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

Myosteatosis predicts postoperative complications and long-term survival in robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy is increasingly utilized for gastric cancer, but high morbidity remains a concern. Myosteatosis or low skeletal muscle density reflecting fatty infiltration, associates with complications after other cancer surgeries but has not been evaluated for robotic gastrectomy.

METHODS

This retrospective study analysed 381 patients undergoing robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer from September 2019 to October 2022. Myosteatosis was quantified on preoperative computed tomography (CT) images at lumbar 3 (L3). Propensity score matching addressed potential confounding between myosteatosis and non-myosteatosis groups. Outcomes were postoperative complications, 30 days mortality, 30 days readmissions and survival.

RESULTS

Myosteatosis was present in 33.6% of patients. Myosteatosis associated with increased overall (47.7% vs. 26.5%, p < 0.001) and severe complications (12.4% vs. 4.9%, p < 0.001). After matching, myosteatosis remained associated with increased overall complications, major complications, intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and readmission (all p < 0.05). Myosteatosis independently predicted overall [odds ratio (OR) = 2.86, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.57-5.20, p = 0.001] and severe complications (OR = 4.81, 95% CI: 1.51-15.27, p = 0.008). Myosteatosis also associated with reduced overall (85.0% vs. 93.2%, p = 0.015) and disease-free survival (80.3% vs. 88.4%, p=0.029). On multivariate analysis, myosteatosis independently predicted poorer survival [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.83, 95% CI: 1.32-6.08, p=0.012] and disease-free survival (HR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.01-3.30, p=0.032).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative CT-defined myosteatosis independently predicts increased postoperative complications and reduced long-term survival after robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Assessing myosteatosis on staging CT could optimize preoperative risk stratification.

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.

Current trends in the management of Gastro-oEsophageal cancers: Updates to the ESSO core curriculum (ESSO-ETC-UGI-WG initiative)

Gastro-oEsophageal Cancers (GECs) are severe diseases whose management is rapidly evolving. The European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO) is committed to the generation and spread of knowledge, and promotes the multidisciplinary management of cancer patients through its core curriculum. The present work discusses the approach to GECs, including the management of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancers (OMEC), the diagnosis and management of peritoneal metastases from gastric cancer (GC), the management of Siewert Type II tumors, the importance of mesogastric excision, the role of robotic surgery, textbook outcomes, organ preserving options, the use of molecular markers and immune check-point inhibitors in the management of patients with GECs, as well as the improvement of current clinical practice guidelines for the management of patients with GECs. The aim of the present review is to provide a concise overview of the state-of-the-art on the management of patients with GECs and, at the same time, to share the latest advancements in the field and to foster the debate between surgical oncologists treating GECs worldwide. We are sure that our work will, at the same time, give an update to the advanced surgical oncologists and help the training surgical oncologists to settle down the foundations for their future practice.

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

Distal gastrectomy (DG) with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer is routinely performed. In this meta-analysis, we present an updated overview of the perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic DG (LDG) and robotic DG (RDG) to compare their safety and overall outcomes in patients undergoing DG. An extensive search was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the establishment of the database to June 2023 for randomized clinical trials comparing RDG and LDG. The primary outcome was operative results, postoperative recovery, complications, adequacy of resection, and long-term survival. We identified twenty studies, evaluating 5,447 patients (1,968 and 3,479 patients treated with RDG and LDG, respectively). We observed no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the proximal resection margin, number of dissected lymph nodes, major complications, anastomosis site leakage, time to first flatus, and length of hospital stay. The RDG group had a longer operative time (P < 0.00001), lesser bleeding (P = 0.0001), longer distal resection margin (P = 0.02), earlier time to oral intake (P = 0.02), fewer overall complications (P = 0.004), and higher costs (P < 0.0001) than the LDG group. RDG is a promising approach for improving LDG owing to acceptable complications and the possibility of radical resection. Longer operative times and higher costs should not prevent researchers from exploring new applications of robotic surgery.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy among malnourished patients with gastric cancer based on textbook outcome

BACKGROUND

Textbook outcome (TO) has been widely employed as a comprehensive indicator to assess the short-term prognosis of patients with cancer. Preoperative malnutrition is a potential risk factor for adverse surgical outcomes in patients with gastric cancer (GC). This study aimed to compare the TO between robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) and laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) in malnourished patients with GC.

