Reduced-port totally robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: 100 consecutive cases in comparison with conventional robotic and laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy

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.

Reduced-port robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy with optimized surgical field deployment: early results of single-site plus-two ports method

BACKGROUND

The adoption of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is increasing globally. Meanwhile, reduced-port RPD (RPRPD) remains uncommon, requiring robot-specific techniques not possible with laparoscopy. We introduce a unique RPRPD technique optimizing surgical field exposure.

METHODS

Our RPRPD utilizes a single-site plus-two ports technique, facilitated by a single-port platform through a 5-cm incision. The configuration of robotic arms (arm1, arm2, arm3, and arm4) were strategically designed for optimal procedural efficiency, with the arms2 and arm3, alongside the assistant trocar, mounted on the single-port platform, while the arms1 and arm4 were positioned laterally across the abdomen. Drainage was established via channels created at the arm1 and arm4 insertion sites. A "gooseneck traction" was principally employed with the robotic instrument to prop up the specimen rather than grasp, improving the surgical field's visibility and access. Clinical outcomes of patients who underwent RPRPD performed between August 2020 and September 2023 by a single surgeon across two centers in Taiwan and Japan were reviewed.

RESULTS

Fifty patients underwent RPRPD using the single-site plus-two ports technique. The gooseneck traction technique enabled goodsurgical field deployment and allowed for unrestricted movement of robotic arms with no collisions with the assistant instruments. The median operative time was 351 min (250-488 min), including 271 min (219-422 min) of console time and three minutes (2-10 min) of docking time. The median estimated blood loss was 80 mL (1-872 mL). All RPRPD procedures were successfully performed without the need for conversion to open surgery. Postoperative major morbidity (i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa) was observed in 6 (12%) patients and median postoperative hospital stay was 13 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The single-site plus-two ports RPRPD with the gooseneck traction proves to be a safe, feasible option, facilitating surgical field visibility and robotic arm maneuverability.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Establishing the Learning Curve of Laparoscopic and Robotic Distal Gastrectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal gastrectomy (MIDG) is non-inferior compared with open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. However, MIDG bears a learning curve (LC). This study aims to evaluate the number of cases required to surmount the LC (i.e. NLC) in MIDG.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to August 2022 for studies which reported NLC in MIDG. NLC on reduced-port/single-port MIDG only were separately analysed. Poisson mean (95% confidence interval (CI)) was used to determine NLC. Negative binomial regression was used to compare NLC between laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) and robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG).

RESULTS

A total of 45 articles with 71 data sets (LDG n=47, RDG n=24) were analysed. There were 7776 patients in total (LDG n=5516, RDG n=2260). Majority of studies were conducted in East Asia (n=68/71). Majority (76.1%) of data sets used non-arbitrary methods of analyses. The overall NLC for RDG was significantly lower compared to LDG (RDG 22.4 (95% CI: 20.4-24.5); LDG 46.7 (95% CI: 44.1-49.4); incidence rate ratio 0.48, p<0.001). The median number of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) cases prior was 0 (interquartile range (IQR) 0-105) for LDG and 159 (IQR 101-305.3) for RDG. Meta-regression analysis did not show a significant impact prior experience in LG, extent of lymphadenectomy and intracorporeal vs extracorporeal anastomosis had on overall NLC for LDG and RDG.

CONCLUSION

NLC for RDG is shorter compared to LDG, but this may be due to prior experience in LG and ergonomic advantages of RDG.

Trans-Umbilical Lymphadenectomy Using an Articulating Bipolar Vessel-Sealing Device (TULAB) during Robotic Surgery for Gastric Cancer: Enhancing the Surgeon's Eye for Reduced-Port Robotic Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Docking the scope and instruments through a multi-channel trocar has enabled reduced-port robotic distal gastrectomy (RRDG) for gastric cancer. To facilitate lymphadenectomy over the anatomical hindrances during RRDG, we recently introduced the Vessel Sealer Extend® (VSE) (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), a bipolar vessel-sealing device (BVSD) with an articulating jaw.

METHODS

From May 2020 to August 2023, we performed RRDG to treat T1 gastric cancer. One endoscope arm and three instrument arms of the da Vinci® Xi Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical) were used. During the lymphadenectomy, the endoscope and VSE (Intuitive Surgical) were docked through a multi-channel trocar established on a trans-umbilical incision. Two Cardiere forceps were docked through cannulas established on each flank. A trans-umbilical lymphadenectomy using an articulating BVSD (TULAB) was then performed.

RESULTS

A total of 42 patients underwent planned RRDG with the TULAB technique. The number of retrieved lymph nodes did not differ between the patients who underwent RRDG and those who underwent conventional laparoscopic distal gastrectomies (CLDG) (p = 0.362). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative complications between the RRDG and CLDG group (p = 0.189). The mean time to first semi-fluid diet was shorter in the patients who underwent RRDG than CLDG (p = 0.030), and the incidence of postoperative ileus was lower in the RRDG group than the CLDG group (0% and 9.9%, respectively, p = 0.034).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite use of fewer ports, RRDG with TULAB had similar outcomes to CLDG in terms of the incidence of postoperative morbidity and the number of harvested lymph nodes. Furthermore, by reducing the number of incisions, the incidence of the intra-abdominal adhesions can potentially be lowered when RRDG is used.

