Robotic surgery for gastric cancer

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: The Largest Systematic Reviews of 68,755 Patients and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in treating gastric cancer (GC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature search across PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science identified 86 eligible studies, including 68,755 patients (20,894 in the RG group and 47,861 in the LG group).

RESULTS

The analysis revealed that RG was associated with superior outcomes in several areas: more lymph nodes were harvested, intraoperative blood loss was reduced, postoperative hospital stays were shorter, and the time to first flatus and oral intake was shortened (all p < 0.001). Additionally, RG resulted in lower incidences of conversion to open surgery (OR = 0.62, p = 0.004), reoperation (OR = 0.68, p = 0.010), overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.82, p < 0.001), severe complications (OR = 0.65, p < 0.001), and pancreatic complications (OR = 0.60, p = 0.004). However, RG had longer operative times and higher costs (both p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between RG and LG in terms of resection margin distance, mortality, anastomotic leakage, or recurrence rates.

CONCLUSIONS

RG is a safe and effective surgical option for patients of GC, but further improvements in operative duration and costs are needed.

Impact of preoperative sarcopenia on postoperative complications and prognosis in patients undergoing robotic gastric cancer surgery: A propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Sarcopenia, defined as decreased muscle mass and function, correlates with postoperative morbidity and mortality in cancer surgery. However, sarcopenia's impact specifically following robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer has not been clearly defined. This study aimed to determine the influence of sarcopenia on short- and long-term clinical outcomes after robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed 381 gastric cancer patients undergoing robotic gastrectomy. Sarcopenia was diagnosed by preoperative computed tomography (CT) body composition analysis. Propensity score matching created 147 pairs of sarcopenia and nonsarcopenia patients for comparison. Outcomes included postoperative complications, survival, inflammatory markers, length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, and readmissions.

RESULTS

Sarcopenia patients exhibited significantly higher rates of overall (53.7% versus 21.1%, P < 0.001), serious (12.9% versus 4.1%, P = 0.007), and grade III-IV complications compared to nonsarcopenia pairs after matching. Sarcopenia independently predicted reduced 3-years overall (HR = 2.53, 95% CI: 1.19-5.40, P = 0.016) and disease-free survival (HR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.09-3.66, P = 0.026). Sarcopenia patients also showed heightened postoperative leukocyte, neutrophil, platelet, platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), and monocyte to lymphocyte ratio (MLR) levels alongside suppressed lymphocytes, monocytes, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative sarcopenia is correlated with increased postoperative complications and poorer long-term survival in gastric cancer patients undergoing robotic gastrectomy. Sarcopenia assessment can optimize preoperative risk stratification and perioperative management in this population.

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.

Systemic inflammatory response index is a predictor of prognosis in gastric cancer patients: Retrospective cohort and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The systemic inflammatory response index (SIRI) has been demonstrated to make a significant difference in assessing the prognosis of patients with different solid neoplasms. However, research is needed to ascertain the accuracy and reliability of applying the SIRI to patients who undergo robotic radical gastric cancer surgery.

AIM

To validate the applicability of the SIRI in assessing the survival of gastric cancer patients and evaluate the clinical contribution of preoperative SIRI levels to predicting long-term tumor outcomes in patients, who received robotic radical gastric cancer surgery.

METHODS

Initially, an exhaustive retrieval was performed in the PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases to identify relevant studies. Subsequently, a meta-analysis was executed on 6 cohort studies identifying the value of the SIRI in assessing the survival of gastric cancer patients. Additionally, the clinical data of 161 patients undergoing robotic radical gastric cancer surgery were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate their clinicopathological characteristics and relevant laboratory indicators. The association between preoperative SIRI levels and 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was assessed.

RESULTS

The findings demonstrated an extensive connection between SIRI values and the outcome of patients with gastric cancer. Preoperative SIRI levels were identified as an independent hazard feature for both OS and DFS among those who received robotic surgery for gastric cancer. SIRI levels in gastric cancer patients were observed to be associated with the presence of comorbidities, T-stage, carcinoembryonic antigen levels, the development of early serious postoperative complications, and the rate of lymph node metastasis.

CONCLUSION

SIRI values are correlated with adverse in the gastric cancer population and have the potential to be utilized in predicting long-term oncological survival in patients who undergo robotic radical gastric cancer surgery.

Trends of Oncological Quality of Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer in the United States

Background

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been increasingly used for treatment of gastric cancer in the United States. However, it is unknown if there has been a nationwide improvement of short-term safety outcomes and oncological quality metrics over time.

Methods

We used the National Cancer Database to identify patients who underwent major gastrectomy from 2010 through 2018. The short-term safety outcomes and oncological metrics were compared between cases of open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), and RG. We also compared the indications and outcomes of RG between the three periods (2010 - 2012, 2013 - 2015, and 2016 - 2018).

