, laparoscopic, and robotic based on the initial operation approach. Diagnostic laparoscopies were excluded.

RESULTS

Of the 10 039 patients who underwent the above procedures, between 2004 and 2014, 2832 (28%) were MIS. In 2004, 12% (100/826) of all resections were performed with MIS approaches, rising to 23% (192/821) of all resections by 2009 and 44% (484/1092) in 2014. The number of open resections has remained largely stable: 726 (88% of all resections) in 2004 and 608 (56% of all resections) in 2014. Initially, laparoscopy experienced incremental adoption. Robotic surgery was implemented in 2009 and is currently the dominant MIS approach, accounting for 76% (368/484) of all MIS resections in 2014. Overall mortality has remained less than 1%.

CONCLUSIONS

While maintaining patient safety, utilization of MIS techniques has increased substantially since 2004, particularly for gastric and colorectal resections. Since 2009 robotic surgery is the predominant MIS approach.

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.