Robot-assisted gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: is it beneficial in viscerally obese patients compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy? World J Surg. 2015;39:1789-1797. [PMID: 25670040 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-015-2998-4]

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.

Robotic gastrectomy was reliable option for overweight patients with gastric cancer: a propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive surgery using robotics versus laparoscopy in resectable gastric cancer patients with a high body mass index (BMI) remains controversial.

METHODS

A total of 482 gastric adenocarcinoma patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 who underwent minimally invasive radical gastrectomy between August 2016 and December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed, including 109 cases in the robotic gastrectomy (RG) group and 321 cases in the laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) group. Propensity score matching (PSM) with a 1:1 ratio was performed, and the perioperative outcomes, lymph node dissection, and 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were compared.

RESULTS

After PSM, 109 patients were included in each of the RG and LG groups, with balanced baseline characteristics. Compared with the LG group, the RG group had similar intraoperative estimated blood loss [median (IQR) 30 (20-50) vs. 35 (30-59) mL, median difference (95%CI) - 5 (- 10 to 0)], postoperative complications [13.8% vs. 18.3%, OR (95%CI) 0.71 (0.342 to 1.473)], postoperative recovery, total harvested lymph nodes [(34.25 ± 13.43 vs. 35.44 ± 14.12, mean difference (95%CI) - 1.19 (- 4.871 to 2.485)] and textbook outcomes [(81.7% vs. 76.1%, OR (95%CI) 1.39 (0.724 to 2.684)]. Among pathological stage II-III patients receiving chemotherapy, the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy in the RG group was similar to that in the LG group [median (IQR): 28 (25.5-32.5) vs. 32 (27-38.5) days, median difference (95%CI) - 3 (- 6 to 0)]. The 3-year OS (RG vs. LG: 80.7% vs. 81.7%, HR = 1.048, 95%CI 0.591 to 1.857) and DFS (78% vs. 76.1%, HR = 0.996, 95%CI 0.584 to 1.698) were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RG conferred comparable lymph node dissection, postoperative recovery, and oncologic outcomes in a selected cohort of patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2.

Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery: Short-Term Outcomes-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 25,521 Patients

Background: Gastric cancer has the third highest cancer-related mortality worldwide. There is no consensus regarding the optimal surgical technique to perform curative resection surgery. Objective: Compare laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and robotic gastrectomy (RG) regarding short-term outcomes in patients with gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched the following topics: "Gastrectomy," "Laparoscopic," and "Robotic Surgical Procedures." The included studies compared short-term outcomes between LG and RG. Individual risk of bias was assessed with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) scale. Results: There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding conversion rate, reoperation rate, mortality, overall complications, anastomotic leakage, distal and proximal resection margin distances, and recurrence rate. However, mean blood loss (mean difference [MD] -19.43 mL, P < .00001), length of hospital stay (MD -0.50 days, P = .0007), time to first flatus (MD -0.52 days, P < .00001), time to oral intake (MD -0.17 days, P = .0001), surgical complications with a Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, P < .0001), and pancreatic complications (RR 0.51, P = .007) were significantly lower in the RG group. Furthermore, the number of retrieved lymph nodes was significantly higher in the RG group. Nevertheless, the RG group showed a significantly higher operation time (MD 41.19 minutes, P < .00001) and cost (MD 3684.27 U.S. Dollars, P < .00001). Conclusion: This meta-analysis supports the choice of robotic surgery over laparoscopy concerning relevant surgical complications. However, longer operation time and higher cost remain crucial limitations. Randomized clinical trials are required to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of RG.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in patients with obesity: systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

The number of overweight patients with gastric cancer (GC) is increasing, and no previous study has compared laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and robotic gastrectomy (RG) in obese patients with GC. To investigate the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of RG and LG in obese GC patients, we performed a meta-analysis of propensity matched scores and retrospective studies to compare the perioperative parameters, oncologic findings, and short-term postoperative outcomes between the two groups.