Results

Of the 22,445 patients included, 1,867 (8%) underwent RG. Number of RG continued to increase from only 37 cases performed in 2010 to 412 cases performed in 2018. The number of lymph nodes (LNs) examined (OG, 16; LG, 17; and RG, 19) and the R0 rate (OG, 88%; LG, 92%; and RG 94%) were better for RG than for OG or LG (P < 0.001). In the RG group, the number of LNs examined (first period, 15; third period, 18; P < 0.001), R0 rate (first period, 88.6%; third period, 91.1%; P < 0.001), length of hospital stay (first period, 9 days; third period, 8 days; P < 0.001), 30-day readmission rate (first period, 10.1%; third period, 7.9%; P < 0.001), and 90-day mortality (first period, 7.3%; third period, 6.0%; P = 0.003) continued to improve cohort over time. The ratio of the robotic cases performed in academic institutions gradually increased (first period, 48.6%; third period, 54.3%; P < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, RG was associated with more than 15 LNs being examined (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.34 - 1.65; P < 0.001). The indications for RG appeared expanding to include more advanced stage, high comorbidity, and patients who underwent preoperative therapy.

Conclusions

RG has been increasingly performed in the past decade. Although its indication was expanded to include more advanced tumors, we found that the oncological quality metrics and safety outcomes of RG have improved over time and were better than those of OG or LG.

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.

Safety and feasibility of robotic surgery for old rectal cancer patients

Robotic surgery is widely utilized for rectal cancer. Older patients are associated with comorbidity and diminished cardiopulmonary reserve, resulting in uncertainty and reluctance to perform robotic surgery in older patients. The aim of the study was to assess the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery in older rectal cancer patients. We collected the data of patients diagnosed with rectal cancer and operated at our hospital from May 2015 to January 2021. All patients undergoing robotic surgery were classified into two groups: the old group (≥ 70 years) and young group (< 70 years). Perioperative outcomes were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Risk factors related to postoperative complications were also explored. A total of old N = 114 and young N = 324 rectal patients were enrolled in our study. Older patients were prone to exhibit comorbidity than the young and had lower body mass index and higher scores of American Society of Anesthesiologists than the young. No statistical difference was found in operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph nodes retrieved, tumor size, pathological TNM stage, hospital stay after surgery and total hospital cost between the two groups. The incidence of postoperative complications did not show difference between the two groups. On multivariate analyses, male sex and longer operative time could predict postoperative complications, whereas old age was not an independent factor for postoperative complications. After careful preoperative evaluation, robotic surgery is a technically feasible and safe procedure for older rectal cancer patients.

Comparison of Short-Term Surgical Outcomes of Two Types of Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Ultrasonic Shears Method Versus the Maryland Bipolar Forceps Method

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the impact and short-term surgical outcomes of two different main energy devices for robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The outcomes of robotic gastrectomy with ultrasonic shears and those of robotic gastrectomy with conventional forceps were compared.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 171 patients who underwent robotic distal gastrectomy or total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. We classified patients into the ultrasonic shears (US) and Maryland bipolar (MB) forceps groups according to the main energy device used for robotic gastrectomy.

RESULTS

We extracted 58 patients from the US group and 58 patients from the MB forceps groups using propensity score matching. The total console time (310 min [interquartile range (IQR), 253-369 min] and 332 min, [IQR, 294-429 min]; p = 0.022) and the console time to gastrectomy (222 min [IQR, 177-266 min] and 247 min [IQR, 208-321 min]; p = 0.004) were significantly shorter in the US group than in the MB forceps group. Less blood loss occurred in the US group than in the MB forceps group (20 mL [IQR, 10-40 mL] and 30 mL [IQR, 16-80 mL]; p = 0.014). The postoperative complication rate and postoperative hospital stay length were similar between groups. A multivariate multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated that the use of an ultrasonically activated device was one an independent factor that reduced the operative time of robotic gastrectomy.

CONCLUSION

Using ultrasonic shears as the main energy device may contribute to better surgical outcomes after robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

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.

Cutting-Edge Developments in Oncology Research

The field of oncology research has made many successful advances, and new discoveries have started making headlines. As an example, the identification of immune checkpoint inhibition mechanisms in carcinogenic cells led to the development of immunoassays, which have helped many cancer convalescents recover. This article covers the most advanced cutting-edge areas of cancer research: exosomes, microbiomes, immunotherapy, nanocarriers, and organoids. Research on exosomes advances cancer detection and treatment modalities, as well as further understanding of mechanisms that regulate carcinogen cell division, proliferation, invasion, and metastasis. Microbiome consents the researchers to understand the disease cancer. Immunotherapy is the third method in the treatment of cancer. Organoid biology will be further expanded with the aim of translating research into customized therapeutic therapies. Nanocarriers enable cancer specific drug delivery by inherent unreceptive targeting phenomena and implemented active targeting strategies. These areas of research may also bring about the advent of the latest cancer treatments in the future. Malignant infections are one of the leading grounds for demise in the society. Patients are treated with surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. In chemotherapy, the malignant cells are destroyed and the tumor burden is reduced. However, in most cases, resistance to chemotherapy develops. Therefore, there is a constant need for new additional treatment modalities and chemotherapeutic complex rules. Due to the rapid development in cancer research, I can only mention a few goals and treatment options that I have chosen; However, this review specializes in new and admirable significant strategies and compounds.

