Robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of prospective observational studies

Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score matching studies

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of robot distal gastrectomy (RDG) versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) for gastric cancer. Studies included only those that utilized propensity score matching (PSM). A systematic literature search was conducted in several major global databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, up to June 2024. Articles were screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Baseline data and primary and secondary outcome measures (e.g., operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph-node yield dissection, length of hospital stay, and time to first flatus) were extracted. The quality of PSM studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I, and data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.1 software. A total of 12 propensity score-matched studies involving 3688 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Robot-assisted surgery resulted in a longer operative time (WMD 30.64 min, 95% CI 15.63 - 45.66; p < 0.0001), less estimated blood loss (WMD 29.54 mL, 95% CI - 47.14 - 11.94; p = 0.001), more lymph-node yield (WMD 5.14, 95% CI 2.39 - 7.88; p = 0.0002), and a shorter hospital stay (WMD - 0.36, 95% CI - 0.60 - 0.12; p = 0.004) compared with laparoscopic surgery. There were no significant differences between the two surgical methods in terms of time to first flatus, overall complications, and major complications. Robot distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer reduces intraoperative blood loss, increases lymph-node yield, and shortens hospital stay compared with laparoscopic surgery, despite a longer operative time. There are no significant differences in time to first flatus and complication rates between the two groups.

Experience sharing on perioperative clinical management of gastric cancer patients based on the "China Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery Guidelines"

BACKGROUND

With the popularization of robotic surgical systems in the field of surgery, robotic gastric cancer surgery has also been fully applied and promoted in China. The Chinese Guidelines for Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery was published in the Chinese Journal of General Surgery in August 2021.

METHODS

We have made a detailed interpretation of the process of robotic gastric cancer surgery regarding the indications, contraindications, perioperative preparation, surgical steps, complication, and postoperative management based on the recommendations of China's Guidelines for Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery and supplemented by other surgical guidelines, consensus, and single-center experience.

RESULTS

Twenty experiences of perioperative clinical management of robotic gastric cancer surgery were described in detail.

CONCLUSION

We hope to bring some clinical reference values to the front-line clinicians in treating robotic gastric cancer surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The guidelines were registered on the International Practice Guideline Registration Platform ( http://www.guidelines-registry.cn ) (registration number: IPGRP-2020CN199).

Long-term survival outcomes of robotic total gastrectomy for locally advanced proximal gastric cancer: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy is a safe and feasible approach for gastric cancer (GC); however, its long-term oncological efficacy remains unclear. The authors evaluated the long-term survival outcomes and recurrence patterns of patients with locally advanced proximal GC who underwent robotic total gastrectomy (RTG).

METHODS

This prospective study (FUGES-014 study) enrolled 48 patients with locally advanced proximal GC who underwent RTG between March 2018 and February 2020 at a tertiary referral teaching hospital. Patients who underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) in the FUGES-002 study were enrolled in a 2:1 ratio to compare the survival outcomes between RTG and LTG. The primary endpoint of the FUGES-014 study was postoperative 30-day morbidity and has been previously reported. Here, the authors reported the results of 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), 3-year overall survival (OS), and recurrence patterns.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 48 patients in the RTG and 96 patients in the LTG groups were included. The 3-year DFS rates were 77.1% (95% CI: 66.1-89.9%) for the RTG and 68.8% (95% CI: 60.1-78.7%) for the LTG groups ( P =0.261). The 3-year OS rates were not significantly different between the groups (85.4 vs. 74.0%, P =0.122). Recurrence occurred in nine patients (18.8%) in the RTG and 27 (28.1%) patients in the LTG groups ( P =0.234). Recurrence patterns and causes of death were similar between the groups ( P >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The oncological outcome of RTG was noninferior to that of LTG. Thus, RTG might be an alternative surgical treatment for locally advanced proximal GC.

Comparison of totally robotic and totally laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

With the improvements in laparoscopic or robotic surgical techniques and instruments, a growing number of surgeons have attempted to complete all digestive tract reconstruction intracorporeally; these procedures include totally robotic gastrectomy (TRG) and totally laparoscopic gastrectomy (TLG). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the TRG and compare the short-term outcomes of the TRG and TLG in patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

Between January 2018 and June 2023, 346 consecutive patients who underwent TRG or TLG at a high-volume academic gastric cancer specialty center were included. 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce confounding bias. The surgical outcomes, postoperative morbidity, and surgical burden were compared in PSM cohort.

RESULTS

After PSM, a well-balanced cohort of 194 patients (97 in each group) was included in the analysis. The total operation time of the TRG group was significantly longer than that of the TLG group (244.9 vs. 213.0 min, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the effective operation time between the 2 groups (217.8 vs. 207.2 min, P = 0.059). The digestive tract reconstruction time of the TRG group was significantly shorter than that of the TLG group (39.4 vs. 46.7 min, P < 0.001). The mean blood loss in the TRG group was less than that in the TLG group (101.1 vs. 126.8 mL, P = 0.014). The TRG group had more retrieved lymph nodes in the suprapancreatic area than that in the TLG group (16.6 vs 14.2, P = 0.002). The TRG group had a lower surgery task load index (38.9 vs. 43.1, P < 0.001) than the TLG group. No significant difference was found in terms of postoperative morbidity between the 2 groups (14.4% vs. 16.5%, P = 0.691).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that TRG is a safe and feasible procedure, and is preferable to TLG in terms of invasion and ergonomics. The TRG may maximize the superiority of robotic surgical systems and embodies the theory of minimally invasive surgery.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for resectable gastric cancer: a randomized phase 2 trial

Robotic surgery may be an alternative to laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer (GC). However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the differences in survival between these two approaches are currently lacking. From September 2017 to January 2020, 300 patients with cT1-4a and N0/+ were enrolled and randomized to either the robotic (RDG) or laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) group (NCT03313700). The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS); secondary endpoints reported here are the 3-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence patterns. The remaining secondary outcomes include intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, quality of lymphadenectomy, and cost differences, which have previously been reported. There were 283 patients in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (RDG group: n = 141; LDG group: n = 142). The trial has met pre-specified endpoints. The 3-year DFS rates were 85.8% and 73.2% in the RDG and LDG groups, respectively (p = 0.011). Multivariable Cox regression model including age, tumor size, sex, ECOG PS, lymphovascular invasion, histology, pT stage, and pN stage showed that RDG was associated with better 3-year DFS (HR: 0.541; 95% CI: 0.314-0.932). The RDG also improved the 3-year cumulative recurrence rate (RDG vs. LDG: 12.1% vs. 21.1%; HR: 0.546, 95% CI: 0.302-0.990). Compared to LDG, RDG demonstrated non-inferiority in 3-year DFS rate.