Methods

This study was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. A search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register to identify eligible propensity matched scores and retrospective studies conducted and published before December 2022. Data on perioperative and oncological outcomes were included in the meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, we identified 1 propensity score match study and 5 randomized control trials of RG and LG, enrolling a total of 718 patients (197 and 521 patients received RG and LG, respectively). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of complications, bleeding, or lymph node dissection. Of note, RG had a longer procedure time (P = 0.03), earlier oral intake (P = 0.0010), shorter hospital stay (P = 0.0002), and shorter time to defecation (P < 0.00001).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis concluded that patients in the RG group had shorter hospital stays, earlier postoperative feeding, and earlier postoperative ventilation; however, no differences were found in blood loss, number of lymph nodes removed, or overall complications. RG is an effective, safe, and promising treatment for obese patients with GC, compensating for the shortcomings of laparoscopy and allowing for less trauma and faster recovery.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022298967.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic gastrectomy guided by carbon nanoparticle suspension injection in gastric cancer

Background

The clinical application of robotic-assisted gastrectomy remains controversial, especially as clinical studies of this operation navigated by carbon nanoparticle suspension injection (CNSI) have not been conducted. This study aims to assess the perioperative safety and efficacy of CNSI-guided robotic-assisted gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer by focusing on short-term outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent CNSI-guided laparoscopic or robotic-assisted gastrectomy with a pathological diagnosis of gastric cancer was conducted. Data on demographics, surgical management, clinical-pathological results and short-term outcomes were compared among the groups.

Results

A total of 126 eligible patients were separated into the robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) group (n = 16) and the laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) group (n = 110) in total. The operation time of the RAG group is longer than the LG group (p = 0.0000). When it comes to perioperative and short-term complications, there exists no statistical difference between the two groups.

Conclusion

The time required for CNSI-guided robotic-assisted gastrectomy is longer than that for CNSI-guided laparoscopic gastrectomy. CNSI-guided robotic-assisted gastrectomy is safe and effective.

Postoperative outcomes in robotic gastric resection compared with laparoscopic gastric resection in gastric cancer: A meta‐analysis and systemic review

Background

Robotic gastrectomy is a commonly used procedure for early gastric cancer and it also overcomes the limitation of laparoscopic. However, the complications of robotic gastrectomy (RG) still need to be assessed. Our study was designed to compare postoperative complications of RG with laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

Materials and Methods

A meta‐analysis and systemic review were prospectively collected using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE database of published studies by comparing the RG and LG with gastric cancer up to December 2021. To evaluate the postoperative outcomes, odds ratios were calculated for Dichotomous data and the mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for continuous data, and measured by the random‐effect model.

Results

Thirty‐two retrospective studies describing 13,585 patients (4484 RG and 9101 LG) satisfied the inclusion criteria. A statistically significant result was in blood loss (MD = −17.97, 95% Cl: −25.61 to 10.32, p < 0.001), Clavien−Dindo grade Ⅲ (odds ratio (OR) = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.48−0.76, p < 0.01), and harvested lymph node (MD = 2.62, 95% CI: 2.14−3.11, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between robotic gastrectomy surgery (RGS) and laparoscopic gastrectomy surgery (LGS) regarding distal resection margin (DRM), proximal resection margin (PRM), conversion rate, anastomotic leakage, and overall complications.

Conclusion

Having significant outcomes in Clavien–Dindo grade III, and blood loss, harvested lymph nodes are more common in RGS, and they also help in increasing the quality of life.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Mega Meta-Analysis

Background

Laparoscopic gastrectomy and robotic gastrectomy are the most widely adopted treatment of choice for gastric cancer. To systematically assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis on short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy.

Methods

In order to find relevant studies on the efficacy and safety of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in the treatment of gastric cancer, numerous medical databases including PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, and China Journal Full-text Database (CNKI) were consulted, and Chinese and English studies on the efficacy and safety of RG and LG in the treatment of gastric cancer published from 2012 to 2022 were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.

Results

The meta-analysis inlcuded 48 literatures, with 20,151 gastric cancer patients, including 6,175 in the RG group and 13,976 in the LG group, respectively. Results of our meta-analysis showed that RG group had prololonged operative time (WMD = 35.72, 95% CI = 28.59–42.86, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 258.69 min ± 32.98; LG: mean ± SD = 221.85 min ± 31.18), reduced blood loss (WMD = −21.93, 95% CI = −28.94 to −14.91, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 105.22 ml ± 62.79; LG: mean ± SD = 127.34 ml ± 79.62), higher number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.99–3.63, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 35.88 ± 4.14; LG: mean ± SD = 32.73 ± 4.67), time to first postoperative food intake shortened (WMD = −0.20, 95% CI = −0.29 to −0.10, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 4.5 d ± 1.94; LG: mean ± SD = 4.7 d ± 1.54), and lower length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD = −0.54, 95% CI = −0.83 to −0.24, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 8.91 d ± 6.13; LG: mean ± SD = 9.61 d ± 7.74) in comparison to the LG group. While the other variables, for example, time to first postoperative flatus, postoperative complications, proximal and distal mar gin, R₀ resection rate, mortality rate, conversion rate, and 3-year overall survival rate were all found to be statistically similar at P > 0.05.

