Pancreatic Complications After Conventional Laparoscopic Radical Gastrectomy Versus Robotic Radical Gastrectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The Evolving Surgical Landscape: A Comprehensive Review of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer

Robotic gastrectomy has been gaining ground in the past 20 years. This study aims to (a) provide an updated and all-encompassing comprehensive review including post-operative outcomes, rate of complications, surgical efficiency and costs, pathology, overall survival, mortality and recurrence, and disease-free survival of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy, (b) report research gaps, and (c) identify ongoing or forthcoming clinical trials that could potentially shed light on underreported findings within the existing literature. Regarding the methodology, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses published between January 2012 and October 2023. ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for related clinical trials currently underway or recruiting. Robotic gastrectomy, when compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy, for the treatment of gastric cancer, performs equally well or shows superiority in terms of the length of hospitalization, overall complications rates, rate of conversion to open surgery, surgical complications, anastomotic leakage, pancreatic complications, blood loss, mortality rates, time to first flatus, time to oral intake, distal and proximal resection margins, recurrence rate, reoperation rates, and overall survival. However, it is associated with higher costs and longer operative time. Parameters such as duodenal stump leakage, anastomosis stenosis, intestinal obstruction, ileus, delayed gastric emptying, wound complications, acute pancreatitis, pancreatic fistula, direct costs, time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy, postoperative morbidity, recurrence, and disease-free survival are currently underreported in the literature and necessitate for further research. Lastly, four clinical trials are currently underway or recruiting that could possibly bridge the research gap.

Novel risk prediction models for deep vein thrombosis after thoracotomy and thoracoscopic lung cancer resections, involving coagulation and immune function

The main focus of this study was to compare the predictive value of coagulation, fibrinolysis, thromboelastography, stress response, and immune function in predicting the incidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in lung cancer (LC) patients undergoing thoracoscopic LC resection vs thoracotomy LC resection. To do that, a prospective, single-center, case-control study involving 460 LC patients was conducted. The risk indicators affecting patients with DVT after LC resection in the testing cohort were determined using logistic regression and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analyses. One validation cohort was used to assess the risk prediction models. DVT incidence was higher in the thoracoscopic group (18.7%) than in the thoracotomy group (11.2%) in the testing cohort (χ ² = 4.116, P = 0.042). The final model to predict the incidence of DVT after thoracoscopic LC excision (1 day after surgery) was as follows: Logit(P) = 9.378 - 0.061(R-value) - 0.109(K value) + 0.374(α angle) + 0.403(MA) + 0.298(FIB) + 0.406(D-D) + 0.190(MDA) - 0.097(CD4⁺/CD8⁺). For thoracotomy LC resection, the final model (3 days after operation) was: Logit(P) = -2.463 - 0.026(R-value) - 0.143(K value) + 0.402(α angle) + 0.198(D-D) + 0.237(MDA) + 0.409(SOD). In the validation cohort, this risk prediction model continued to demonstrate good predictive performance. As a result, the predictive accuracy of postoperative DVT in patients who underwent thoracoscopic LC resection and thoracotomy LC resection was improved by risk prediction models.

Surgical considerations and outcomes of minimally invasive approaches for gastric cancer resection

Despite high mortality rates from gastric cancer, surgical management remains critical for curative potential. Optimal outcomes of gastric cancer resection depend on a multitude of variables, including the extent of resection, scope of lymphadenectomy, method of reconstruction, and potential for a minimally invasive approach. Laparoscopic gastrectomy, compared with open gastrectomy, has been analyzed in numerous randomized control trials. Generally, those trials demonstrated statistically similar postoperative complication rates, mortality, and oncologic outcomes between the two approaches. Although laparoscopic gastrectomy requires longer operative times, significant improvements in estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay, and return of bowel function have been noted in patients who undergo laparoscopic gastrectomy. These short-term benefits, along with equivalent oncologic results, have influenced national guidelines in both Eastern and Western countries to recommend laparoscopy, especially for early stage disease. Although robotic gastrectomy has not been as widely validated in effective trials, studies have reported equivalent oncologic outcomes and similar or improved postoperative complication and recovery rates after robotic gastrectomy compared with open gastrectomy. Comparing the two minimally invasive gastrectomy approaches, robotic surgery was associated with improved estimated blood loss, incidence of pancreatic sequela, and lymph node harvests in some studies, whereas laparoscopy resulted in lower operative times and hospital costs. Ultimately, when applying outcomes from the literature to clinical patient care decisions, it is imperative to recognize these studies' range of inclusion criteria, delineating between patients originating from Eastern or Western countries, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the volume of surgeon experience, and the extent of gastrectomy, among others.

Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

Aim

The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of robot-assisted (RAGD2) and laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy (LAGD2) for patients with gastric cancer.

Material and methods

Relevant articles published up to September 2020 were searched. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was used to pool continuous variables, while risk ratio (RR) was calculated for dichotomous outcomes.

Results

RAGD2 required a longer operating time (WMD = 29.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 15.97-43.59) and had less operative blood loss (WMD = -31.93, 95% CI: -44.03 to -19.83), shorter time to first flatus (WMD = -0.13, 95% CI: -0.22 to -0.04), shorter time to liquid diet (WMD = -0.20, 95% CI: -0.28 to 0.12), and fewer severe complications (RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43-0.90) and overall complications (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.62-0.91) than LAGD2.

Conclusions

RAGD2 could be beneficial in reducing operative blood loss and postoperative complications relative to LAGD2.

Pancreas-left gastric artery angle is associated with postoperative inflammation and drain amylase after laparoscopic gastrectomy

INTRODUCTION

The pancreas often interferes with the surgical field during laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and its disorders cause severe postoperative complications. This study aimed to evaluate the association between the anatomical location of the pancreas and surgical outcome and to investigate the optimal surgical position in LG.

METHODS

We newly defined the angle formed between the supra-pancreatic region and the root of the left gastric artery (LGA) as the pancreas-LGA angle (PLA). The association between PLA and surgical outcomes in 107 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) was investigated. Then, the change in PLA before and after insertion of the back pillow in 30 patients with gastric cancer was examined.

RESULTS

The median PLA was 62° (range, 2°-157°). No differences were found in the patient background between patients with small PLA (PLA < 62°; n = 53) and those with large PLA (PLA ≧ 62°; n = 54). The postoperative inflammation response (white blood cells, neutrophils, and C-reactive protein) and amylase concentration in the drainage fluid (D-AMY) were significantly higher in the small PLA group than large PLA group. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that small PLA was an independent risk factor for high D-AMY. After insertion of a back pillow, PLA was noninvasively increased in all patients, and the median PLA was changed to 92° (range, 8°-151°) from 61° (range, 2°-140°). Of 17 patients with small PLA, nine developed large PLA.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that PLA can become one of the indicators of postoperative complications related to anatomical patient factors in LDG.

Comparative Analysis of Clavien-Dindo Grade and Risk Factors of Complications after Dual-Port Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy and Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Gastrectomy

Objective

To compare the Clavien–Dindo grade and risk factors of complications after dual-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (DPLDG) and hand-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy (HALG).

Methods

The clinical data of 775 patients who underwent DPLDG or HALG in our hospital from May 2016 to May 2019 were retrospectively reviewed, and the patients were divided into the DPLDG group (n = 386) and HALG group (n = 389) according to the surgical method to explore the risk factors of postoperative complications by grading their postoperative complications according to the Clavien–Dindo classification system and single-factor and multivariate analysis of the association between variables in clinical data and complications.

Results

Compared with the HALG group, the DPLDG group had significantly shorter surgical time, less intraoperative blood loss, and better postoperative exhaust time (p < 0.05), with no significant difference in other clinical indicators between the two groups (p > 0.05); the postoperative complication incidence rate of DPLDG group was significantly lower than that of the HALG group; it was shown in the single-factor analysis that the age, tumor length, intraoperative blood loss, pathological stages, and surgical method were related to the postoperative complications, and the results of multivariate analysis indicated that DPLDG was the protective factor for reducing postoperative complications, while age no less than 60 years old and intraoperative blood loss no less than 180 ml were the independent risk factors leading to complications; after surgery, the PNI level values at T1, T2, and T3 of DPLDG group were significantly higher than those of the HALG group (p < 0.05); and at 1 month after surgery, both groups obtained significantly higher GLQI scores than before, and the GLQI score of the DPLDG group was significantly higher in the between-group comparison (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The DPLDG has lower postoperative complication incidence rate than the HALG, but age no less than 60 years old and intraoperative blood loss not less than 180 ml are the independent risk factors for postoperative complications, so advanced prevention measures shall be taken to lower the incidence of complications.

Review on Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Robotic Gastrectomy for Cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive gastrectomy is currently considered a valid option to treat gastric cancer and is gaining increasing acceptance. Recent reports have suggested that the application of robots may confer some advantages over conventional laparoscopy, but the role of robotic surgery in clinical practice is still uncertain. We aimed to critically review the relevant evidence comparing robotic to standard laparoscopic surgery in performing radical gastrectomy.

