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

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

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy (RAMIG) is increasingly used as a surgical approach for gastric cancer. This study assessed the effectiveness of RAMIG and studied which stages of the IDEAL-framework (1 = Idea, 2A = Development, 2B = Exploration, 3 = Assessment, 4 = Long-term follow-up) were followed.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, Embase, Pubmed, and Web of Science were searched for studies on RAMIG up to January 2023. Data collection included the IDEAL-stage, demographics, number of participants, and study design. For randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and long-term studies, data on intra-, postoperative, and oncologic outcomes, survival, and costs of RAMIG were collected and summarized.

RESULTS

Of the 114 included studies, none reported the IDEAL-stage. After full-text reading, 18 (16%) studies were considered IDEAL-2A, 75 (66%) IDEAL-2B, 4 (4%) IDEAL-3, and 17 (15%) IDEAL-4. The IDEAL-stages were followed sequentially (2A-4), with IDEAL-2A studies still ongoing. IDEAL-3 RCTs showed lower overall complications (8.5-9.2% RAMIG versus 17.6-19.3% laparoscopic total/subtotal gastrectomy), equal 30-day mortality (0%), and equal length of hospital stay for RAMIG (mean 5.7-8.5 days RAMIG versus 6.4-8.2 days open/laparoscopic total/subtotal gastrectomy). Lymph node yield was similar across techniques, but RAMIG incurred significantly higher costs than laparoscopic total/subtotal gastrectomy ($13,423-15,262 versus $10,165-10,945). IDEAL-4 studies showed similar or improved overall/disease-free survival for RAMIG.

CONCLUSION

During worldwide RAMIG implementation, the IDEAL-framework was followed in sequential order. IDEAL-3 and 4 long-term studies showed that RAMIG is similar or even better to conventional surgery in terms of hospital stay, lymph node yield, and overall/disease-free survival. In addition, RAMIG showed reduced postoperative complication rates, despite higher costs.

Surgical Techniques and Related Perioperative Outcomes After Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy (RAMIG): Results From the Prospective Multicenter International Ugira Gastric Registry

OBJECTIVE

To gain insight into the global practice of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy (RAMIG) and evaluate perioperative outcomes using an international registry.

BACKGROUND

The techniques and perioperative outcomes of RAMIG for gastric cancer vary substantially in the literature.

METHODS

Prospectively registered RAMIG cases for gastric cancer (≥10 per center) were extracted from 25 centers in Europe, Asia, and South-America. Techniques for resection, reconstruction, anastomosis, and lymphadenectomy were analyzed and related to perioperative surgical and oncological outcomes. Complications were uniformly defined by the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group.

RESULTS

Between 2020 and 2023, 759 patients underwent total (n=272), distal (n=465), or proximal (n=22) gastrectomy (RAMIG). After total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y-reconstruction, anastomotic leakage rates were 8% with hand-sewn (n=9/111) and 6% with linear stapled anastomoses (n=6/100). After distal gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y (67%) or Billroth-II-reconstruction (31%), anastomotic leakage rates were 3% with linear stapled (n=11/433) and 0% with hand-sewn anastomoses (n=0/26). Extent of lymphadenectomy consisted of D1+ (28%), D2 (59%), or D2+ (12%). Median nodal harvest yielded 31 nodes (interquartile range: 21-47) after total and 34 nodes (interquartile range: 24-47) after distal gastrectomy. R0 resection rates were 93% after total and 96% distal gastrectomy. The hospital stay was 9 days after total and distal gastrectomy, and was median 3 days shorter without perianastomotic drains versus routine drain placement. Postoperative 30-day mortality was 1%.

CONCLUSIONS

This large multicenter study provided a worldwide overview of current RAMIG techniques and their respective perioperative outcomes. These outcomes demonstrated high surgical quality, set a quality standard for RAMIG, and can be considered an international reference for surgical standardization.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A Western propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RG) has been shown to be safe and feasible in the treatment of gastric cancer (GC). However, it is unclear whether RG is equivalent to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), especially in the Western world. Our objective was to compare the outcomes of RG and LG in GC patients.

METHODS

We reviewed all gastric adenocarcinoma patients who underwent curative gastrectomy by minimally invasive approach in our institution from 2009 to 2022. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to reduce selection bias. DaVinci Si platform was used for RG.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients were eligible for inclusion (48 RG and 108 LG). Total gastrectomy was performed in 21.3% and 25% of cases in LG and RG, respectively. The frequency of stage pTNM II/III was 48.1%, and 54.2% in the LG and RG groups (p = 0.488). After PSM, 48 patients were matched in each group. LG and RG had a similar number of dissected lymph nodes (p = 0.759), operative time (p = 0.421), and hospital stay (p = 0.353). Blood loss was lower in the RG group (p = 0.042). The major postoperative complications rate was 16.7% for LG and 6.2% for RG (p = 0.109). The 30-day mortality rate was 2.1% and 0% for LG and RG, respectively (p = 1.0). There was no significant difference between the LG and RG groups for disease-free survival (79.6% vs. 61.2%, respectively; p = 0.155) and overall survival (75.9% vs. 65.7%, respectively; p = 0.422).