Conclusions

In the treatment of gastric cancer, robotic gastrectomy is a safe and effective procedure that has both short- and long-term effects. To properly evaluate the advantages of robotic surgery in gastric cancer, more randomised controlled studies with rigorous research methodologies are needed.

Advantages of a robotic approach compared with laparoscopy gastrectomy for patients with high visceral fat area

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer surgery for obese patients is regarded as a technically challenging procedure. The morbidity after gastrectomy has been reported to be significantly higher in patients with high visceral fat area (VFA). Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is expected to be advantageous for complicated operations. However, whether RG is superior to conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for patients with visceral fat obesity remains unclear. The present study aimed to clarify the impact of RG on the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with high VFAs.

METHODS

This study included 1306 patients with clinical stage I/II gastric cancer who underwent minimally invasive gastrectomy between January 2012 and December 2020. The patients were subclassified according to VFA. The short- and long-term outcomes of RG were compared with those of LG in two VFA categories.

RESULTS

This study included 394 (high-VFA, 151; low-VFA, 243) and 882 patients (high-VFA, 366; low-VFA, 516) in the RG and LG groups, respectively. RG was associated with a significantly longer operative time than LG (high-VFA, P < 0.001; low-VFA, P < 0.001). The incidence rates of overall and intra-abdominal infectious complications in the high-VFA patients were lower in the RG group than in the LG group (P = 0.019 and P = 0.048, respectively) but not significantly different from those in the low-VFA patients. In the multivariate analysis, LG was identified as the only independent risk factor of overall (odds ratio [OR] 3.281; P = 0.012) and intra-abdominal infectious complications (OR 3.462; P = 0.021) in the high-VFA patients. The overall survival of high-VFA patients was significantly better in the RG group than in the LG group (P = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with visceral fat obesity, RG appears to be advantageous to LG in terms of reducing the risk of complications and better long-term survival.

The Role of Robotic Visceral Surgery in Patients with Adhesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abdominal adhesions are a risk factor for conversion to open surgery. An advantage of robotic surgery is the lower rate of unplanned conversions. A systematic review was conducted using the terms “laparoscopic” and “robotic”. Inclusion criteria were: comparative studies evaluating patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic surgery; reporting data on conversion to open surgery for each group due to adhesions and studies including at least five patients in each group. The main outcomes were the conversion rates due to adhesions and surgeons’ expertise (novice vs. expert). The meta-analysis included 70 studies from different surgical specialities with 14,329 procedures (6472 robotic and 7857 laparoscopic). The robotic approach was associated with a reduced risk of conversion (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12–2.10, p = 0.007). The analysis of the procedures performed by “expert surgeons” showed a statistically significant difference in favour of robotic surgery (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03–2.12, p = 0.03). A reduced conversion rate due to adhesions with the robotic approach was observed in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.20–5.72, p = 0.02). The robotic approach could be a valid option in patients with abdominal adhesions, especially in the subgroup of those undergoing colorectal cancer resection performed by expert surgeons.

Effectiveness and safety of robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of 12,401 gastric cancer patients