METHODS

According to the diagnostic consensus of malnutrition proposed by Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) and Nutrition Risk Index (NRI), 895 malnourished patients with GC who underwent RAG (n = 115) or LAG (n = 780) at a tertiary referral hospital between January 2016 and May 2021 were included in the propensity score matching (PSM, 1:2) analysis.

RESULTS

After PSM, no significant differences in clinicopathological characteristics were observed between the RAG (n = 97) and LAG (n = 194) groups. The RAG group had significantly higher operative time and lymph nodes harvested, as well as significantly lower blood loss and hospital stay time compared to the LAG group. More patients in the RAG achieved TO. Logistic regression analysis revealed that RAG was an independent protective factor for achieving TO. There were more adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) cycles in the RAG group than in the LAG group. After one year of surgery, a higher percentage of patients (36.7% vs. 22.8%; P < 0.05) in the RAG group recovered from malnutrition compared to the LAG group.

CONCLUSIONS

For malnourished patients with GC, RAG performed by experienced surgeons can achieved a higher rate of TO than those of LAG, which directly contributed to better AC compliance and a faster restoration of nutritional status.

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.

Advantages of robotic gastrectomy for overweight patients with gastric cancer: a comparison study of robotic gastrectomy and conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy

PURPOSE

A high body mass index (BMI) generally increases the risk of postoperative complications because of the intraperitoneal adipose tissue. Robotic gastrectomy (RG) decreases the surgical difficulty of conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for these patients. We conducted the present study to identify the advantages of RG over LG for overweight patients.

METHODS

We reviewed clinical data on patients who underwent either LG or RG at the National Cancer Center Hospital East between January, 2014 and May, 2022.

RESULTS

The 1298 patients eligible patients were divided into a non-overweight cohort (n = 996) (LG, n = 818; RG, n = 178) and an overweight cohort (n = 302) (LG, n = 250; RG, n = 52) according to a BMI cut-off of 25 kg/m2. In the overweight cohort, the RG group had a lower incidence of grade ≥ III postoperative complications (0.0 vs. 8.8%, p = 0.01) and grade ≥ II postoperative complications (11.5 vs. 22.0%, p = 0.12) than the LG group. Multivariate analysis identified that RG was significantly associated with a lower incidence of grade ≥ II postoperative complications in the overweight cohort (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.87; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

RG may reduce the risk of postoperative complications, compared with conventional LG, in overweight patients.

Robotic versus laparoscopic radical surgery for pediatric congenital biliary dilatation: a comparison of surgical outcomes of a single surgeon's initial experience

PURPOSE

This study aimed to clarify the validity of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for pediatric patients with congenital biliary dilatation (CBD).

METHODS

We retrospectively compared RAS and laparoscopic surgery (LS) for pediatric CBD performed by the same certified surgeon between 2016 and 2022.

RESULTS

We included 6 RAS and 12 LS cases in this study. One case of RAS with laparotomy was excluded from the analysis. The patients in the two groups had comparable ages and body weights. The median surgery duration, the suture time per stitch, and the time to drain removal were 385 min, 145 s, and 5 days in the RAS group and 370 min (p = 0.28), 177 s (p = 0.03), and 6 days (p = 0.03) in the LS group, respectively. The time to create the Roux-en-Y limb was significantly longer in the RAS group. Postoperative complications occurred in one RAS case and in four LS cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Less anastomotic time per stitch and less time to drain removal suggest that RAS may contribute to accurate suturing and fine intra-pancreatic bile duct dissection. In addition, RAS requiring large movements of forceps in a large surgical field, such as Roux-en-Y creation, is inferior to LS.

Comparison of Reporting and Transparency in Published Protocols and Publications in Umbrella Reviews: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Inconsistencies between a protocol and its umbrella review (UR) may mislead readers about the importance of findings or lead to false-positive results. Furthermore, not documenting and explaining inconsistencies in the UR could reduce its transparency. To our knowledge, no study has examined the methodological consistency of the protocols with their URs and assessed the transparency of the URs when generating evidence.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the inconsistency of protocols with their URs in the methodology and assess the transparency of the URs.

