Systematic assessment of complications after robotic-assisted total versus distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A retrospective propensity score-matched study using Clavien-Dindo classification

Impact of postoperative NSAIDs administration on anastomotic leak after esophago-gastric surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

Anastomotic leak (AL) is a feared complication of esophago-gastric surgery. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat postoperative pain. Previous analyses conveyed heterogeneous data for colorectal surgery with a tendency toward high risk for AL after NSAIDs administration. In the setting of upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgery data are even more puzzled. The purpose of the present study was to assess whether an association exists between postoperative NSAIDs administration and AL after esophago-gastric surgery. PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched up to November 2022. The included studies evaluated outcomes for NSAIDs vs. no NSAIDs administration after esophago-gastric surgery. The primary outcome was anastomotic leak (AL). Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used to assess pooled effect size and relative inference. Six studies (43,784 patients) were included. The patient age ranged from 31 to 84 years, 82.4% were males and preoperative BMI ranged from 15 to 31 kg/m². Esophagectomy was performed in 95% of patients. NSAIDs were administered in 18,075 (41.3%) patients. The cumulative incidence of AL was similar for NSAIDs vs. no NSAIDs (13.6% vs. 13.4%). The risk for postoperative AL was similar for NSAIDs vs. no NSAIDs administration (RR 1.49; 95% CI 0.81-2.75; p = 0.19). The cumulative incidence of postoperative gastrointestinal bleeding (0.36% vs. 0.39%), acute kidney injury (0.62% vs. 0.71%), and in-hospital mortality (2.39% vs. 2.66%) were comparable. NSAIDs administration for postoperative analgesia seems not associated with an increased risk for AL after esophago-gastric surgery.

Definition, Documentation, and Classification of Complications in Pediatric Surgical Literature-A Plea for Standardization

Severity grading systems for complications in surgical patients have been used since 1992. An increasing assessment of these instruments in pediatric surgery is also noticed, without their validation in children. To analyze the current practice, we performed a literature review with focus on the assessment and grading of complications. The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies reporting on postoperative complications as a primary or secondary endpoint using a severity grading system were included. Definition for simple adverse events, classification systems used, and the time horizon of postoperative documentation were analyzed. A total of 566 articles were screened, of which 36 met the inclusion criteria. About 86.1% of the papers were retrospective and 13.9% prospective analyses. None of the studies were prospective-randomized trials. Twenty (55.6%) studies did not include a definition of adverse events, whereas the remaining 16 (44.4%) showed variations in their definitions. All studies applied the Clavien-Dindo classification, whereas five (13.9%) additionally used the Comprehensive Complication Index. One study compared alternative grading instruments with the Clavien-Dindo classification, without demonstrating the superiority of any classification in pediatric surgery. Twenty-two studies (61.1%) did not report the time horizon of perioperative complication documentation, while 8 studies (22.2%) used 30 days and 6 studies (16.7%) used 3 months of postoperative documentation. Definition and classification of postoperative complications are inconsistent in the pediatric surgical literature. Establishment of a standardized protocol is mandatory to accurately compare outcome data.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Comparative Analysis of Postoperative Complications after Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC in Gastric Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) frequently show peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). PC reduces life expectancy and quality of life. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been shown to improve overall survival. Nevertheless, it has been reported that CRS and HIPEC are accompanied by an increase in postoperative complications. The purpose of this study was to investigate the complications associated with CRS and HIPEC and overall and disease-free survival.

METHODS

Patients with AGC and PC, who received complete CRS and HIPEC, were included in the HIPEC group (n = 15). Patients with AGC but without PC, who received resection of the primary tumor alone, constituted the control group (n = 43).

RESULTS

Patients enrolled in the HIPEC group presented with a median PCI of 7. In comparison with the control group, no differences were found in patient characteristics, risk factors, pathological findings, and operative procedures. Twenty-five percentage of the patients in both groups suffered from serious postoperative complications (CDC ≥3a). Surgical and medical complications, rate of reoperation, and mortality did not differ. Also, the recurrence pattern, median survival, and 1- and 2-year survival rates showed no differences.

CONCLUSION

CRS and HIPEC do not lead to an increased postoperative morbidity and mortality in AGC with PC. Albeit the poorer prognosis of patients with PC, survival of both groups was comparable.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on esophageal cancer surgery in Northern Italy: lessons learned from a multicentric snapshot

Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) outbreak has significantly burdened healthcare systems worldwide, leading to reorganization of healthcare services and reallocation of resources. The Italian Society for Study of Esophageal Diseases (SISME) conducted a national survey to evaluate changes in esophageal cancer management in a region severely struck by COVID-19 pandemic. A web-based questionnaire (26 items) was sent to 12 SISME units. Short-term outcomes of esophageal resections performed during the lockdown were compared with those achieved in the same period of 2019. Six (50%) centers had significant restrictions in their activity. However, overall number of resections did not decrease compared to 2019, while a higher rate of open esophageal resections was observed (40 vs. 21.7%; P = 0.034). Surgery was delayed in 24 (36.9%) patients in 6 (50%) centers, mostly due to shortage of anesthesiologists, and occupation of intensive care unit beds from intubated COVID-19 patients. Indications for neoadjuvant chemo (radio) therapy were extended in 14% of patients. Separate COVID-19 hospital pathways were active in 11 (91.7%) units. COVID-19 screening protocols included nasopharyngeal swab in 91.7%, chest computed tomography scan in 8.3% and selective use of lung ultrasound in 75% of units. Postoperative interstitial pneumonia occurred in 1 (1.5%) patient. Recovery from COVID-19 pandemic was characterized by screening of patients in all units, and follow-up outpatient visits in only 33% of units. This survey shows that clinical strategies differed considerably among the 12 SISME centers. Evidence-based guidelines are needed to support the surgical esophageal community and to standardize clinical practice in case of further pandemics.