Advanced minimally invasive techniques, such as robotic surgeries, are applied increasingly frequently around the world and are primarily used to improve the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Against that background, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy (RG). Studies comparing surgical outcomes between LG and RG patients were retrieved from medical databases, including RCTs and non-RCTs. The primary outcome of this study was overall survival, which was obtained by evaluating the 3-year survival rate and the 5-year survival rate. In addition, postoperative complications, mortality, length of hospital stay, and harvested lymph nodes were also assessed. We also conducted subgroup analyses stratified by resection type, body mass index, age, depth of invasion and tumour size. Ultimately, 31 articles met the criterion for our study through an attentive check of each text, including 1 RCT and 30 non-RCTs. A total of 12,401 patients were included in the analysis, with 8127 (65.5%) undergoing LG and 4274 (34.5%) undergoing RG. Compared with LG, RG was associated with fewer postoperative complications (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.71-0.93; P = 0.002), especially pancreas-related complications (OR 0.376; 95% CI 0.156-0.911; P = 0.030), increased harvested lymph nodes (WMD 2.03; 95% CI 0.95-3.10; P < 0.001), earlier time to first flatus (WMD - 0.105 days; 95% CI - 0.207 to - 0.003; P = 0.044), longer operation time (WMD 40.192 min, 95% CI 32.07-48.31; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD - 20.09 ml; 95% CI - 26.86 to - 13.32; P < 0.001), and higher expense (WMD 19,141.68 RMB; 95% CI 11,856.07-26,427.29; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding 3-year overall survival (OR 1.030; 95% CI 0.784-1.353; P = 0.832), 5-year overall survival (OR 0.862; 95% CI 0.721-1.031; P = 0.105), conversion rate (OR 0.857; 95% CI 0.443-1.661; P = 0.648), postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.368 days; 95% CI - 0.75-0.013; P = 0.059), mortality (OR 1.248; 95% CI 0.514-3.209; P = 0.592), and reoperation (OR 0.855; 95% CI 0.479-1.525; P = 0.595). Our study revealed that postoperative complications, especially pancreas-related complications, occurred less often with RG than with LG. However, long-term outcomes between the two surgical techniques need to be further examined, particularly regarding the oncological adequacy of robotic gastric cancer resections.

Robotic distal pancreatectomy reduces pancreatic fistula in patients without visceral obesity as compared to open distal pancreatectomy: A propensity score matching retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Several studies have suggested an association between visceral obesity and adverse perioperative outcomes in pancreatic surgery. However, no study has reported the impact of visceral obesity on robotic pancreatic surgery. This study aimed to assess the impact of preoperative visceral obesity on clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients following robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients who consecutively underwent RDP or ODP for PDAC. The visceral adipose tissue was measured on preoperative computed tomography (CT) images at the L3 vertebra level. A 1:1 propensity score matching method was used in the visceral obesity group and the nonvisceral obesity group to minimize the bias between RDP and ODP.

RESULTS

Between December 2011 and December 2018, a total of 445 patients were included. Visceral obesity (n = 219) was found to be associated with higher estimated blood loss (p = 0.033), a higher CR-POPF rate (p = 0.001), delayed drain removal (p = 0.005) and a longer length of stay (p = 0.033). In multivariable analysis, visceral obesity was an independent risk factor for CR-POPF (OR: 1.69; 95% CI 1.07-2.67, p = 0.024). Among patients without visceral obesity, the incidence of CR-POPF was lower among RDP than among ODP patients (11.27% vs. 23.87%, p = 0.028), and the difference remained after propensity score matching (9.52% vs. 26.98%, p = 0.011). However, there was no significant difference in the CR-POPF rate between RDP and ODP for visceral obesity patients.

CONCLUSION

In nonvisceral obesity patients, RDP had better perioperative outcomes than ODP, with a significantly lower CR-POPF rate. However, in visceral obesity patients, RDP showed equivalent CR-POPF rate when compared to ODP.

Surgical Merits of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Gastrectomy Techniques with D2 Lymphadenectomy in Obese Patients with Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been widely adopted for complex procedures to overcome technical limitations of open or laparoscopic methods. However, evidence of any subsequent benefit is lacking. This study was undertaken to compare open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy in technically demanding procedure-D2 dissection in obese patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

Data collected between 2010 and 2018 on D2 gastrectomy in obese patients with gastric cancer were used to conduct retrospective analysis, comparing short- and long-term outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic techniques.

RESULTS

In a total of 185 patients, there were 69 open, 62 laparoscopic, and 54 robotic gastrectomy procedures. Median ages for respective surgical groups were 66 (interquartile range [IQR]: 61-64 years), 63 (IQR: 59-63), and 59 years (IQR: 56-60 years) (p = 0.009). Early-stage gastric cancer ranked proportionately higher in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.005), but operative times were similar among groups. Estimated blood loss (p < 0.001) and drainage volumes (p = 0.001) were higher in the open group, relative to others. Although a robotic approach performed best in overall compliance and in mean number of retrieved lymph node, observed rates of early or late complications did not differ by technique. The open group experienced significantly poorer overall (p = 0.039) and relapse-free (p < 0.001) survival compared with the laparoscopic or robotic group. Robotic surgery emerged from multivariable Cox regression as a protective factor for relapse-free survival (HR = 0.314, 95% CI 0.116-0.851).