Initial Experience with Robotic Gastrectomy in Patients with Gastric Cancer: An Assessment of Short-Term Surgical Outcomes

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is an alternative minimally invasive surgical technique that has gradually come into use for the treatment of gastric cancer (GC). This study aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of RG for the treatment of GC. We retrospectively reviewed the use of RG in 47 patients with GC, and clinicopathological features and surgical outcomes were evaluated. The median age and body mass index of the patients were 68 years and 21.9 kg/m², respectively. Distal gastrectomy, total gastrectomy, and proximal gastrectomy were performed in 39 (83.0%), 5 (10.6%), and 3 (6.4%) patients, respectively. The median operative time was 354 (256- 603) min. None of the operations were converted to open or laparoscopic procedures. The median blood loss was 15 (2-350) ml. None of the patients required blood transfusion. The mean number of resected lymph nodes was 43 (7-93). The median duration of postoperative hospital stay was 13 (9-37) days. Approximately 4.3% and 2.1% of the patients had anastomotic leakage and pancreatic fistula, respectively. One (2.1%) patient had Clavien-Dindo classification grade IIIa surgical complication (anastomotic leakage). No treatment-related deaths were observed. These findings suggest that RG might be a safe and feasible procedure for the treatment of GC.

Comparison of long-term outcomes after robotic versus laparoscopic radical gastrectomy: a propensity score-matching study

OBJECTIVE

There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the long-term outcomes of robotic radical gastrectomy. The aim of this study was to compare the radical results and long-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic radical gastrectomy.

METHODS

We prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed the general clinicopathological data of gastric cancer patients treated with robotic radical gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic radical gastrectomy (LG) from July 2016 to July 2018 at Fujian Medical University Union Hospital. The RG cohort was matched 1:3 with the LG cohort by using propensity score matching (PSM). The primary endpoints of the study were 3-year overall survival (OS) and 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS).

RESULTS

The study included 221 patients treated with RG and 1106 patients treated with LG for gastric cancer. After PSM, 211 patients were included in the RG cohort, and 663 patients were included in the LG cohort. The 3-year OS rate was 81.0% in the robotic cohort and 79.3% in the laparoscopic cohort (log-rank test, P = 0.516). The 3-year RFS rate was 78.7% in the robotic cohort and 75.6% in the laparoscopic cohort (log-rank test, P = 0.600). In the subgroup analyses, no significant differences were noted between the RG and LG cohorts in terms of 3-year OS and 3-year RFS (all P > 0.05). The therapeutic value index of each lymph node station dissection in the robotic cohort was comparable to that in the laparoscopic cohort.

CONCLUSION

Robotic radical gastrectomy can achieve radical results and long-term outcomes comparable to laparoscopic surgery, and further multicenter prospective studies can be conducted to assess the clinical efficacy of robotic radical gastrectomy.

Analysis of Opioid Use in Patients Undergoing Open Versus Robotic Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive, robotic gastrectomy is associated with better short-term outcomes and quicker functional recovery. However, the degree to which the robotic approach influences postoperative pain and opioid use after gastrectomy is unknown. Our primary aim was to determine whether the robotic approach to gastrectomy reduces postoperative opioid use compared with the open approach.

METHODS

Patients who underwent gastrectomy (November 2018 to September 2021) were identified retrospectively. Clinical characteristics, short-term surgical outcomes, oral morphine equivalent (OME) use, and pain scores were collected. Both groups were managed through an enhanced recovery program in the perioperative period.

RESULTS

Of 81 patients, 50 underwent open and 31 underwent robotic gastrectomy. Compared with open gastrectomy patients, robotic gastrectomy patients had longer surgery time (360 vs. 288 min), less blood loss (50 vs. 138 mL), and shorter hospital stay (4 vs. 6 days) (all medians, P < 0.001). Robotic gastrectomy patients used lower OMEs on postoperative days 0-4 (all P < 0.05) and in total for days 0-4 (total mean dose 65.0 vs. 169.5 mg; P < 0.001) than did open gastrectomy patients. The robotic gastrectomy patients were prescribed a lower mean OME dose than the open gastrectomy patients (19.0 vs. 29.0 mg, respectively; P = 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that robotic approach was associated with lower opioid use (odds ratio 3.70; 95% CI 1.01-14.3; P = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with open gastrectomy, robotic gastrectomy reduces opioid use in the early postoperative period and is associated with fewer OME discharge prescriptions and shorter hospital stay.

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.

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.