Initial 12 Cases of Robot-Assisted Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer Using the Hinotori Surgical Robot System: Tips for the Efficient Introduction of a New Surgical Robot

Introduction: The use of robotic platform for gastrectomy for gastric cancer is rapidly increasing. This study aimed to describe the perioperative outcomes of 12 patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer using the hinotori™ surgical robot system (hinotori), a novel robot-assisted surgical platform, and compare the outcomes with the existing system, the da Vinci® Surgical System (DVSS). Methods: This study included 12 consecutive patients with gastric cancer who underwent robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer using the hinotori between March 2023 and September 2023 at our institution. The comprehensive perioperative outcomes of these patients were retrospectively analyzed and compared to 11 patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy using the DVSS during the same period. Results: The median age and body mass index were 71 years (range: 56-86) and 22.7 kg/m2 (range: 16.1-26.7). Distal and total gastrectomy were performed in 8 and 4 patients, respectively. The median console time and operation times were 187 (range: 112-270) and 252 minutes (range: 173-339), respectively. The median blood loss was 3 mL (range: 2-5). No intra- or postoperative complications were observed. There were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes between the hinotori and the DVSS. Conclusions: Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer using the hinotori is a feasible procedure and achieved perioperative outcomes similar to that using the DVSS. Clinical Trial Registration number: 114167-1.

Comparison of Short-term and Three-year Oncological Outcomes Between Robotic and Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Large Multicenter Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short-term and long-term outcomes between robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND

The clinical outcomes of RG over LG have not yet been effectively demonstrated.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 3599 patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy at eight high-volume hospitals in China from January 2015 to June 2019. Propensity score matching was performed between patients who received RG and LG. The primary end point was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

After 1:1 propensity score matching, 1034 pairs of patients were enrolled in a balanced cohort for further analysis. The 3-year DFS in the RG and LG was 83.7% and 83.1% ( P =0.745), respectively, and the 3-year overall survival was 85.2% and 84.4%, respectively ( P =0.647). During 3 years of follow-up, 154 patients in the RG and LG groups relapsed (cumulative incidence of recurrence: 15.0% vs 15.0%, P =0.988). There was no significant difference in the recurrence sites between the 2 groups (all P >0.05). Sensitivity analysis showed that RG had comparable 3-year DFS (77.4% vs 76.7%, P =0.745) and overall survival (79.7% vs 78.4%, P =0.577) to LG in patients with advanced (pathologic T2-4a) disease, and the recurrence pattern within 3 years was also similar between the 2 groups (all P >0.05). RG had less intraoperative blood loss, lower conversion rate, and shorter hospital stays than LG (all P >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For resectable gastric cancer, including advanced cases, RG is a safe approach with comparable 3-year oncological outcomes to LG when performed by experienced surgeons.

The inflammation score predicts the prognosis of gastric cancer patients undergoing Da Vinci robot surgery

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), calculated from peripheral blood immune-inflammatory cell counts, is considered a predictor of survival in various cancers. Nevertheless, there is a lack of research into the predictive value of NLR specifically in gastric cancer patients following surgery using the Da Vinci robot. Investigate the objectives of this research, confirm the positive predictive value of NLR in the prognosis of gastric cancer patients undergoing Da Vinci robotic-assisted surgery by comparing its prognostic ability with other inflammation markers and tumor biomarkers. In this retrospective analysis, information from 128 individuals diagnosed with gastric cancer and treated with da Vinci robot-assisted surgery was examined. The study examined various markers in the peripheral blood, including neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR), lymphocyte/monocyte ratio (LMR), systemic immune-inflammatory index (SII) prognostic nutrition index (PNI), cancer antigen 125 (CA125), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), carbohydrate antigen 72-4 (CA72-4), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP).To ascertain the prognostic ability and optimal cutoff values of each parameter, operating characteristic curves and the area under the curve were utilized in the analysis. For evaluation of independent prognostic factors, we utilized Kaplan-Meier curves and multifactorial Cox analysis. The variables from the multifactorial Cox analysis were used to construct a nomogram. NLR, LMR, CEA, AFP, primary location, largest tumor size and TNM stage were all found to be significant predictive elements for overall survival (OS). Multivariate Cox identified NLR (P = 0.005), LMR (P = 0.03) and AFP (P = 0.007) as the only separate predictive variables among hematological indicators. The nomogram built using NLR demonstrates excellent predictive performance at 1 year (AUC = 0.778), 3 years (AUC = 0.773), and 5 years (AUC = 0.781). Cross-validation demonstrates that this model has favorable predictive performance and discriminative ability. NLR is an uncomplicated yet potent marker for forecasting the survival result of individuals with gastric cancer following da Vinci robotic surgery, and it possesses considerable predictive significance. The nomogram based on NLR provides patients with a visual and accurate prognosis prediction.

Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this multicentre cohort study was to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

Patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy by robotic or laparoscopic approaches from 1 March 2010 to 31 December 2018 at 10 high-volume centres in China were selected from institutional databases. Patients receiving RG were matched 1 : 1 by propensity score with patients undergoing LG. The primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes were overall survival and disease recurrence.

RESULTS

Some 2055 patients who underwent RG and 4309 patients who had LG were included. The propensity score-matched cohort comprised 2026 RGs and 2026 LGs. Median follow-up was 41 (i.q.r. 39-58) months for the RG group and 39 (38-56) months for the LG group. The 3-year disease-free survival rates were 80.8% in the RG group and 79.5% in the LG group (log rank P = 0.240; HR 0.92, 95% c.i. 0.80 to 1.06; P = 0.242). Three-year OS rates were 83.9 and 81.8% respectively (log rank P = 0.068; HR 0.87, 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.068) and the cumulative incidence of recurrence over 3 years was 19.3% versus 20.8% (HR 0.95, 0.88 to 1.03; P = 0.219), with no difference between groups.

CONCLUSION

RG and LG in patients with gastric cancer are associated with comparable disease-free and overall survival.

Evaluation of different scoring systems in the prediction of complications, morbidity, and mortality after laparoscopic radical gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

This retrospective study aimed to assess the suitability of POSSUM and its modified versions, E-PASS and its modified score, SRS, and SORT scores for predicting postoperative complications and mortality in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data analysis was performed on 349 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical gastrectomy at Tianjin Medical University General Hospital between January 2016 and December 2021. The discriminative ability of the scoring systems was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The primary endpoint focused on the prediction of postoperative complications, while the secondary endpoint assessed the prediction of postoperative mortality.

RESULTS

Among the scoring systems evaluated, the modified E-PASS (mE-PASS) score exhibited the highest AUC (0.846) and demonstrated the highest sensitivity (81%) and specificity (79%) for predicting postoperative complications. All other scores, except for POSSUM, showed moderate discriminative ability in predicting complications. In terms of predicting postoperative mortality, the E-PASS score had the highest AUC (0.978), while the mE-PASS score displayed the highest sensitivity (76%) and specificity (90%). Notably, both E-PASS and mE-PASS scores exhibited excellent discriminative ability.

CONCLUSIONS

The P-POSSUM, O-POSSUM, E-PASS, mE-PASS, SRS, and SORT scoring systems are useful tools for predicting postoperative outcomes in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. Among them, the mE-PASS score demonstrated the best predictive power. However, the POSSUM system could only be applicable to predict postoperative mortality.