METHODS

We searched medical-related electronic databases from their inception to January 1, 2022. We investigated inconsistencies between protocols and their publications and transparencies in the search strategy, inclusion criteria, methods of screening and data extraction, quality assessment, and statistical analysis.

RESULTS

We included 31 protocols and 35 publications. For the search strategy, 39 inconsistencies between the protocols and their publications were found in 26 of the 35 (74%) URs, and 16 of these inconsistencies were indicated and explained. There were 84 inconsistencies between the protocols and their URs regarding the inclusion criteria in 31 of the 35 (89%) URs, and 29 of the inconsistencies were indicated and explained. Deviations from their protocols were found in 12 of the 32 (38%) URs reporting the methods of screening, 14 of the 30 (47%) URs reporting the methods of data extraction, and 11 of the 32 (34%) URs reporting the methods for quality assessment. Of the 35 URs, 6 (17%) were inconsistent with their protocols in terms of the tools for quality assessment; one-half (3/6, 50%) of them indicated and explained the deviations. As for the statistical analysis, 31 of the 35 (89%) URs generated 61 inconsistencies between the publications and their protocols, and 16 inconsistencies were indicated and explained.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high prevalence of inconsistencies between protocols and publications of URs, and more than one-half of the inconsistencies were not indicated and explained in the publications. Therefore, how to promote the transparency of URs will be a major part of future work.

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

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

Intraoperative performance and outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A high-volume center retrospective propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Studies on robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) are currently limited. This study aimed to compare the intraoperative performance as well as short- and long-term outcomes of RTG and laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG).

METHODS

A total of 969 patients underwent robotic (n = 161) or laparoscopic (n = 636) total gastrectomy between October 2014 and October 2021. The two groups of patients were matched 1:3 using the propensity score matching (PSM) method. The intraoperative performance as well as short- and long-term outcomes of the robotic (n = 147) and the laparoscopic (n = 371) groups were compared.

RESULTS

After matching, the estimated intraoperative blood loss was lower (80.51 ± 68.77 vs. 89.89 ± 66.12, p = 0.008), and the total number of lymph node dissections was higher (34.74 ± 12.44 vs. 29.83 ± 12.22, p < 0.001) in the RTG group compared with the LTG group. More lymph node dissections at the upper edge of the pancreas were performed in the RTG group than in the LTG (12.59 ± 4.18 vs. 10.33 ± 4.58, p = 0.001). Additionally, postoperative recovery indicators and laboratory data were greater in the RTG group than those in the LTG group, while postoperative complications were comparable between the two groups (19.0% vs. 18.9%, p = 0.962). For overweight or obese patients with body mass indexes (BMIs) ≥25, certain clinical outcomes of the RTG remained advantageous, and no significant differences in three-year overall survival (OS) or relapse-free survival (RFS) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic total gastrectomy demonstrated better intraoperative performance, could improve the short-term clinical outcomes of patients, and was more conducive to patient recovery. However, the long-term efficacies of the two approaches were similar. Robotic surgical systems may reduce surgical stress responses in patients, allowing them to receive postoperative chemotherapy sooner.

Current Trends in Volume and Surgical Outcomes in Gastric Cancer

Gastric cancer is ranked as the fifth most frequently diagnosed type of cancer. Complete resection with adequate lymphadenectomy represents the goal of treatment with curative intent. Quality assurance is a crucial factor in the evaluation of oncological surgical care, and centralization of healthcare in referral hospitals has been proposed in several countries. However, an international agreement about the setting of “high-volume hospitals” as well as “minimum volume standards” has not yet been clearly established. Despite the clear postoperative mortality benefits that have been described for gastric cancer surgery conducted by high-volume surgeons in high-volume hospitals, many authors have highlighted the limitations of a non-composite variable to define the ideal postoperative period. The textbook outcome represents a multidimensional measure assessing the quality of care for cancer patients. Transparent and easily available hospital data will increase patients’ awareness, providing suitable elements for a more informed hospital choice.