The impact of pancreas compression time during minimally invasive gastrectomy on the postoperative complications in gastric cancer

AIM

Pancreas compression during minimally invasive gastrectomy causes blunt injury to the pancreas and leads to postoperative complications. However, the extent of practical compression associated with the incidence of postoperative complications remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of pancreas compression, particularly the duration of compression, on short-term outcomes in minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

This study included 178 patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy at the Shizuoka Cancer Center in 2018. The total time of pancreas compression during gastrectomy was measured using video-reviews, and the correlation between the time and surgical outcomes was evaluated.

RESULTS

A duration of 3 min was selected as the cutoff value of pancreas compression time to predict high drain amylase concentration on postoperative day 1 (≥1000 U/L). The incidence of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (1.5% vs 12.4%, P = .011) and all postoperative complications (12.3% vs 30.1%, P = .010) were significantly higher in the longer-compression group than in the shorter-compression group. The multivariable analysis identified longer compression as the only independent risk factor for postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

More than a few minutes of pancreas compression during minimally invasive gastrectomy was associated with a higher incidence of postoperative complications.

Recent developments in cancer research: Expectations for a new remedy

Cancer research has made remarkable progress and new discoveries are beginning to be made. For example, the discovery of immune checkpoint inhibition mechanisms in cancer cells has led to the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors that have benefited many cancer patients. In this review, we will introduce and describe the latest novel areas of cancer research: exosomes, microbiome, immunotherapy. and organoids. Exosomes research will lead to further understanding of the mechanisms governing cancer proliferation, invasion, and metastasis, as well as the development of cancer detection and therapeutic methods. Microbiome are important in understanding the disease. Immunotherapy is the fourth treatment in cancer therapy. Organoid biology will further develop with a goal of translating the research into personalized therapy. These research areas may result in the creation of new cancer treatments in the future.

Learning curve of robotic distal and total gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess the learning curve of robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) and robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

Data on consecutive patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer by five surgeons between March 2010 and August 2019 at two high-volume institutions were collected. The learning curve was determined based on the analyses of operation time and postoperative complications within 30 days. Cumulative sum analysis (CUSUM) and risk-adjusted-CUSUM (RA-CUSUM) were applied to identify the turning points (TPs).

RESULTS

A total of 899 consecutive patients were included. The mean number of patients needed to overcome the learning curve for operation time of RDG and RTG were 22 and 20, respectively. The number of patients needed to overcome the learning curve for postoperative complications after RDG and RTG were 23 and 18, respectively. The surgical outcomes in the post-TP group were better than in the pre-TP group and improved as surgeons' experience increased. Also, increased case numbers in RDG promoted the RTG learning process.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated a substantial influence of surgical cumulative volume on improved surgical outcomes in robotic gastrectomy. Increased experience in RDG may help surgeons to achieve proficiency faster in RTG.

Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, and robotic distal gastrectomy for early and locally advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of early and locally advanced gastric cancer remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive evaluation of major surgical approaches for operable distal gastric cancer.

METHODS

Systematic review and network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were performed to compare open distal gastrectomy, laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy, and robotic distal gastrectomy. Risk ratio, weighted mean difference, and 95% credible intervals were used as pooled effect size measures.

RESULTS

Seventeen randomized controlled trials (5,909 patients) were included. Overall, 2,776 (46.8%) underwent open distal gastrectomy, 2,964 (50.1%) laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy, and 141 (3.1%) robotic distal gastrectomy. Among these 3 groups, there were no significant differences in 30-day mortality, anastomotic leak, and overall complications. Compared to open distal gastrectomy, laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy was associated with significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss, early postoperative pain, time to first flatus, and hospital length of stay. Similarly, robotic distal gastrectomy was associated with significantly reduced blood loss and time to first flatus compared to open distal gastrectomy. No differences were found in the total number of harvested lymph nodes, tumor-free resection margins, 5-year overall, and disease-free survival. The subgroup analysis in locally advanced gastric cancer showed trends toward reduced blood loss, time to first flatus, and hospital length of stay with minimally invasive approaches but similar overall and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy and robotic distal gastrectomy performed by well-trained experienced surgeons, even in the setting of locally advanced gastric cancer, seem associated with improved short-term outcomes with similar overall and disease-free survival compared with open distal gastrectomy.

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 versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background

Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of gastric cancer (GC). However, whether RDG has a clinical advantage over laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) is yet to be determined. Thus, this study aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of RDG for the treatment of GC as compared with LDG.

Methods

In total, 157 patients were enrolled between February 2018 and August 2020 in this retrospective study. We then compared the surgical outcomes between RDG and LDG using propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis to reduce the confounding differences.

Results

After PSM, a clinicopathologically well-balanced cohort of 100 patients (50 in each group) was analyzed. The operation time for the RDG group (350.1 ± 58.1 min) was determined to be significantly longer than that for the LDG group (257.5 ± 63.7 min; P < 0.0001). Of interest, there was a decreased incidence of pancreatic fistulas and severe complications after RDG as compared with LDG (P = 0.092 and P = 0.061, respectively). In addition, postoperative hospital stay was statistically slightly shorter in the RDG group as compared with the LDG group (12.0 ± 5.6 vs. 13.0 ± 12.3 days; P = 0.038).