The Evolving Surgical Landscape: A Comprehensive Review of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer

Robotic gastrectomy has been gaining ground in the past 20 years. This study aims to (a) provide an updated and all-encompassing comprehensive review including post-operative outcomes, rate of complications, surgical efficiency and costs, pathology, overall survival, mortality and recurrence, and disease-free survival of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy, (b) report research gaps, and (c) identify ongoing or forthcoming clinical trials that could potentially shed light on underreported findings within the existing literature. Regarding the methodology, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses published between January 2012 and October 2023. ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for related clinical trials currently underway or recruiting. Robotic gastrectomy, when compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy, for the treatment of gastric cancer, performs equally well or shows superiority in terms of the length of hospitalization, overall complications rates, rate of conversion to open surgery, surgical complications, anastomotic leakage, pancreatic complications, blood loss, mortality rates, time to first flatus, time to oral intake, distal and proximal resection margins, recurrence rate, reoperation rates, and overall survival. However, it is associated with higher costs and longer operative time. Parameters such as duodenal stump leakage, anastomosis stenosis, intestinal obstruction, ileus, delayed gastric emptying, wound complications, acute pancreatitis, pancreatic fistula, direct costs, time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy, postoperative morbidity, recurrence, and disease-free survival are currently underreported in the literature and necessitate for further research. Lastly, four clinical trials are currently underway or recruiting that could possibly bridge the research gap.

Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a prospective trial-based economic evaluation

IMPORTANCE

It is largely unclear whether robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) is cost-effective for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RDG, laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG), and open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for patients with LAGC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline characteristics. A decision-analytic model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RDG, LDG, and ODG.

EXPOSURES

RDG, LDG, and ODG.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

RESULTS

This pooled analysis of two randomized controlled trials included 449 patients: 117, 254, and 78 patients in the RDG, LDG, and ODG groups, respectively. After IPTW, RDG demonstrated its priority in terms of less blood loss, postoperative length, and complication rate (all P < 0.05). RDG also showed higher QOL with more cost, representing an ICER of $85,739.73 per QALY and $42,189.53 per QALY compared to LDG and ODG, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, RDG achieved the best cost-effectiveness for patients with LAGC only when the willingness-to-pay threshold was > $85,739.73 per QALY, which significantly exceeded 3 times Chinese per capita GDP. Furthermore, one of the most important factors was the indirect costs of robotic surgery in terms of the cost-effectiveness of RDG compared to that of LDG or ODG.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although improved short-term outcomes and QOL were seen in patients underwent RDG, the economic burden should be considered in the clinical decision-making regarding robotic surgery use for patients with LAGC. Our findings may vary in different health care settings and affordability. Trial registration CLASS-01 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, CT01609309) and FUGES-011 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03313700).

Minimally Invasive and Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Optimal surgical management for gastric cancer remains controversial. We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes after open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG), and robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases was undertaken. An NMA was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-NMA guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using R and Shiny.

RESULTS

Twenty-two RCTs including 6890 patients were included. Overall, 49.6% of patients underwent LAG (3420/6890), 46.6% underwent OG (3212/6890), and 3.7% underwent RG (258/6890). At NMA, there was a no significant difference in recurrence rates following LAG (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-1.49) compared with OG. Similarly, overall survival (OS) outcomes were identical following OG and LAG (OS: OG, 87.0% [1652/1898] vs. LAG: OG, 87.0% [1650/1896]), with no differences in OS in meta-analysis (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77-1.52). Importantly, patients undergoing LAG experienced reduced intraoperative blood loss, surgical incisions, distance from proximal margins, postoperative hospital stays, and morbidity post-resection.

CONCLUSIONS

LAG was associated with non-inferior oncological and surgical outcomes compared with OG. Surgical outcomes following LAG and RG superseded OG, with similar outcomes observed for both LAG and RG. Given these findings, minimally invasive approaches should be considered for the resection of local gastric cancer, once surgeon and institutional expertise allows.

Complete mesogastric excision for gastric cancer: is it the future of gastric cancer surgery?

Gastric cancer remains undoubtedly one of the most common and deadly cancers worldwide. The global incidence shows wide geographic variation with a high prevalence in Asia. Besides that, there are evident differences in epidemiology, histopathology, tumor location, diagnosis and treatment strategy between east and west countries. Gastric cancer represents an aggressive disease, with many factors influencing its development and also recurrence after surgical resection. New knowledge of disease spread and new routes of metastases are now emerging and the 'novel' concept of complete mesogastric excision for gastric cancer is under consideration and debate. This article aims to analyze and highlight this new concept after a careful literature review, offering also a view toward the future.

Long-term oncologic and surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for Siewert II/III esophagogastric junction carcinoma: A propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the short-term surgical and long-term survival outcomes after robotic gastrectomy (RG) or laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for patients with Siewert type II and III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 84 and 312 patients with Siewert type II/III AEG who underwent RG or LG between January 2005 and September 2016 in our center. We performed a 1:2 matched propensity score matching (PSM) analysis between the RG and LG group for clinical features to reduce confounding bias. Additionally, the long- and short-term outcomes between the RG and LG group were compared.

RESULTS

The clinicopathological characteristics of 246 patients (RG group: n = 82; LG group: n = 164) were well balanced after PSM. Patients in the RG group showed less estimated blood loss, less time to first flatus, less time to first ambulation, less drainage tube removed time, and retrieved more lymph nodes than the LG group. The overall complication rate was comparable between the RG and LG groups. The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 44.4% in the RG group and 43.7% in the LG group (p = 0.898). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 43.2% in the RG group and 43.2% in the LG group (p = 0.990). The RG and LG groups exhibited a similar recurrence rate and pattern within 5 years after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Robotic gastrectomy could be a feasible and safe option for patients with Siewert II/III AEG in terms of surgical and oncologic outcomes.

Safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) has been used in the minimally invasive surgical treatment of gastric cancer, but the research on advanced gastric cancer (AGC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has not been reported. This study aimed to analyze the outcomes of RADG versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) after NAC for AGC.

METHODS

This was a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis from February 2020 and March 2022. Patients who underwent RADG or LDG for AGC (cT3-4a/N +) following NAC were enrolled and a propensity score-matched analysis was performed in a 1:1 manner. The patients were divided into RADG group and LDG group. The clinicopathological characteristics and short-term outcomes were observed.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 67 patients each in the RADG and LDG groups. RADG was associated with a lower intraoperative blood loss (35.6 vs. 118.8 ml, P = 0.014) and more retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) (50.7 vs. 39.5, P < 0.001), more extraperigastric (18.3 vs. 10.4, P < 0.001), and suprapancreatic LNs (16.33 vs. 13.70, P = 0.042). The RADG group showed lower VAS scores at postoperative 24 h (2.2 vs 3.3, P = 0.034), earlier ambulation (1.3 vs. 2.6, P = 0.011), aerofluxus time (2.2 vs. 3.6, P = 0.025), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (8.3 vs. 9.8, P = 0.004). There were no significant differences in the operative time (216.7 vs.194.7 min, P = 0.204) and postoperative complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RADG may be a potential therapeutic option for patients with AGC after NAC considering its advantages in perioperative period compared with LDG.