Safety and feasibility of reduced-port robotic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a phase I/II clinical trial using the da Vinci Single Port(SP) robotic system

Minimally invasive surgery reduces surgical trauma and the size and number of incisions. The da Vinci SP robotic surgical system was designed to overcome the technical demands of single-incision laparoscopic surgery. This study aimed to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of single-port (SP) robotic distal gastrectomy (SPRDG) for patients with gastric cancer using the da Vinci SP system (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). This study was designed as a single-arm prospective phase I/II clinical trial of SPRDG (first posted date: 21/09/2021, NCT05051670; clinicaltrials.gov). SPRDG using the da Vinci SP system was performed on 19 patients with gastric cancer between December 2021 and October 2022. The primary outcome was the safety of SPRDG as measured by major postoperative complications. The secondary outcomes were operation time, bleeding amount, bowel motility recovery, and length of hospital stay. SPRDG was performed in all 19 patients without unexpected events, such as use of additional trocars or conversion to laparoscopic or open surgery. No major complications occurred postoperatively (0/19, 0.0%). The mean operation time was 218 min (range 164-286 min). The mean hospital stay duration was 3.2 days (range 2-4 days). This phase I/II clinical trial, performed by a single expert surgeon, demonstrated the safety and feasibility of SPRDG with the da Vinci SP system in selected patients with gastric cancer. SPRDG could be a reasonable alternative to conventional or reduced-port minimally invasive gastrectomy, as it has cosmetic advantages, early recovery, and safe discharge.

Fluorescence-guided Two-port Robotic Gastrectomy Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Gastrectomy: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial

Objective

To compare the number of retrieved lymph nodes between conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (CLG) and robotic gastrectomy integrated with fluorescence guidance and a two-port system (integrated robotic gastrectomy, IRG).

Background

The benefits of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer have not yet been established. Using built-in features of robotic system, further benefit can be provided to the patients with effective lymphadenectomy and enhanced recovery.

Methods

A nonrandomized controlled trial was performed by a single surgeon at single-center, tertiary referral hospital between January 2018 and October 2021. Overall, 140 patients scheduled to undergo minimally invasive subtotal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the number of retrieved lymph nodes. Secondary endpoints were complications, hospital stay, pain score, body image, and operative cost.

Results

This study analyzed 124 patients in the per-protocol group (IRG, 64; CLG, 60). The number of retrieved lymph nodes was higher in the IRG group than those in the CLG group (IRG vs CLG; 42.1 ± 17.9 vs 35.1 ± 14.6, P = 0.019). Moreover, other surgical parameters, such as hospital stay (4.1 ± 1.0 vs 5.2 ± 1.8, P < 0.001) and body image scale (better in 4 of the 10 questions), were significantly better in the IRG than in the CLG.

Conclusions

Robotic surgical procedures integrated with fluorescence guidance and a reduced-port system yielded more retrieved lymph nodes. In addition, the IRG group showed better perioperative surgical outcomes, particularly regarding the length of hospital stay and postoperative body image.

Trial registration

NCT03396354.

Reduced-port robotic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a single-institute experience

Background

Reduced-port laparoscopic gastrectomy can potentially reduce postoperative pain and improve recovery time. However, the inherent difficulty caused by the narrow manipulation angle makes this operation difficult, especially during lymph node dissection. The intrinsic advantage of the da Vinci^® robotic system might offset this difficulty, maintaining adequate surgical quality with risks of surgical complications equal to those by the conventional four-port robotic approach. The aim of this study was to compare the reduced-port robotic approach and the conventional four-port approach in terms of postoperative pain and short-term surgical outcomes.

Methods

All patients who underwent radical gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection using the da Vinci Xi robotic system, including reduced-port or conventional four-port approach, were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome was postoperative pain assessed using the numerical rating scale (NRS). The secondary outcomes were the number of harvested lymph nodes, operation time, length of hospital stay, and postoperative 30-day complications.

Results

Forty-eight patients were enrolled in the study, 10 cases in the reduced-port and 38 in the conventional four-port group. Postoperative NRS revealed no significant difference between the reduced-port and conventional four-port groups [postoperative day (POD) 1: 4.5 vs. 3, p = 0.047, POD 3: 4 vs. 3, p = 0.178]. After propensity score matching, there were no significant differences in the median number of harvested lymph nodes, operation time, and length of hospital stay between the groups. The postoperative 30-day complications were more frequent in the conventional four-port group, but there was no significant difference compared with the reduced-port group after propensity score matching.

Conclusions

Reduced-port robotic gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection might be comparable to the conventional four-port robotic operation in terms of postoperative pain, surgical quality, and short-term outcomes. However, further studies are required to confirm our results and clarify the advantages of the robotic reduced-port approach.