Conclusions

Our study confirmed that RDG is a feasible and safe procedure for GC in terms of short-term surgical outcomes. A surgical robot might reduce postoperative severe complications and length of hospital stay.

Robotic-assisted harvest of latissimus dorsi muscle flap for breast reconstruction: review of the literature

Robotic-assisted surgery continues to gain ground over conventional surgical methods, due to reported better results regarding the aesthetic outcome and the decreased percentage of complications. Although latissimus dorsi flap harvesting for breast reconstruction has been already used for several years, a plethora of serious complications has been reported. Recently, minimally invasive surgical approaches, such as robotic-assisted technique, have been suggested with conflicting outcomes to overcome technical difficulties. Therefore, the literature review was conducted regarding robotic-assisted harvesting of the latissimus dorsi flap for breast reconstruction. A narrative review of the contemporary literature was performed in the PubMed database for the use of robotic-assisted surgery of latissimus dorsi muscle flap harvesting for breast reconstruction. Appropriate search terms were used, and specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Five studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 32 cases of robotically assisted harvesting of pedicled latissimus dorsi muscle flap for implant-based breast reconstruction have been identified. All flaps were successfully harvested without converting in the traditional open procedure. There were no significant postoperative complications, expect from few cases of postoperative seromas, which were conservatively managed. Additionally, all patients were satisfied with their postoperative cosmetic outcome. The robotic-assisted harvesting technique of the latissimus dorsi flap for breast reconstruction is safe and comparable to the conventional methods. Reduced hospital stays and superior aesthetic outcome are the main advantages, while total cost and the difficulty of reaching the learning curve plateau are the main concerns regarding this modern and minimally invasive surgical approach.

Efficacy of minimally invasive distal gastrectomy for elderly patients with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer: a propensity-score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Phase III trials have shown the non-inferiority of minimally invasive distal gastrectomy (MIDG) comparison with open distal gastrectomy (ODG) in patients with gastric cancer; however, it remains unclear whether MIDG is also effective in the elderly. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy of MIDG in elderly gastric cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study included 316 patients older than 75 years with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer who underwent distal gastrectomy from August 2008 to December 2016 at the Shizuoka Cancer Centre. The long-term outcomes between MIDG and ODG were compared after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, there were 97 patients each in the MIDG and ODG groups, with an improved balance of confounding factors between the two groups. MIDG was associated with significantly longer operative time and a lower level of blood loss than ODG. The incidence of complications was comparable between the two groups. Survival outcomes were better in the MIDG group than in the ODG group (overall survival; P = 0.034, relapse-free survival; P = 0.027). In the multivariable analysis, ODG [hazard ratio (HR) 1.971, P = 0.046], being 80 years or older (HR 2.285, P = 0.018), male sex (HR 2.428, 95% P = 0.024), and poor physical status (HR 2.324, P = 0.022) were identified as independent prognostic factors for overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that MIDG showed better efficacy than ODG in elderly gastric cancer patients. MIDG is an acceptable option for elderly patients.

Robotic Gastrectomy Compared with Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Clinical Stage I/II Gastric Cancer Patients: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been developed to address the drawbacks of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG); however, whether or not RG is superior to conventional LG remains to be seen. The present study aimed to clarify the impact of RG on clinical stage I/II gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

The present study included 1208 patients with clinical stage I/II gastric cancer who had minimally invasive gastrectomy from January 2012 to March 2020 at the Shizuoka Cancer Center. The short- and long-term outcomes of RG and LG were compared after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

This study involved 835 LG and 345 RG patients. After propensity score matching, there were 342 patients each in the RG and LG groups, with an improved balance of confounding factors between the two groups. RG was associated with a significantly longer operative time and lower amylase concentration in the drainage fluid on the first postoperative day than LG. Furthermore, the incidence of intra-abdominal infectious complications in the RG was lower than that in the LG (4.4% vs. 9.4%; P = 0.015). The survival of the RG and LG groups was equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

RG reduced the risk of intra-abdominal infectious complications in comparison with LG in the propensity score-matched analysis. Patients treated by the two approaches showed equivalent survival.

Short- and long-term comparison of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer by the same surgical team: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Research on short-term outcomes and oncology results after robotic gastrectomy (RG) is still limited, especially from a single surgical team. The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

METHODS

Between October 2014 and September 2019, 1686 consecutive patients who underwent MIS gastrectomy were enrolled. The patients were divided into RG and LG groups according to surgical type. Groups were matched at a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores based on the following variables: age, sex, ASA score, primary tumor location, histologic type, pathological stage, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The primary outcomes were 3-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). The secondary outcomes were postoperative short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups after matching. Compared to the LG group, the RG group had a significantly higher retrieved lymph node (LN) number (32.15 vs 30.82, P = 0.040), more retrieved supra-pancreatic LNs (12.45 vs 11.61, P = 0.028), lower estimated blood loss (73.67 vs 98.08 ml, P < 0.001), but longer operation time (205.18 vs 185.27 min, P < 0.001) and higher hospitalization costs ($13,607 vs $10,928, P < 0.001) in the matched cohort. In the subgroup analysis, we observed that compared with LG, patients with advanced gastric cancer benefitted more from RG surgery. The matched cohort analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences for 3-year OS or RFS (log-rank, P = 0.648 and P = 0.951, respectively): 80.3% and 77.0% in LG vs. 81.2% and 76.6% in RG, respectively.