Extended Lymphadenectomy for Gastric Cancer in the Neoadjuvant Era: Current Status, Clinical Implications and Contentious Issues

Despite its decreasing incidence, gastric cancer remains an important global healthcare problem due to its overall high prevalence and high mortality rate. Since the MAGIC and FNLCC/FFCD trials, the neoadjuvant chemotherapy has been recommended throughout Europe in gastric cancer. Potential benefits of preoperative treatments include a higher rate of R0 resection achieved by downstaging the primary tumor, a likely effect on micrometastases and isolated tumor cells in the lymph nodes, and, as a result, improved cancer-related survival. Nevertheless, distortion of anatomical planes of dissection, interstitial fibrosis, and sclerotic tissue changes may increase surgical difficulty. The collection of at least twenty-five lymph nodes after neoadjuvant therapy would seem to ensure removal of undetectable node metastasis and reduce the likelihood of locoregional recurrence. It is not what you take but what you leave behind that defines survival. Therefore, para-aortic lymph node dissection is safe and effective after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, in both therapeutic and prophylactic settings. In this review, the efficacy of adequate lymph node dissection, also in a neoadjuvant setting, has been investigated in the key studies conducted to date on the topic.

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.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review

Background and Objectives: Gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard surgical treatment with curative intent for patients with gastric cancer (GC). Over the last three decades, surgeons have been increasingly adopting laparoscopic surgery for GC, due to its better short-term outcomes. In particular, laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been routinely used for early gastric cancer (EGC) treatment. However, LG suffers from technical limitations and drawbacks, such as a two-dimensional surgical field of view, limited movement of laparoscopic tools, unavoidable physiological tremors and discomfort for operating surgeon. Therefore, robotic surgery has been developed to address such limitations. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines in order to investigate the benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared to the LG. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Re-views, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL) and Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index) databases were used to search all related literature. Results: The 7 included meta-analyses covered an approximately 20 years-study period (2000-2020). Almost all studies included in the meta-analyses were retrospective ones and originated from Asian countries (China and Korea, in particular). Examined overall population ranged from 3176 to 17,712 patients. If compared to LG, RG showed both operative advantages (operative time, estimated blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes) and perioperative ones (time to first flatus, time to restart oral intake, length of hospitalization, overall complications, Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ III complications, pancreatic complications), in the absence of clear differences of oncological outcomes. However, costs of robotic approach appear significant. Conclusions: It is impossible to make strong recommendations, due to the statistical weakness of the included studies. Further randomized, possibly multicenter trials are strongly recommended, if we want to have our results confirmed.

Open and minimally invasive gastrectomy in Eastern and Western patient populations: A review of the literature and reasons for differences in outcomes

Randomized trials in the East have established minimally invasive gastrectomy as possibly superior for short-term outcomes and noninferior for long-term survival. Smaller randomized studies from Western countries have supported these findings. However, there are marked disparities in morbidity, mortality, and overall survival noted between Eastern and Western studies. In this article, we review the literature comparing open and minimally invasive gastrectomy in the East and West, and describe the possible reasons for differences in outcomes.

Risk Assessment and Preventive Treatment for Peritoneal Recurrence Following Radical Resection for Gastric Cancer

As the most common recurrence pattern after radical gastric cancer resection, peritoneal recurrence is a major cause of mortality, which affects the prognosis of patients to a very large extent. Peritoneal status and risk of peritoneal recurrence can be evaluated by peritoneal lavage cytology, photodynamic diagnosis, imaging examination, and pathologic analysis. Presently, there is no standard approach for preventing peritoneal recurrence after radical surgery; furthermore, controversies exist regarding the effects of some preventive methods. Among the preventive methods, there are high expectations about the potential of preoperative therapy, surgical skill improvement, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and postoperative treatment to reduce the incidence of peritoneal recurrence after radical gastrectomy. This study aimed to analyze the results of previous studies on the risk assessment and preventive methods of peritoneal recurrence after radical gastrectomy in recent years. We hope to provide references for better approach to clinical diagnosis and treatment strategies for peritoneal recurrence after radical gastrectomy.