Clinical efficacy and safety of robotic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) is a new technique that is rapidly gaining popularity and may help overcome the limitations of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG); however, its safety and therapeutic efficacy remain controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RDG.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies that compared RDG and LDG and were published between the time of database inception and May 2021. We assessed the bias risk of the observational studies using ROBIN-I, and a random effect model was always applied.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 22 studies involving 5386 patients. Compared with LDG, RDG was associated with longer operating time (Mean Difference [MD] = 43.88, 95% CI = 35.17-52.60), less intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 24.84, 95% CI = - 41.26 to - 8.43), a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD = 2.41, 95% CI = 0.77-4.05), shorter time to first flatus (MD = - 0.09, 95% CI = - 0.15 to - 0.03), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = - 0.68, 95% CI = - 1.27 to - 0.08), and lower incidence of pancreatic fistula (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.07-0.79). Mean proximal and distal resection margin distances, time to start liquid and soft diets, and other complications were not significantly different between RDG and LDG groups. However, in the propensity-score-matched meta-analysis, the differences in time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups lost significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, RDG appears feasible and safe, shows better surgical and oncological outcomes than LDG and, comparable postoperative recovery and postoperative complication outcomes.

Textbook outcome and survival of robotic versus laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matched cohort study

Textbook outcome is a composite quality measurement of short-term outcomes for evaluating complex surgical procedures. We compared textbook outcome and survival of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) with those of laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG). We retrospectively reviewed 395 patients (RTG, n = 74; LTG, n = 321) who underwent curative total gastrectomy for gastric cancer via minimally invasive approaches from 2009 to 2018. We performed propensity score matched analysis to adjust for potential selection bias. Textbook outcome included a negative resection margin, no intraoperative complication, retrieved lymph nodes > 15, no severe complication, no reintervention, no unplanned intensive care unit admission, hospitalization ≤ 21 days, no readmission after discharge, and no postoperative mortality. Survival outcomes included 3-year overall and relapse-free survival rates. After matching, 74 patients in each group were selected. Textbook outcome was similar in the RTG and LTG groups (70.3% and 75.7%, respectively), although RTG required a longer operative time. The quality metric least often achieved was the presence of severe complications in both groups (77.0% in both groups). There were no differences in the 3-year overall survival rate (98.6% and 89.7%, respectively; log-rank P = 0.144) and relapse-free survival rate between the RTG and LTG groups (97.3% and 87.0%, respectively; log-rank P = 0.167). Textbook outcome and survival outcome of RTG were similar to those of LTG for gastric cancer.

Choice of LECS Procedure for Benign and Malignant Gastric Tumors

Laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) refers to the endoscopic dissection of the mucosal or submucosal layers with laparoscopic seromuscular resection. We recommend a treatment algorithm for the LECS procedure for gastric benign tumors according to the protruding type. In the exophytic type, endoscopic-assisted wedge resection can be performed. In the endophytic type, endoscopic-assisted wedge resection of the anterior wall is relatively easy to perform, and endoscopic-assisted transgastric resection, laparoscopic-assisted intragastric surgery, or single-incision intragastric resection in the posterior wall and esophagogastric junction (EG Jx) can be attempted. We propose an algorithm for the LECS procedure for early gastric cancer according to the tumor location. The endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedure can be adapted for all areas of the stomach, and single-incision ESD can be performed in the mid to high body and the EG Jx. In full-thickness gastric resection, laparoscopy-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection can be adapted for the entire area of the stomach, but it cannot be applied to the pyloric and EG Jx. In conclusion, surgeons need to select the LECS procedure according to tumor type, tumor location, the surgeon's individual experience, and the situation of the institution while also considering the advantages and disadvantages of each procedure.

D2 Lymph Node Dissections during Reduced-port Robotic Distal Subtotal Gastrectomy and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery Performed by a Single Surgeon in a High-volume Center: a Propensity Score-matched Analysis

Purpose

Various studies have indicated that reduced-port robotic gastrectomies are safe and feasible for treating patients with early gastric cancer. However, there have not been any comparative studies conducted that have evaluated patients with clinically advanced gastric cancer. Therefore, we aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of D2 lymph node dissections during reduced-port robotic distal subtotal gastrectomies (RRDGs) and conventional 5-port laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomies (CLDGs).

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 118 patients with clinically advanced gastric cancer who underwent minimally invasive distal subtotal gastrectomies with D2 lymph node dissections between February 2016 and November 2019. To evaluate the patient data, we performed a 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) according to age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification score, and clinical T status. The short-term surgical outcomes were also compared between the two groups.

Results

The PSM identified 40 pairs of patients who underwent RRDG or CLDG. The RRDG group experienced a significantly longer operation time than the CLDG group (P<0.001), although the RRDG group had significantly less estimated blood loss (P=0.034). The number of retrieved extraperigastric lymph nodes in the RRDG group was significantly higher than that of the CLDG group (P=0.008). The rate of postoperative complications was not significantly different between the two groups (P=0.115).

Conclusions

D2 lymph node dissections can be safely performed during RRDGs and the perioperative outcomes appear to be comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic surgeries. Further studies are needed to compare long-term survival outcomes.