CONCLUSION

RG has certain technical advantages over LG, especially in patients with advanced gastric cancer. However, RG does not improve long-term oncology outcomes.

Robotic Surgery in Gastrointestinal Surgery

Robotic surgery is expanding in the minimally invasive treatment of gastrointestinal cancer. In the field of gastrointestinal cancer, robotic surgery is performed using a robot-assisted surgery system. In this system, the robot does not operate automatically but is controlled by the surgeon. The surgery assistant robot currently used in clinical practice worldwide is the leader-follower type, including the da Vinci® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical). This review describes the current state of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer and discusses the future development of robotic systems in gastrointestinal surgery.

The pattern of postoperative quality of life following minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a prospective cohort from Korean multicenter robotic gastrectomy trial

Purpose

Quality of life (QOL) has become important in the trend of emphasizing patient satisfaction. This study aimed to evaluate the QOL in patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Methods

A prospective trial was performed involving patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy for primary gastric cancer at 11 hospitals in Korea. Within this comparative trial, QOL, postoperative pain, and long-term complications were exanimated. The quality-of-life questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and QLQ-STO22 developed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer were used for the QOL survey. We compared the data after dividing it into several types of characteristics as follows; device (robotic or laparoscopic), operation type, pathological stage, and sex. Biased components were extracted by logistic regression analysis. Propensity score matching was applied to the data set with the biased components.

Results

In total, 434 patients (211 for laparoscopic surgery and 223 for robotic surgery) were enrolled, out of which 321 patients who responded to both preoperative and postoperative surveys were selected for analysis. Robotic gastrectomy was not different from laparoscopic gastrectomy with respect to postoperative QOL. Distal gastrectomy showed better scores than total gastrectomy in terms of role functioning, social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnea, constipation, financial difficulties, dysphagia, eating restrictions, anxiety, taste, and body image. Male patients showed better scores on the 19 scales compared to female patients.

Conclusion

Robotic and laparoscopic approaches for gastric cancer surgery did not differ from each other with respect to QOL. Distal gastrectomy resulted in better QOL than total gastrectomy.

Long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for clinical stage I gastric cancer: a single-center prospective phase II study

INTRODUCTION

The outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer remain unclear due to a lack of prospective studies. We had previously designed and conducted a prospective phase II study of RG that showed favorable short-term outcomes. Herein, we aimed to determine the long-term outcomes of RG for clinical stage I gastric cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This single-center, prospective phase II study enrolled patients with clinical stage I gastric cancer undergoing RG. The survival outcomes, which were the secondary endpoints of the study, were evaluated.

RESULTS

Between December 2012 and April 2015, 120 patients were enrolled in this study. The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91.5-98.7%). The 5-year recurrence-free (RFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) rates were 96.7% (95% CI 91.5-98.7%) and 99.2% (95% CI 94.3-99.9%), respectively. When confining the analysis to distal and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy, the 5-year OS, RFS, and DSS were 98.1% (95% CI 92.7-99.5%), 98.1% (95% CI 92.7-99.5%), and 100%, respectively. Only one patient died due to relapse of gastric cancer, while three died from other causes.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term outcomes of RG was comparable to those of open and laparoscopic gastrectomy when the surgeries were performed by experienced surgeons in a high-volume center.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Different cognitive styles can affect performance in laparoscopic surgery skill training

BACKGROUND

The lack of depth cues and haptic feedback makes minimally invasive surgery a cognitive challenge. It is therefore important to know which individuals are expected to perform well in minimally invasive surgery. In cognitive psychology, methods are available with which one can measure different cognitive thinking styles. It is well known that these cognitive styles correlate with many different tasks. We investigated whether this method can also predict performance on a box trainer (Lübeck Toolbox^®), a device for training laparoscopic surgery. If so, the method might help to select and train those people who will most likely develop high skills in minimally invasive surgery.

METHODS

Thirty medical students and thirty non-medical students performed five laparoscopic surgical tasks on a box trainer. We measured the time required and the errors participants made on each task. Their cognitive style was measured with a method from cognitive psychology that distinguishes between people who think visually, spatially, or verbally. Furthermore, all students completed a subset of a standard intelligence test (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) and three subtests of the German Medical University Admission Test (TMS).