Essential updates 2021/2022: Perioperative and surgical treatments for gastric and esophagogastric junction cancer

In recent years, important clinical trials for gastric cancer (GC) and esophagogastric junction cancer (EGJC) have been reported, changing the strategies of surgical and perioperative treatment. Although laparoscopic gastrectomy has already been shown to be effective for early-stage cancer, recent evidence from both Asia (JLSSG0901, CLASS-01 and KLASS-02) and Europe (LOGICA and STOMACH trials) has demonstrated that it is useful for advanced GC. Robotic surgery has been rapidly gaining popularity in recent years, and randomized controlled trials are ongoing to evaluate its efficacy. A prospective nationwide multicenter study mapped sites with frequent metastasis and revealed lymphatic flow specific to EGJC, thus establishing the optimal lymph node dissection area and surgical approach based on esophageal involvement. Perioperative chemotherapy, the mainstay of treatment in Europe, also has been established in Asia by the PRODIGY and RESOLVE studies. New clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of combining immunotherapy or molecular-targeted therapy with perioperative chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. In this review, we present important recent clinical trials regarding the treatment of GC and EGJC published in 2021 or 2022.

Solo surgery in robot-assisted gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer is still not well standardized. This study aimed to explore the feasibility and effectiveness of solo surgery in robot-assisted gastrectomy (SRG) for gastric cancer compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective comparative study between SRG and conventional LG. Between April 2015 and December 2022, 510 patients underwent gastrectomy, and data from a prospectively collected database were analyzed. We identified 372 patients who underwent LG (n = 267) and SRG (n = 105) and the remaining 138 patients were excluded because of remnant gastric cancer, esophagogastric junction cancer, open gastrectomy, concurrent surgery for concomitant malignancies, RG before starting SRG, or cases in which the author was unable to perform or supervise gastrectomy. Propensity score matching was performed at a ratio of 1:1 to reduce bias from confounding patient-related variables, and short-term outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 90 pairs of patients who underwent LG and SRG were selected. In the propensity-matched cohort, the operation time was significantly shorter in the SRG group than that in the LG group (SRG = 305.7 ± 74.0 min vs. LG = 340.3 ± 91.65 min, p < 0.0058), less estimated blood loss was observed in the SRG group than that in the LG group (SRG = 25.6 ± 50.6 mL vs. LG = 76.1 ± 104.2 mL, p < 0.0001) and postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the SRG group than that in the LG group (SRG = 7.1 ± 0.8 days vs. LG = 9.1 ± 7.7 days, p = 0.015).

CONCLUSION

We found that SRG for gastric cancer was technically feasible and effective with favorable short-term outcomes, including shorter operative time, less estimated blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and lower postoperative morbidity than those in LG.

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.

Robotic versus open approach in total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a comparative single-center study of perioperative outcomes

The robotic approach to gastric cancer has been gaining interest in recent years; however, its benefit over the open procedure in total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is still controversial. The aims of the study were to compare postoperative morbidity and mortality, hospital stay, and anatomopathological findings between the robotic and open approaches to oncologic total gastrectomy. We analyzed a prospectively collected database, which included patients who underwent total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy in our center using a robotic or an open approach between 2014 and 2021. Comparative analysis of clinicopathological, intraoperative, postoperative and anatomopathological variables between the robot-assisted group and the open group was performed. Thirty patients underwent total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy by a robotic approach and 48 patients by an open procedure. Both groups were comparable. The robot-assisted group presented a lower rate of Clavien-Dindo complications ≥ stage II (20 vs. 48%, p = 0.048), a shorter hospital stay (7 days vs. 9 days, p = 0.003) and had a higher total number of lymph nodes resected (22 nodes vs. 15 nodes, p = 0.001) compared to the open approach. Operative time was longer in the robotic group (325 min vs. 195 min, p < 0.001) compared to the open group. The robotic approach is associated with a longer surgical time, a lower rate of Clavien-Dindo complications ≥ stage II and a shorter hospital stay, and more lymph nodes were resected compared to the open approach.

The comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic radical distal gastrectomy

PURPOSE

The study's objectives were to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic radical distal gastrectomy (RDG) with laparoscopic radical distal gastrectomy (LDG) for patients with gastric cancer and investigate the learning curve of RDG.

METHODS

The cumulative sum (CUSUM) method was used to retrospectively analyze consecutive gastric cancer patients undergoing RDG between January 2019 and October 2021. The duration of surgery, clinical-pathological characteristics, and short-term outcomes were evaluated according to the two phases of the learning curve (learning period versus mastery period). We also compared the clinical-pathological characteristics and short-term outcomes between cases in the mastery period and LDG.

RESULTS

Data from 290 patients were included in this analysis, 135 RDG and 155 LDG cases. The learning period was 20 cases. There were no significant differences in clinical-pathological characteristics between the learning period and mastery period. Compared with the learning period, the mastery period had a significant reduction in total operation time, docking time, pure operation time, and estimated blood loss, and a significant increase in hospital costs (P=0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.003, and 0.026, respectively). Compared with LDG, robotic cases in mastery period had a longer operative time, shorter first postoperative flatus time, and more hospital costs (P=0.000, 0.005, and 0.000, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

RGD may fasten to recover gastrointestinal function faster after the operation, can be mastered easily after a reasonable number of cases, and was associated with safe and satisfactory short-term outcomes before and after the learning curve.

Robotic Gastrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Cohort Study of 5402 Patients in China

OBJECTIVE

A large-scale multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

RG is being increasingly used worldwide, but data from large-scale multicenter studies on the short- and long-term oncologic outcomes of RG versus LG are limited. The potential benefits of RG compared with LG for gastric cancer remain controversial.

METHODS

Data from eligible patients who underwent RG or LG for gastric cancer of 11 experienced surgeons from 7 centers in China between March 2010 and October 2019 were collected. The RG group was matched 1:1 with the LG group by using propensity score matching. The primary outcome was postoperative complications.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, a well-balanced cohort of 3552 patients was included for further analysis. The occurrence of overall complications (12.6% vs 15.2%, P = 0.023) was lower in the RG group than in the LG group. RG was associated with less blood loss (126.8 vs 142.5 mL, P < 0.001) and more retrieved lymph nodes in total (32.5 vs 30.7, P < 0.001) and in suprapancreatic areas (13.3 vs 11.6, P < 0.001).The long-term oncological outcomes were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this multicenter study demonstrate that RG is a safe and effective treatment for gastric cancer when performed by experienced surgeons, although longer operation time and higher costs are still concerns about RG. This study provides evidence suggesting that RG may represent an alternative surgical treatment to LG.

Short-Term Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Gastrectomy Compared to Open Gastrectomy for Patients with Gastric Cancer: a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been shown to be a safe and feasible method in gastric cancer (GC) treatment. However, most studies are in Eastern cohorts and there is great interest in knowing whether the method can be used routinely, especially in the West.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term surgical outcomes of D2-gastrectomy by RG versus open gastrectomy (OG).