Treatment of Gastric Cancer Patients During COVID-19 Pandemic: The West is More Vulnerable

The outbreak of the COVID-19 is currently the biggest international concern. Treatment of gastric cancer (GC) patients in the pandemic era with high hospital burden and under severe oncological/surgical resource constraints should implicate a need for resource re-allocation with a new "pandemic" GC treatment algorithm. The neoadjuvant/perioperative (radio-)chemotherapy is applied in the majority of advanced GC cases with poor postoperative therapy compliance. In the East, radical surgery is frequently used in the first instance, with adjuvant chemotherapy reserved for patients with a high risk of recurrence. Moreover, the elderly population might be effectively treated by surgery alone, thus saving oncological resources for younger people who need a more aggressive approach. In this framework, prioritization is a key concept based on the severity of symptoms and the need for urgent (surgical) intervention. High-risk and marginally effective surgery should be replaced with definitive radio- and/or chemotherapy. The pandemic framework to provide optimal care for GC patients must be based on multidisciplinary decision-making and include all anti-cancer treatment options: surgery, systemic therapy, and radiotherapy. The priority and staffing dictate adherence to the new algorithm. We believe that these priorities may improve the delivery of care to all, including elderly GC patients.

Morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a large cohort study

BACKGROUND

Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of gastric cancer in recent year. However, whether RDG could reduce the morbidity when compared to laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes of RDG and LDG for gastric cancer and identify the related risk factors.

METHODS

Between March 2010 and August 2019, consecutive patients undergoing RDG or LDG (519 and 957 patients, respectively) at our institution were included in this study. Postoperative complications were stratified according to the Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification. We performed one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, and evaluated postoperative morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes in PSM 1032 patients undergoing RDG or LDG.

RESULTS

After PSM, the two groups were well-balanced. The mean blood loss of the RDG group was about 27 mL less than that of the LDG group (112.1 vs 139.0 mL, P < 0.001). The RDG group had more retrieved lymph nodes than that in the LDG group (32.7 v 30.2, P < 0.001). The RDG group showed a similar overall (9.9% vs 10.7%, P = 0.682), severe (2.7% vs 3.7%, P = 0.376), local (5.6% vs 5.2%, P = 0.783), and systemic complication rates (5.4% vs 6.0%, P = 0.688). There were no significant differences in mortality between the two groups (RDG 0% vs LDG 0.2%, P = 1.000). Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in most stratified parameters. Age > 65 years and ASA III were identified as two major risk factors for complications.

CONCLUSION

RDG could be a safe and feasible in treating gastric cancer compared to LDG. However, we did not observe significant reduction in postoperative complications of RDG compared with LDG, although the use of robotic system is assumed to provide a technically superior operative environment.

Strategy for the practice of digestive and oncological surgery during the Covid-19 epidemic

The Covid-19 pandemic is changing the organization of healthcare and has a direct impact on digestive surgery. Healthcare priorities and circuits are being modified. Emergency surgery is still a priority. Functional surgery is to be deferred. Laparoscopic surgery must follow strict rules so as not to expose healthcare professionals (HCPs) to added risk. The question looms large in cancer surgery-go ahead or defer? There is probably an added risk due to the pandemic that must be balanced against the risk incurred by deferring surgery. For each type of cancer-colon, pancreas, oesogastric, hepatocellular carcinoma-morbidity and mortality rates are stated and compared with the oncological risk incurred by deferring surgery and/or the tumour doubling time. Strategies can be proposed based on this comparison. For colonic cancers T1-2, N0, it is advisable to defer surgery. For advanced colonic lesions, it seems judicious to undertake neoadjuvant chemotherapy and then wait. For rectal cancers T3-4 and/or N+, chemoradiotherapy is indicated, short radiotherapy must be discussed (followed by a waiting period) to reduce time of exposure in the hospital and to prevent infections. Most complex surgery with high morbidity and mortality-oesogastric, hepatic or pancreatic-is most often best deferred.

[Strategy for the practice of digestive and oncologic surgery in COVID-19 epidemic situation]

La pandémie due au COVID-19 modifie l’organisation des soins et change la réalisation de la chirurgie digestive. Les priorités sanitaires et les circuits de soins sont modifiés. La chirurgie d’urgence reste prioritaire. Les interventions pour chirurgie fonctionnelles sont à reporter. La chirurgie par laparoscopie doit suivre des règles strictes pour ne pas exposer les professionnels à un surrisque. Le questionnement principal concerne la chirurgie oncologique, opérer ou reporter ? Il existe probablement un sur risque opératoire induit par la pandémie qui doit être mis en balance avec le retard de prise en charge chirurgical. Pour chaque type de cancer, colon, pancréas, œsogastrique, hépatocarcinome, la morbi-mortalité est rappelée et mise en parallèle avec le risque oncologique lié au retard à la chirurgie et/ou au temps de doublement de la tumeur. Cette comparaison permet de proposer des stratégies, ainsi pour les cancers coliques (T1-2, N0), il est souhaitable de retarder la chirurgie. Pour les lésions coliques avancées, il semble prudent de recommander une chimiothérapie néo adjuvante et d’attendre. Pour les cancers du rectum T3-4 et/ou N+, une radio-chimiothérapie est indiquée, une radiothérapie courte devra être discutée (suivie d’une période d’attente) afin de réduire le temps d’exposition à l’hôpital et d’éviter les infections. La majorité des chirurgies complexes à forte morbi-mortalité, œsogastrique, hépatique ou pancréatique doivent sans doute le plus souvent être reportée.