RESULTS

Participants with spatial thinking styles performed best on the box trainer. Visual and verbal cognitive styles impeded box trainer performance. Performance on the box trainer could also be predicted by the TMS and IQ scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows for the first time that a standard method from cognitive psychology can be used to distinguish between different cognitive styles in surgical education and that these different cognitive styles affect performance on a box trainer. Since the correlation between box trainer performance and surgical proficiency is well documented, the method might be an efficient way to reduce errors and to elevate patient safety in laparoscopic surgery.

Clinical feasibility and safety of third space robotic and endoscopic cooperative surgery for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors dissection : A new surgical technique for treating gastric GISTs

Background

Surgical management of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) has evolved towards minimal invasiveness. Laparoscopic wedge resection and laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery had been considered as standard surgical treatments for gastric GISTs > 2 cm. However, stomach deformation and the full-thickness gastric defect caused by these procedures may increase the risk of morbidity. To address these problems, we developed a novel technique, third space robotic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (TS-RECS), which could dissect the tumor entirely while preserving the intact mucosal layer. Here we performed a prospective evaluation of the feasibility and safety of TS-RECS.

Methods

Patients with gastric GISTs were recruited between April 2018 and April 2019. During the operation, the gastric GIST was located by endoscopic view firstly and the submucosal injection was performed. The tumor was then dissected through robotic surgery. Clinicopathological characteristics, operative data, adverse events, and follow-ups were prospectively collected and analyzed.

Results

A total of 20 patients with gastric GISTs received TS-RECS. The mean tumor size was 33.0 ± 7.3 mm. R0 resection was achieved in all patients with a median operation time of 115 min and a median blood loss of 20 ml. The integrity of mucosal layer was maintained in 95% (19/20) of the patients. All patients started oral diet on postoperative day 1 or 2, staying in the hospital for a median of 6 days after surgery. There were no major adverse events. Local or distant recurrences were not observed during a median follow-up period of 10 months.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that TS-RECS appears to be a feasible and safe technique which could be an alternative method for resecting gastric GISTs > 2 cm.

Clinical Trials

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03804762.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-019-07223-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[Minimally invasive and robotic-assisted surgical management of upper gastrointestinal cancer]

Total minimally invasive upper gastrointestinal resections are currently mainly performed in centers. The advantages include reduction of operative trauma, magnified enlargement of the operation field and the resulting improvement in operative precision. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) and laparoscopic/thoracoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) are currently the most commonly performed strategies for esophageal cancer. Laparoscopic (MIG) and robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) are the equivalent procedures for gastric cancer. Due to the relatively low number of reported cases, no definitive statement regarding superiority of these procedures compared to standard open or hybrid procedures can be made; however, there is mounting evidence from high-volume centers in which these procedures are routinely performed that there might be an advantage regarding perioperative morbidity. All of the four procedures described are provided at our high-volume centers in a standardized manner and we are convinced of the benefits of these minimally invasive techniques with respect to morbidity compared to open and hybrid techniques. The additional costs of this technology have to be off-set against a possible reduction of morbidity, reduced cost for personnel and new operative options, such as real-time fluoroscopy.

Robot-Assisted Total Gastrectomy: Preliminary Evaluation

Background: Laparoscopic total gastrectomy with extended lymphadenectomy is a technically demanding surgical procedure with steep learning curve that has limited its widespread use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the robotic approach in total gastrectomy for cancer. We present our experience of 17 consecutive patients who underwent robotic total gastrectomy with intracorporal sutured Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy and jejuno jejunostomy between 2014 and 2017. Methods: Data were collected, and patients' demographics and outcomes were examined retrospectively. Results: Seventeen patients with a median age of 68 years (range 32-81) were identified (10 males, 7 females). Mean operative time was 198 minutes (range 108-277) including mean anastomosis time of 25 minutes (range 18-35). There was no conversion to open surgery or requirement for perioperative blood transfusion. Median length of hospital stay was 9 days (range 2-30). Two patients developed postoperative complications including one anastomotic leakage treated conservatively and one internal hernia requiring surgical revision. There was no 90-day mortality or readmission. Conclusion: Robot-assisted total gastrectomy is feasible and reproducible. It overcomes several laparoscopic technical difficulties especially regarding anastomosis. It has the potential to become an alternative to open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Nevertheless, further follow-up and randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate mid-term and long-term outcomes of this approach.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Joint consensus on abdominal robotic surgery and anesthesia from a task force of the SIAARTI and SIC

Minimally invasive surgical procedures have revolutionized the world of surgery in the past decades. While laparoscopy, the first minimally invasive surgical technique to be developed, is widely used and has been addressed by several guidelines and recommendations, the implementation of robotic-assisted surgery is still hindered by the lack of consensus documents that support healthcare professionals in the management of this novel surgical procedure. Here we summarize the available evidence and provide expert opinion aimed at improving the implementation and resolution of issues derived from robotic abdominal surgery procedures. A joint task force of Italian surgeons, anesthesiologists and clinical epidemiologists reviewed the available evidence on robotic abdominal surgery. Recommendations were graded according to the strength of evidence. Statements and recommendations are provided for general issues regarding robotic abdominal surgery, operating theatre organization, preoperative patient assessment and preparation, intraoperative management, and postoperative procedures and discharge. The consensus document provides evidence-based recommendations and expert statements aimed at improving the implementation and management of robotic abdominal surgery.