METHODS

Single-institution, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized clinical trial performed between 2015 and 2020. GC patients were randomized (1:1 allocation) to surgical treatment by RG or OG. Da Vinci Si platform was used.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

gastric adenocarcinoma, stage cT2-4 cN0-1, potentially curative surgery, age 18-80 years, and ECOG performance status 0-1.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

emergency surgery and previous gastric or major abdominal surgery. Primary endpoint was short-term surgical outcomes. The study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02292914).

RESULTS

Of 65 randomized patients, 5 were excluded (3 palliatives, 1 obstruction and emergency surgery, and 1 for material shortage). Consequently, 31 and 29 patients were included for final analysis in the OG and RG groups, respectively. No differences were observed between groups regarding age, sex, BMI, comorbidities, ASA, and frequency of total gastrectomy. RG had similar mean number of harvested lymph nodes (p = 0.805), longer surgical time (p < 0.001), and less bleeding (p < 0.001) compared to OG. Postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and readmissions in 30 days were equivalent between OG and RG.

CONCLUSIONS

RG reduces operative bleeding by more than 50%. The short-term outcomes were non-inferior to OG, although surgical time was longer in RG.

Laparoscopic versus Open Total Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: Short and Long-Term Results

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for early gastric cancer is widely accepted and routinely performed. However, it is still debated whether the laparoscopic approach is a valid alternative to open gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The aim of this study is to compare short-and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic (LG) and open (OG) total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy in patients with AGC.

METHODS

A retrospective comparative study was conducted on patients who underwent LG and OG for ACG between January 2015 and December 2021. Primary endpoints were the following: recurrence rate, 3-year disease-free survival, 3-year and 5-year overall survival. Univariate and multivariate analysis was conducted to compare variables influencing outcomes and survival.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients included: fifty-three OG and thirty-nine LG. No difference in morbidity and mortality. LG was associated with lower recurrence rates (OG 22.6% versus LG 12.8%, p = 0.048). No differences in 3-year and 5-year overall survival; 3-year disease-free survival was improved in the LG group on the univariate analysis but not after the multivariate one. LG was associated with longer operative time, lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. Lymph node yield was higher in LG.

CONCLUSION

LG for AGC seems to provide satisfactory clinical and oncological outcomes in medium volume centers, improved postoperative results and possibly lower recurrence rates.

Laparoscopic vs. open colectomy for T4 colon cancer: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of prospective observational studies

Background

To evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic colectomy (LC) vs. open colectomy (OC) in patients with T4 colon cancer.

Methods

Three authors independently searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov for articles before June 3, 2022 to compare the clinical outcomes of T4 colon cancer patients undergoing LC or OC.

Results

This meta-analysis included 7 articles with 1,635 cases. Compared with OC, LC had lesser blood loss, lesser perioperative transfusion, lesser complications, lesser wound infection, and shorter length of hospital stay. Moreover, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of 5-year overall survival (5y OS), and 5-year disease-free survival (5y DFS), R0 resection rate, positive resection margin, lymph nodes harvested ≥12, and recurrence. Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) results suggested that the potential advantages of LC on perioperative transfusion and the comparable oncological outcomes in terms of 5y OS, 5y DFS, lymph nodes harvested ≥12, and R0 resection rate was reliable and no need of further study.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic surgery is safe and feasible in T4 colon cancer in terms of short- and long-term outcomes. TSA results suggested that future studies were not required to evaluate the 5y OS, 5y DFS, R0 resection rate, positive resection margin status, lymph nodes harvested ≥12 and perioperative transfusion differences between LC and OC.

Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022297792.

Robotic spleen-preserving total gastrectomy shows better short-term advantages: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery may be advantageous for complex surgery. We aimed to compare the intraoperative and postoperative short-term outcomes of spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy (SPSHL) during robotic and laparoscopic total gastrectomy.

METHODS

From July 2016 to December 2020, the clinicopathological data of 115 patients who underwent robotic total gastrectomy combined with robotic SPSHL (RSPSHL) and 697 patients who underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy combined with laparoscopic SPSHL (LSPSHL) were retrospectively analyzed. A 1:2 ratio propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the differences between the two groups to compare their outcomes. The Generic Error Rating Tool was used to evaluate the technical performance.

RESULTS

After PSM, the baseline preoperative characteristics of the 115 patients in the RSPSHL and 230 patients in the LSPSHL groups were balanced. The dissection time of the region of the splenic artery trunk (5.4 ± 1.9 min vs. 7.8 ± 3.6 min, P < 0.001), the estimated blood loss during SPSHL (9.6 ± 4.8 ml vs. 14.9 ± 7.8 ml, P < 0.001), and the average number of intraoperative technical errors during SPSHL (15.1 ± 3.4 times/case vs. 20.7 ± 4.3 times/case, P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the RSPSHL group than in the LSPSHL group. The RSPSHL group showed higher dissection rates of No. 10 (78.3% vs. 70.0%, P = 0.104) and No. 11d (54.8% vs. 40.4%, P = 0.012) lymph nodes and significantly improved postoperative recovery results in terms of times to ambulation, first flatus, and first intake (P < 0.05). The splenectomy rates of the two groups were similar (1.7% vs. 0.4%, P = 0.539), and there was no significant difference in morbidity and mortality within postoperative 30 days (13.0% vs. 15.2%, P = 0.589).

CONCLUSION

Compared to LSPSHL, RSPSHL has more advantages in terms of surgical qualities and postoperative recovery process with similar morbidity and mortality. For complex SPSHL, robotic surgery may be a better choice.

Surgical and oncological outcomes of robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score‑matched analysis of 1164 patients

BACKGROUND

Studies on surgical outcomes after robotic surgery are increasing; however, long-term oncological results of studies comparing robotic-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) are still limited. This study aimed to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of RADG and LADG for the treatment of AGC.

METHODS

A total of 1164 consecutive AGC patients undergoing RADG or LADG were enrolled between January 2015 and October 2021. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. The perioperative and oncological outcomes between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

Patient's characteristics were comparable between the two groups after PSM. RADG group represented a longer operative time (205.2 ± 43.1 vs 185.3 ± 42.8 min, P < 0.001), less operative blood loss (139.3 ± 97.8 vs 167.3 ± 134.2 ml, P < 0.001), greater retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) number (31.4 ± 12.1 vs 29.4 ± 12.3, P = 0.015), more retrieved LNs in the supra-pancreatic areas (13.4 ± 5.0 vs 11.4 ± 5.1, P < 0.001), and higher medical costs (13,608 ± 4326 vs 10,925 ± US $3925, P < 0.001) than LADG group. The overall complication rate was 13.7% in the RADG group and 16.6% in the LADG group, respectively; the difference was not significantly different (P = 0.242). In the subgroup analysis, the benefits of RADG were more evident in high BMI patients. Moreover, the 3-year overall survival (75.5% vs 73.1%, P = 0.471) and 3-year disease-free survival (72.9% vs 71.4%, P = 0.763) were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RADG appears to be a safe and feasible procedure and could serve as an alternative treatment for AGC in experienced centers.

Comparisons of surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic total gastrectomy in patients with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The robotic approach is especially promising for challenging surgeries, such as total gastrectomy. However, it remains unclear whether robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) is superior to conventional laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG). The present study aimed to clarify the impact of RTG on short- and long-term outcomes for patients with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer.