CONCLUSIONS

In obese patients with gastric cancer, robotic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy proved comparable to open or laparoscopic technique short-term, yielding better long-term outcomes.

Robotic gastric surgery: a monocentric case series and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

The technical complexity of D2 lymphadenectomy and esophago-jejunal anastomosis are the main factors that limit the application of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer. Robotic assisted gastric surgery provides potential technical advantages over conventional laparoscopy but an improvement in clinical outcomes after robotic surgery has not been demonstrated yet.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Data from 128 consecutive patients who had undergone robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer at our center institution from April 2017 to June 2020 where retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively updated database. A narrative review was then carried out on PubMed, Embase and Scopus using the following keywords: "gastric cancer," "robotic surgery," "robotic gastrectomy" and "robotic gastric surgery".

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Ninety-eight patients underwent robotic distal gastrectomy and 30 underwent robotic total gastrectomy. The mean value of estimated blood loss was 99.5 ml. No patients required conversion to laparoscopy or open surgery. The median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 42. No tumor involvement of the proximal or distal margin was found in any patient. The median time to first flatus and first oral feeding was on postoperative day 3 and 5, respectively. We registered 6 leakages (4.6%), namely, 1 duodenal stump leakage and 5 anastomotic leakages. No 30-day surgical related mortality was recorded. The median length of hospital stay was 10.5 days (range 4-37).

CONCLUSIONS

Published data and our experience suggest that the robotic approach for gastric cancer is safe and feasible with potential advantages over conventional laparoscopy.

Current status of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy

Robotic systems were developed to overcome limitations of laparoscopic surgery with its mechanical advantages. Along with the technical advances, robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer is increasing. However, the evidence regarding safety and efficacy for robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer is not mature yet. Although studies are limited, it is evident that robotic gastrectomy has a longer operation and less blood loss compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy. Studies revealed long-term oncological outcomes after robotic gastrectomy was comparable to those after laparoscopic gastrectomy. Taken together, robotic gastrectomy with systemic lymph node dissection is suggested as a safe procedure with equivalent short- and long-term oncologic outcomes to either laparoscopic or open gastrectomy for the surgical treatment of gastric cancer. However, high cost is the most significant barrier to justify robotic surgery as a routine and standard treatment for patients with gastric cancer. In the meanwhile, robotic surgery will be expansively used as long as technologic developments continue.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: The largest meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effectiveness and safety of robotic versus traditional laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Gastrectomy is considered the gold standard treatment for gastric cancer patients. Currently, there are two minimally invasive surgical methods to choose from, robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Nevertheless, it is still unclear which is superior between the two. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of RG and LG for gastric cancer. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases until September 2018 in studies that compared RG and LG in gastric cancer patients. Operative and postoperative outcomes analyzed were assessed. The quality of the evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. Twenty-four English studies were analyzed. The meta-analysis revealed that the RG group had a significantly longer operation time, lower intraoperative blood loss, and higher perioperative costs compared to the LG group. However, there were no differences in complications, conversion rate, reoperation rate, mortality, number of lymph nodes harvested, days of first flatus, postoperative hospitalization time, and survival rate between the two groups. RG was shown to be associated with decreased intraoperative blood loss and increased perioperative cost and operation time compared to LG. Several higher-quality original studies and prospective clinical trials are required to confirm the advantages of RG.

Short-Term Clinical Outcomes After Laparoscopic and Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: a Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

The different advantages of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and robotic gastrectomy (RG), two new minimally invasive surgical techniques for gastric cancer, remain controversial.

PURPOSE

To compare the short-term clinical outcomes of LG and RG.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center comparative study of 1044 patients (LG = 750, RG = 294) was conducted. Patients undergoing LG and RG were matched (2:1 ratio) according to sex, age, BMI, extent of gastric resection, and pathologic stage. The primary outcomes were morbidity and mortality and perioperative recovery parameters; major types of complications were also analyzed.

RESULTS

After matching, 798 patients (LG = 532, RG = 266) were included. Both the LG and RG groups showed similar overall complication rates (LG = 12.8% vs RG = 12.4%) and operative mortality (LG = 0.4% vs RG = 0.4%). Compared to those who underwent LG, patients undergoing RG had significantly longer operative times (236.92 ± 57.28 vs 217.77 ± 65.00 min, p < 0.001), higher total costs (US$16,241.42 vs US$12,497, p < 0.001), less operative blood loss (77.07 ± 64.37 vs 103.68 ± 86.92 ml, p < 0.001), higher numbers of retrieved lymph nodes (32.0 vs 29.9, p < 0.001), and higher rates of retrieving more than 16 lymph nodes (94.0 vs 85.5%; p < 0.001). No significant differences between groups were noted in terms of the rate of reoperation, time until a soft diet was consumed, or length of hospital stay. The major complication and readmission rates were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

RG and LG produced similar short-term clinical outcomes, indicating that RG is a safe and beneficial surgical procedure.