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

Background

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

Patients and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

Since the first report of robotic gastrectomy, experienced laparoscopic surgeons have used surgical robots to treat gastric cancer and resolve problems associated with laparoscopic gastrectomy. However, compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy, the superiority of robotic procedures has not been clearly proven. There are several advantages to using robotic surgery for gastric cancer, such as reduced estimated blood loss during the operation, a shorter learning curve, and a larger number of examined lymph nodes than conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy. The increased operation time observed with a robotic system is decreasing because surgeons have accumulated experience using this procedure. While there is limited evidence, long-term oncologic outcomes appear to be similar between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy. Robotic procedures have a significantly greater financial cost than laparoscopic gastrectomy, which is a major drawback. Recent clinical studies tried to demonstrate that the benefits of robotic surgery outweighed the cost, but the overall results were disappointing. Ongoing studies are investigating the benefits of robotic gastrectomy in more complicated and challenging cases. Well-designed randomized control trials with large sample sizes are needed to investigate the benefits of robotic gastrectomy compared with laparoscopic surgery.

Current status and future perspectives of laparoscopic radical surgery for advanced gastric cancer

Laparoscopic radical gastrectomy with lymph node dissection has widely penetrated to East Asian countries, where incidence of gastric cancer occurrence is higher than the rest of the world. Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for cStageI disease is regarded as one of the option in daily practice in the latest Japanese guidelines; however its applicability to more advanced disease (Stage II/III) is still under debate. Actually, operative techniques of laparoscopic D2 dissection is being matured, but still, necessity of total omentectomy, splenic hilar dissection, management of bulky nodes or large primary tumor, high-level anastomosis in esophageal invasion cases, and extensive peritoneal lavage can be raised as technical limitations. In the future perspective, further technological innovation, including next generation surgical robot, may help surgeons overcome these difficulties. Currently, three large-scaled randomized phase-III clinical trials are ongoing in East Asia, in which patients' accruals have been already completed. With coming long-term outcomes of these well-designed studies, oncological validity of laparoscopic approach will be adequately elucidated.

Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: the American experience

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgical techniques are increasingly being implemented in oncologic care. This study assesses the impact of minimally invasive surgery on oncologic and perioperative outcomes in the management of gastric cancer in the USA.

METHODS

From the American College of Surgeons and American Cancer Society National Cancer Data Base, we identified 6427 patients who underwent gastrectomy for cancer from 2010 to 2012. Treatment groups were categorized with an intention-to-treat paradigm as robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to estimate the impact of the surgical approach on oncologic and perioperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Of patients undergoing definitive surgical intervention, 3.5 % (n = 223) underwent robotic gastrectomy, 23.1 % (n = 1487) underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy, and 73.4 % (n = 4717) underwent open surgery. Minimally invasive gastrectomy was more frequently performed on white (P = 0.018), privately insured patients (P = 0.049) treated at academic centers (P < 0.0001) in the eastern USA (P < 0.0001). After demographics, comorbidities, and tumor-related factors had been controlled for, patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy had the postoperative length of stay decreased by 1.08 days (P < 0.0001) and greater odds of having at least 15 lymph nodes resected (odds ratio 1.16, P = 0.023). Use of robotic surgery did not have a statistically significant effect on the postoperative length of stay relative to open surgery (P = 0.222) but the patients so treated had greater odds of having at least 15 lymph nodes resected (odds ratio 1.51, P = 0.005). There were no differences in R0 resection rates or perioperative mortality on the basis of the surgical approach alone.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that use of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer in the USA is impacting the adequacy of oncologic resection but is not yet having a clinically significant impact on perioperative outcomes relative to a conventional open approach.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

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

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

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

[Robot-assisted gastrectomy for cancer. German version]

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer is commonly considered a challenging procedure. The technical drawbacks of laparoscopy have been addressed by robotic technology, which can facilitate demanding reconstructions and fine dissection. These features confer potential advantages in the execution of lymphadenectomy.

OBJECTIVES

Here, we illustrate our technique of robotic gastrectomy and discuss advantages and drawbacks by reviewing the current literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We describe our technique for robot-assisted distal and total gastrectomy for cancer and assess the current literature dealing with short-term outcomes, immediate oncologic measures, and long-term oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted gastrectomy, in comparison with conventional laparoscopic and open surgery.

RESULTS

The robotic procedure seems to be as safe and effective as conventional gastrectomy for gastric cancer, with a longer operative time and decreased blood loss in comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy.

CONCLUSION

The technical advantages offered by robotics could help to standardize minimally invasive D2 lymphadenectomy and enable surgeons to perform this procedure routinely. Despite the scarcity of long-termdata on survival, immediate oncological measures (lymph node yield and margin status) are encouraging. Further studies investigating the long-term oncological outcomes are required.