METHODS

This study included 98 patients with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer who underwent minimally invasive total gastrectomy from October 2013 to December 2020 at the Shizuoka Cancer Center. The short- and long-term outcomes of RTG were compared with those of LTG.

RESULTS

This study included 36 RTG and 58 LTG patients. RTG was associated with a significantly longer operative time than LTG (p = 0.023). All complications tended to be lower in the RTG group than in the LTG group (2.8% and 15.5%, respectively; p = 0.083). There were no patients with anastomotic leakage in the RTG group. The multivariate analysis identified LTG as the only independent risk factor for postoperative complications (odds ratio, 6.620; 95% confidence interval, 1.132-126.4; p = 0.034). The survival of the RTG and LTG groups was equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

RTG reduced the risk of complications compared to LTG. Patients treated using the two approaches showed equivalent survival.

Robotic total gastrectomy for carcinoma in the remnant stomach: a comparison with laparoscopic total gastrectomy

Background

Total gastrectomy for carcinoma in the remnant stomach (CRS) remains a technically demanding procedure. Whether robotic surgery is superior, equal, or inferior to laparoscopic surgery in patients with CRS is unclear. This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) and laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) for the treatment of CRS.

Methods

In this cohort study, we retrospectively analysed the data from patients who underwent RTG or LTG for CRS at Southwest Hospital (Chongqing, China) between May 2006 and October 2019. The surgical outcomes, post-operative complications, and survival outcomes between the two groups were compared.

Results

Compared with LTG, RTG was associated with similar effective operation time (272.0 vs 297.9 min, P = 0.170), higher total costs (105,967.2 vs 81,629.5 RMB, P < 0.001), and less estimated blood loss (229.2 vs 288.8 mL, P = 0.031). No significant differences were found between the robotic and laparoscopic groups in terms of conversion rate, time to first flatus, time to first soft diet, post-operative hospital stay, post-operative complications, R0 resection rate, and number of retrieved lymph nodes (all P > 0.05). The 3-year disease-free survival and 3-year overall survival rates were comparable between the two groups (65.5% vs 57.5%, P = 0.918; 69.0% vs 60.0%, P = 0.850, respectively).

Conclusions

RTG is a safe and feasible procedure for the treatment of CRS and could serve as an optimal treatment for CRS.

Robotic Techniques in Esophagogastric Cancer Surgery: An Assessment of Short- and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes

Background

Robotic esophagogastric cancer surgery is gaining widespread adoption. This population-based cohort study aimed to compare rates of textbook outcomes (TOs) and survival from robotic minimally invasive techniques for esophagogastric cancer.

Methods

Data from the United States National Cancer Database (NCDB) (2010–2017) were used to identify patients with non-metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer receiving open surgery (to the esophagus, n = 11,442; stomach, n = 22,183), laparoscopic surgery (to the esophagus [LAMIE], n = 4827; stomach [LAMIG], n = 6359), or robotic surgery (to the esophagus [RAMIE], n = 1657; stomach [RAMIG], n = 1718). The study defined TOs as 15 or more lymph nodes examined, margin-negative resections, hospital stay less than 21 days, no 30-day readmissions, and no 90-day mortalities. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox analyses were used to account for treatment selection bias.

Results

Patients receiving robotic surgery were more commonly treated in high-volume academic centers with advanced clinical T and N stage disease. From 2010 to 2017, TO rates increased for esophageal and gastric cancer treated via all surgical techniques. Compared with open surgery, significantly higher TO rates were associated with RAMIE (odds ratio [OR], 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27–1.58) and RAMIG (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.17–1.45). For esophagectomy, long-term survival was associated with both TO (hazard ratio [HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.60–0.67) and RAMIE (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.84–1.00). For gastrectomy, long-term survival was associated with TO (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.56–0.60) and both LAMIG (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.85–0.94) and RAMIG (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.81–0.96). Subset analysis in high-volume centers confirmed similar findings.

Conclusion

Despite potentially adverse learning curve effects and more advanced tumor stages captured during the study period, both RAMIE and RAMIG performed in mostly high-volume centers were associated with improved TO and long-term survival. Therefore, consideration for wider adoption but a well-designed phase 3 randomized controlled trial (RCT) is required for a full evaluation of the benefits conferred by robotic techniques for esophageal and gastric cancers.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-11082-y.

Extent of gastrectomy and lymphadenectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma

Gastric adenocarcinoma is one of the most common and lethal cancers worldwide and is associated with a high frequency of nodal metastasis. The value of multimodality therapy is well-established, but gastric resection and locoregional lymph node dissection are important mainstays in potentially curative therapy. However, there has been considerable regional variation in surgical approach and debate regarding the ideal extent of gastric resection, gastric reconstruction, and extent of lymphadenectomy. This chapter outlines the current evidence in the surgical management of gastric adenocarcinoma. The advent of minimally invasive approaches to gastric operations is also discussed.

Treatment burden of robotic gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC): a single western experience

Background

This study compares standard of care (SOC) open and robotic D2-gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) in the Western context of low disease prevalence, reduced surgical volume, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). We hypothesized that robotic gastrectomy (RG) after NAC reduces treatment burden for LAGC across multiple outcome domains vs. SOC.

Methods

Single institution, interrupted time series comparing SOC (2008–2013) for LAGC (T2–4Nany/TanyN+) vs. NAC + RG (2013–2018). Treatment burden was a composite metric of narcotic consumption, oncologic efficacy, cumulative morbidity, and 90-day resource utilization. Predictors were evaluated via multivariate modeling. Learning curve analysis was done using CUSUM.

Results

After exclusions, 87 subjects with equivalent baseline characteristics, aside from male sex, were treated via SOC (n=55) or NAC + RG (n=32). All four domains of treatment burden were significantly reduced in the NAC + RG cohort compared to SOC (P=0.003). The odds ratio for excess treatment burden in the NAC/RG was 0.23 (95% CI: 0.07–0.72, P=0.0117) vs. SOC upon multivariable modeling, whereas the extent of resection (total/subtotal), tumor size, T-stage, sex, and early learning curve had no effect. Differences in treatment burden persisted in subgroup analysis for NAC (n=51).

Conclusions

NAC + RG was associated with decreased treatment burden relative to SOC for LAGC. Frequencies of unfavorable hospitalization, adverse oncological outcomes, major morbidity, and narcotic consumption all decreased in this interrupted time series.

Current Status and Trends of Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy in Korea

Since its introduction in the early 1990s, laparoscopic gastrectomy has been widely accepted for the treatment of gastric cancer worldwide. In the last decade, the Korean Laparoendoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery Study group performed important clinical trials and exerted various efforts to enhance the quality of scientific knowledge and surgical techniques in the field of gastric cancer surgery. Laparoscopic gastrectomy has shifted to a new era in Korea due to recent advances and innovations in technology. Here, we discuss the recent updates of laparoscopic gastrectomy—namely, reduced-port, single-incision, robotic, image-guided, and oncometabolic surgery.

Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

Aim

The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of robot-assisted (RAGD2) and laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy (LAGD2) for patients with gastric cancer.