CONCLUSION

RG had similar surgical and long-term outcomes compared to LG, with less blood loss observed in RG.

Robot-assisted surgery in thoracic and visceral indications: an updated systematic review

BACKGROUND

In surgical advancements, robot-assisted surgery (RAS) holds several promises like shorter hospital stays, reduced complications, and improved technical capabilities over standard care. Despite extensive evidence, the actual patient benefits of RAS remain unclear. Thus, our systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in visceral and thoracic surgery compared to laparoscopic or open surgery.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in two databases (Medline via Ovid and The Cochrane Library) in April 2023. The search was restricted to 14 predefined thoracic and visceral procedures and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Synthesis of data on critical outcomes followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, and the risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's Tool Version 1.

RESULTS

For five out of 14 procedures, no evidence could be identified. A total of 20 RCTs and five follow-up publications met the inclusion criteria. Overall, most studies had either not reported or measured patient-relevant endpoints. The majority of outcomes showed comparable results between study groups. However, RAS demonstrated potential advantages in specific endpoints (e.g., blood loss), yet these findings relied on a limited number of low-quality studies. Statistically significant RAS benefits were also noted in some outcomes for certain indications-recurrence, quality of life, transfusions, and hospitalisation. Safety outcomes were improved for patients undergoing robot-assisted gastrectomy, as well as rectal and liver resection. Regarding operation time, results were contradicting.

CONCLUSION

In summary, conclusive assertions on RAS superiority are impeded by inconsistent and insufficient low-quality evidence across various outcomes and procedures. While RAS may offer potential advantages in some surgical areas, healthcare decisions should also take into account the limited quality of evidence, financial implications, and environmental factors. Furthermore, considerations should extend to the ergonomic aspects for maintaining a healthy surgical environment.

An international Delphi consensus for surgical quality assessment of lymphadenectomy and anastomosis in minimally invasive total gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG) is a mainstay for curative treatment of patients with gastric cancer. To define and standardize optimal surgical techniques and further improve clinical outcomes through the enhanced MITG surgical quality, there must be consensus on the key technical steps of lymphadenectomy and anastomosis creation, which is currently lacking. This study aimed to determine an expert consensus from an international panel regarding the technical aspects of the performance of MITG for oncological indications using the Delphi method.

METHODS

A 100-point scoping survey was created based on the deconstruction of MITG into its key technical steps through local and international expert opinion and literature evidence. An international expert panel comprising upper gastrointestinal and general surgeons participated in multiple rounds of a Delphi consensus. The panelists voted on the issues concerning importance, difficulty, or agreement using an online questionnaire. A priori consensus standard was set at > 80% for agreement to a statement. Internal consistency and reliability were evaluated using Cronbach's α.

RESULTS

Thirty expert upper gastrointestinal and general surgeons participated in three online Delphi rounds, generating a final consensus of 41 statements regarding MITG for gastric cancer. The consensus was gained from 22, 12, and 7 questions from Delphi rounds 1, 2, and 3, which were rephrased into the 41 statetments respectively. For lymphadenectomy and aspects of anastomosis creation, Cronbach's α for round 1 was 0.896 and 0.886, and for round 2 was 0.848 and 0.779, regarding difficulty or importance.

CONCLUSIONS

The Delphi consensus defined 41 steps as crucial for performing a high-quality MITG for oncological indications based on the standards of an international panel. The results of this consensus provide a platform for creating and validating surgical quality assessment tools designed to improve clinical outcomes and standardize surgical quality in MITG.

Short-Term and Textbook Surgical Outcomes During the Implementation of a Robotic Gastrectomy Program

BACKGROUND

Whether gastric cancer patients derive greater benefit from robotic gastrectomy (RG), or open gastrectomy (OG) is unknown. We initiated a RG program in 2018, with prospective short-term outcome monitoring to ensure safety. We hypothesized that the RG program for gastric cancer can be safely implemented with equivalent safety and oncological textbook outcomes (TOs) to conventional open gastrectomy (OG).

METHODS

The study included patients who underwent curative-intent OG or RG for gastric adenocarcinoma between January 2018 and December 2021. TO metrics were negative surgical margins, ≥ 15 lymph nodes examined, no severe (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa) postoperative complications, no reinterventions within 90 days after surgery, no ICU admission, no prolonged length of stay (LOS; > 10 days), no 90-day postoperative mortality, and no readmission within 90 days after surgery. Overall TO was achieved when all these metrics were met.

RESULTS

Of 161 patients, 120 underwent OG, and 41 underwent RG. The two groups' demographic and disease characteristics did not differ significantly. Compared with OG patients, RG patients had a longer median surgery time (348 vs. 282 min), smaller median blood loss volume (50 vs. 150 mL), lower mean prescribed opioid dose at discharge (12 vs. 45 mg), and shorter median LOS (4 vs. 7 days; all p < 0.001). The groups' postoperative complication rates (10% vs. 17%) did not differ significantly (p = 0.283). The overall TO rate of the RG group (73%) was higher than that of the OG group (60%), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.131).

CONCLUSION

We were able to implement the RG program safely, without compromising safety or oncological outcomes.