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.

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.

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.

Obesity as a surgical risk factor

In recent years, both the actual number of overweight/obese individuals and their proportion of the population have steadily been rising worldwide and obesity-related diseases have become major health concerns. In addition, as obesity is associated with an increased incidence of gastroenterological cancer, the number of obese patients has also been increasing in the field of gastroenterological surgery. While the influence of obesity on gastroenterological surgery has been widely studied, very few reports have focused on individual organs or surgical procedures, using a cross-sectional study design. In the present review, we aimed to summarize the impacts of obesity on surgeries for the esophagus, stomach, colorectum, liver and pancreas. In general, obesity prolongs operative time. As to short-term postoperative outcomes, obesity might be a risk for certain complications, depending on the procedure carried out. In contrast, it is possible that obesity doesn't adversely impact long-term surgical outcomes. The influences of obesity on surgery are made even more complex by various categories of operative outcomes, surgical procedures, and differences in obesity among races. Therefore, it is important to appropriately evaluate perioperative risk factors, including obesity.

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.

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.

Who may benefit from robotic gastrectomy?: A subgroup analysis of multicenter prospective comparative study data on robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy

AIMS

Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer has been proven to be a feasible and safe minimally invasive procedure. However, our previous multicenter prospective study indicated that robotic gastrectomy is not superior to laparoscopic gastrectomy. This study aimed to identify which subgroups of patients would benefit from robotic gastrectomy rather than from conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy.

METHODS

A prospective multicenter comparative study comparing laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy was previously conducted. We divided the patients into subgroups according to obesity, type of gastrectomy performed, and extent of lymph node dissection. Surgical outcomes were compared between the robotic and laparoscopic groups in each subgroup.

RESULTS

A total of 434 patients were enrolled into the robotic (n = 223) and laparoscopic (n = 211) surgery groups. According to obesity and gastrectomy type, there was no difference in the estimated blood loss (EBL), number of retrieved lymph nodes, complication rate, open conversion rate, and the length of hospital stay between the robotic and laparoscopic groups. According to the extent of lymph node dissection, the robotic group showed a significantly lower EBL than did the laparoscopic group after D2 dissection (P = 0.021), while there was no difference in EBL in patients that did not undergo D2 dissection (P = 0.365).

CONCLUSION

Patients with gastric cancer undergoing D2 lymph node dissection can benefit from less blood loss when a robotic surgery system is used.

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.

Gastric cancer: Current status of lymph node dissection

D2 procedure has been accepted in Far East as the standard treatment for both early (EGC) and advanced gastric cancer (AGC) for many decades. Recently EGC has been successfully treated with endoscopy by endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection, when restricted or extended Gotoda's criteria can be applied and D1+ surgery is offered only to patients not fitted for less invasive treatment. Furthermore, two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been demonstrating the non inferiority of minimally invasive technique as compared to standard open surgery for the treatment of early cases and recently the feasibility of adequate D1+ dissection has been demonstrated also for the robot assisted technique. In case of AGC the debate on the extent of nodal dissection has been open for many decades. While D2 gastrectomy was performed as the standard procedure in eastern countries, mostly based on observational and retrospective studies, in the west the Medical Research Council (MRC), Dutch and Italian RCTs have been conducted to show a survival benefit of D2 over D1 with evidence based medicine. Unfortunately both the MRC and the Dutch trials failed to show a survival benefit after the D2 procedure, mostly due to the significant increase of postoperative morbidity and mortality, which was referred to splenopancreatectomy. Only 15 years after the conclusion of its accrual, the Dutch trial could report a significant decrease of recurrence after D2 procedure. Recently the long term survival analysis of the Italian RCT could demonstrate a benefit for patients with positive nodes treated with D2 gastrectomy without splenopancreatectomy. As nowadays also in western countries D2 procedure can be done safely with pancreas preserving technique and without preventive splenectomy, it has been suggested in several national guidelines as the recommended procedure for patients with AGC.