Material and methods

Relevant articles published up to September 2020 were searched. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was used to pool continuous variables, while risk ratio (RR) was calculated for dichotomous outcomes.

Results

RAGD2 required a longer operating time (WMD = 29.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 15.97-43.59) and had less operative blood loss (WMD = -31.93, 95% CI: -44.03 to -19.83), shorter time to first flatus (WMD = -0.13, 95% CI: -0.22 to -0.04), shorter time to liquid diet (WMD = -0.20, 95% CI: -0.28 to 0.12), and fewer severe complications (RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43-0.90) and overall complications (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.62-0.91) than LAGD2.

Conclusions

RAGD2 could be beneficial in reducing operative blood loss and postoperative complications relative to LAGD2.

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.

Comparison of the Postoperative Complications Between Robotic Total and Distal Gastrectomies for Gastric Cancer Using Clavien-Dindo Classification: A Propensity Score-matched Retrospective Cohort Study of 726 Patients

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to compare the postoperative complications after Robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) and robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) and to systematically evaluate the safety and feasibility of RTG for the treatment of gastric cancer (GC).

METHODS

Patients with GC who underwent RTG or RDG for curative intent between March 2010 and August 2019 were analyzed. We used propensity score matching (PSM) to reduce selection bias. The morbidity and mortality within 30 days after surgery between the RTG and the RDG groups were compared.

RESULTS

According to Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification, the morbidity and mortality of the RTG group were comparable to those of the RDG group. Subgroup analyses showed no significant difference between the RTG and RDG groups in all stratified parameters (all P > .05). Multivariate analysis revealed that age ≥70 years (P = .002) and surgeons' experience ≤25 cases (P = .013) were independent risk factors for overall complication. Surgeons' experience ≤25 cases (P = .010) was identified as an independent risk factor for severe complication.

CONCLUSION

RTG is a safe and feasible surgical procedure for the treatment of GC with acceptable morbidity and mortality. More complications were observed for RTG, indicating that RTG is more invasive than RDG.

Review on Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Robotic Gastrectomy for Cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive gastrectomy is currently considered a valid option to treat gastric cancer and is gaining increasing acceptance. Recent reports have suggested that the application of robots may confer some advantages over conventional laparoscopy, but the role of robotic surgery in clinical practice is still uncertain. We aimed to critically review the relevant evidence comparing robotic to standard laparoscopic surgery in performing radical gastrectomy.

METHODS

The Pubmed/Medline electronic databases were searched through February 2021. Paper conference and the English language was the only restriction applied to our search strategy.

RESULTS

According to the existing data, robotic gastrectomy seems to provide some benefits in terms of blood loss, rate of conversion, procedure-specific postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay. Robotic gastrectomy is also associated with a longer duration of surgery and a higher economic burden as compared to its laparoscopic counterpart. No significant differences have been disclosed in terms of long-term survivals, while the number of lymph nodes retrieved with robotic gastrectomy is generally higher than that of laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The current literature suggests that robotic radical gastrectomy appears as competent as the conventional laparoscopic procedure and may provide some clinical advantages. However, due to the relative paucity of high-level evidence, it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions.

Long-term Comparison of Robotic and Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score-weighted Analysis of 2084 Consecutive Patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare long-term outcomes between robotic and LG approaches using propensity score weighting based on a generalized boosted method to control for selection bias.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Minimally invasive surgical approaches for GC are increasing, yet limited evidence exists for long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG).

METHODS

Patients (n = 2084) with GC stages I-III who underwent LG or RG between 2009 and 2017 were analyzed. Generalized boosted method was used to estimate a propensity score derived from all available preoperative characteristics. Long-term outcomes were compared using the adjusted Kaplan-Meier method and the weighted Cox proportional hazards regression model.

RESULTS

After propensity score weighting, the population was balanced. Patients who underwent RG showed reduced blood loss (16 mL less, P = 0.025), sufficient lymph node harvest from the initial period, and no changes in surgical outcomes over time. With 52-month median follow-up, no difference was noted in 5-year overall survival in unweighted [91.5% in LG vs 94% in RG; hazard ratio (HR), 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.46-1.1; P = 0.126] and weighted populations (94.2% in LG vs 93.2% in RG; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.52-1.48; P = 0.636). There were no differences in 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS), with unweighted 5-year RFS of 95.4% for LG and 95.2% for RG (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.55-1.64; P = 0.845) and weighted 5-year RFS of 96.3% for LG and 95.3% for RG (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.66-2.33; P = 0.498).

CONCLUSIONS

After balancing covariates, RG demonstrated reliable surgical outcomes from the beginning. Long-term survival after RG and LG for GC was similar.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

An umbrella review was performed to summarize literature data and to investigate benefits and harm of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared to laparoscopic (LG) approach. To overcome the intrinsic limitations of laparoscopy, the robotic approach is claimed to facilitate lymph-node dissection and complex reconstruction after gastrectomy, to assure oncologic safety also in advanced gastric cancer. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases for all meta-analyses published up to December 2019. The search strategy was previously published in a protocol. We selected fourteen meta-analyses comparing outcomes between LG and RG with curative intent in patients with diagnosis of resectable gastric cancer. We highlight that RG has a longer operation time, inferior blood loss, reduction in hospital stay and a more rapid recovery of bowel function. In meta-analyses with statistical significance the number of nodes removed in RG is higher than LG and the distal margin of resection is higher. There is no difference in terms of total complication rate, mortality, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis, intestinal obstruction and in conversion rate to open technique. The safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy are not clearly supported by strong evidence, suggesting that the outcomes reported for each surgical technique need to be interpreted with caution, in particular for the meta-analyses in which the heterogeneity is large. Certainly, robotic gastrectomy is associated with shorter time to oral intake, lesser intraoperative bleeding and longer operation time with an acceptable level of evidence. On the other hand, the data regarding other outcomes are insufficient as well as non-significant, from an evidence point of view, to draw any robust conclusion.

BRAZILIAN GASTRIC CANCER ASSOCIATION GUIDELINES (PART 2): UPDATE ON TREATMENT

BACKGROUND

: The II Brazilian Consensus on Gastric Cancer of the Brazilian Gastric Cancer Association BGCA (Part 1) was recently published. On this occasion, countless specialists working in the treatment of this disease expressed their opinion in the face of the statements presented.

AIM

: To present the BGCA Guidelines (Part 2) regarding indications for surgical treatment, operative techniques, extension of resection and multimodal treatment.

METHODS

To formulate these guidelines, the authors carried out an extensive and current review regarding each declaration present in the II Consensus, using the Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library and SciELO databases initially with the following descriptors: gastric cancer, gastrectomy, lymphadenectomy, multimodal treatment. In addition, each statement was classified according to the level of evidence and degree of recommendation.

RESULTS

: Of the 43 statements present in this study, 11 (25,6%) were classified with level of evidence A, 20 (46,5%) B and 12 (27,9%) C. Regarding the degree of recommendation, 18 (41,9%) statements obtained grade of recommendation 1, 14 (32,6%) 2a, 10 (23,3%) 2b e one (2,3%) 3.

CONCLUSION

: The guidelines complement of the guidelines presented here allows surgeons and oncologists who work to combat gastric cancer to offer the best possible treatment, according to the local conditions available.

The 140 years' journey of gastric cancer surgery: From the two hands of Billroth to the multiple hands of the robot

After the initial achievement by Billroth in 1881, surgery for gastric cancer has become increasingly extended. However, it turned out to be limited in Western countries after the publication that denied the role of extended surgery in the 1960s. While surgeons in Japan were still enthusiastic about extended surgery, the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) conducted clinical trials to validate the role of extended surgery. Contrary to expectations, the efficacy of extended surgery was not demonstrated. In gastric cancer surgery, postoperative complications were reported to be associated with poor survival. A survival benefit could not be obtained by extended surgery, with high morbidity. Therefore, the paradigm had been changed from extended surgery to minimally invasive surgery (MIS). As an MIS for gastric cancer, laparoscopic surgery has been considered a practical method. Initial laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) was first performed by Kitano in 1991. Thereafter, LG became increasingly common. Several clinical trials demonstrated the noninferiority of LG to open gastrectomy. LG is now regarded as the standard for cStage I gastric cancer, and the indication is expanding to advanced cancer. However, LG has some drawbacks owing to the restriction of movement caused by straight-shaped forceps. Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is considered a major breakthrough to circumvent the drawbacks in LG using articulated devices. However, the solid evidence demonstrating the advantage of RG has not been proved yet. The JCOG is now conducting a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the superiority of RG to LG in terms of reducing morbidity.

Assessment of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the short-term outcomes of patients with GC who received RDG or LDG.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Despite the increasing use of RDG in patients with GC, its safety and efficacy compared to those of LDG have not been elucidated in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Three hundred patients with cT1-4a and N0/+ between September 2017 and January 2020 were enrolled in this randomized controlled trial at a high-volume hospital in China. The short-term outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The modified intention-to-treat analysis included data from 283 patients (RDG group: n = 141) and (LDG group: n = 142). Patients in the RDG group exhibited faster postoperative recovery, milder inflammatory responses, and reduced postoperative morbidity (9.2% vs 17.6%, respectively, P = 0.039). Higher extraperigastric lymph nodes (LNs) were retrieved in the RDG group (17.6 ± 5.8 vs 15.8 ± 6.6, P = 0.018) with lower noncompliance rate (7.7% vs 16.9%, respectively, P = 0.006). Additionally, patients in the RDG group were more likely to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy earlier [median (interquartile range) postoperative days: 28 (24-32) vs 32 (26-42), P = 0.003]. Although total hospital costs were higher in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group, the direct cost was lower for RDG than for LDG (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RDG is associated with a lower morbidity rate, faster recovery, milder inflammatory responses, and improved lymphadenectomy. Additionally, faster postoperative recovery in the RDG group enables early initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy. Our results provide evidence for the application of RDG in patients with GC.

Robotic Distal Gastrectomy With a Novel "Preemptive Retropancreatic Approach" During Dissection of Suprapancreatic Lymph Nodes for Gastric Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Abrogating contact with the pancreas in suprapancreatic lymph nodes dissection for gastric cancer can prevent pancreatic fistula because of postoperative pancreatic damage. Our novel "Preemptive retropancreatic approach" is a useful technique that minimizes pancreatic compression during robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) with multijointed forceps. Here, we report the usefulness of RDG for gastric cancer surgery using our novel "Preemptive retropancreatic approach".

MATERIALS

"Preemptive retropancreatic approach": initial dissection of the bilateral retropancreatic space, the adherence between the retroperitoneum surface and the pancreas (fusion fascia) is released, providing a good operative field and hindering contact with the pancreas in suprapancreatic lymph nodes dissection during RDG. We herein reported consecutive 30 patients with gastric cancer who underwent RDG at Hokkaido University from September 2014 to March 2020.

RESULTS

All operations were performed by a single surgeon (Y.E.). The median operating time was 281 minutes (132 to 415). The median intraoperative bleeding was 0 ml of blood (0 to 255). There were 2 incidences of postoperative complications (≥Clavien-Dindo classification II), and there were no cases of postoperative pancreas-related complications. The median length of hospital stay after the surgery was 10 days (6 to 33).

CONCLUSION

As RDG for gastric cancer is still in its early introductory phase, its superiority has yet to be definitively established. However, we believe that "Preemptive retropancreatic approach" may reduce postoperative pancreatic-related complications in suprapancreatic lymph nodes dissection.

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 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.

Advantages of the Left-handed Ultrasonic Shears Technique for Robotic Gastrectomy

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate advantages of the left-handed ultrasonic shears technique in robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 67 consecutive gastric cancer patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy. Fifty-six patients underwent gastrectomy with the left-handed ultrasonic shears technique (the left hand group), and 11 patients underwent surgery with the conventional approach (the conventional group). Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Operative blood loss, morbidity, and mortality were similar between the 2 groups. We observed a trend toward a shorter operation time and higher number of retrieved lymph nodes in the left hand group compared with the conventional group. Console time (docking-gastrectomy) in the left hand group was significantly shorter than in the conventional group (192.20 vs. 218.36 min, P<0.05). In robotic distal gastrectomy, both operation time and console time in the left hand group were significantly shorter than in the conventional group (276.10 vs. 354.80 min, 176.43 vs. 209.20 min, P<0.05 for both). The postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complication (Clavien Dindo≥1) rate in the left hand group was significantly lower than that in the conventional group (0% vs. 20%, P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the left-handed ultrasonic shears technique is safe and provides a technically superior operative environment with satisfactory postoperative results.

Incidence and risk factors of postoperative complications after robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an analysis of 817 cases based on 10-year experience in a large-scale center

BACKGROUND

In this study, we investigated the incidence and risk factors for postoperative complications after robotic gastrectomy (RG) in patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

A total of 817 patients who underwent RG for gastric cancer between March 2010 and August 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Postoperative complications were categorized according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, and possible risk factors were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 817 patients who underwent RG, overall, severe, local and systemic complication rates were 13.8, 4.2, 7.0 and 6.9%, respectively. Multivariable analysis revealed that an age of 70 years or older (P < 0.001) and multiorgan resection (P = 0.031) were independent risk factors for the occurrence of overall complications. Multivariable analysis showed that an age of 70 years or older (P = 0.005) and surgeons' experience ≤ 25 cases (P = 0.004) were independent risk factors for severe complications. Regarding local complications, an age of 70 years or older (P < 0.001), multiorgan resection (P = 0.010) and surgeons' experience ≤ 25 cases (P = 0.005) were identified as independent risk factors. An age of 70 years or older (P < 0.001), a BMI of 25 or higher (P = 0.045) and the presence of comorbidity (P = 0.029) were identified as independent risk factors for systemic complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated that RG is a safe and feasible procedure for the treatment of gastric cancer, and it has an acceptable postoperative morbidity. Elderly patients and insufficient surgeon experience were two major risk factors for the occurrence of complications following RG. We suggest that surgeons choose patients in good condition during their RG learning phase to reduce learning-associated morbidity.