METHODS

The Pubmed/Medline electronic databases were searched through February 2021. Paper conference and the English language was the only restriction applied to our search strategy.

RESULTS

According to the existing data, robotic gastrectomy seems to provide some benefits in terms of blood loss, rate of conversion, procedure-specific postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay. Robotic gastrectomy is also associated with a longer duration of surgery and a higher economic burden as compared to its laparoscopic counterpart. No significant differences have been disclosed in terms of long-term survivals, while the number of lymph nodes retrieved with robotic gastrectomy is generally higher than that of laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The current literature suggests that robotic radical gastrectomy appears as competent as the conventional laparoscopic procedure and may provide some clinical advantages. However, due to the relative paucity of high-level evidence, it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions.

Pancreatic Fistula after D1+/D2 Radical Gastrectomy according to the Updated International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery Criteria: Risk Factors and Clinical Consequences. Experience of Surgeons with High Caseloads in a Single Surgical Center in Eastern Europe

Purpose

Incidence, risk factors, and clinical consequences of pancreatic fistula (POPF) after D1+/D2 radical gastrectomy have not been well investigated in Western patients, particularly those from Eastern Europe.

Materials and Methods

A total of 358 D1+/D2 radical gastrectomies were performed by surgeons with high caseloads in a single surgical center from 2002 to 2017. A retrospective analysis of data that were prospectively gathered in an electronic database was performed. POPF was defined and graded according to the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) criteria. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to identify potential predictors of POPF. Additionally, the impact of POPF on early complications and long-term outcomes were investigated.

Results

POPF was observed in 20 patients (5.6%), according to the updated ISGPS grading system. Cardiovascular comorbidities emerged as the single independent predictor of POPF formation (risk ratio, 3.051; 95% confidence interval, 1.161–8.019; P=0.024). POPF occurrence was associated with statistically significant increased rates of postoperative hemorrhage requiring re-laparotomy (P=0.029), anastomotic leak (P=0.002), 90-day mortality (P=0.036), and prolonged hospital stay (P<0.001). The long-term survival of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma was not affected by POPF (P=0.661).

Conclusions

In this large series of Eastern European patients, the clinically relevant rate of POPF after D1+/D2 radical gastrectomy was low. The presence of co-existing cardiovascular disease favored the occurrence of POPF and was associated with an increased risk of postoperative bleeding, anastomotic leak, 90-day mortality, and prolonged hospital stay. POPF was not found to affect the long-term survival of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma.

Current status of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy

Robotic systems were developed to overcome limitations of laparoscopic surgery with its mechanical advantages. Along with the technical advances, robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer is increasing. However, the evidence regarding safety and efficacy for robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer is not mature yet. Although studies are limited, it is evident that robotic gastrectomy has a longer operation and less blood loss compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy. Studies revealed long-term oncological outcomes after robotic gastrectomy was comparable to those after laparoscopic gastrectomy. Taken together, robotic gastrectomy with systemic lymph node dissection is suggested as a safe procedure with equivalent short- and long-term oncologic outcomes to either laparoscopic or open gastrectomy for the surgical treatment of gastric cancer. However, high cost is the most significant barrier to justify robotic surgery as a routine and standard treatment for patients with gastric cancer. In the meanwhile, robotic surgery will be expansively used as long as technologic developments continue.

Pooled analysis of the oncological outcomes in robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Aim:

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is more and more widely used in the treatment of gastric cancer. However, the long-term oncological outcomes of RG have not been well evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in the treatment of gastric cancer.

Materials and Methods:

PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Cochrane Library and EMBASE electronic databases were searched until August 2019. Eligible studies were analysed for comparison of oncological outcomes between RG and LG in patients with gastric cancer.

Results:

Eleven retrospective comparative studies, which included 1347 (32.52%) patients in the RG group and 2795 (67.48%) patients in the LG group, were selected for the analysis. Meta-analysis of the 11 included studies showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the OS between the RG and LG groups (hazard ratios [HRs] = 0.97, 95% confidence intervals [CIs] = 0.80–1.19, P = 0.80). Six studies evaluated disease-free survival (DFS), and pooled analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference in DFS between RG group and LG group (HR = 0.94, 95% CIs = 0.72–1.23, P = 0.65). According to the odds ratio (OR) analysis, there was no significant difference in 3-year OS, 5-year OS, 3-year DFS and 5-year DFS between the RG and LG groups. Nine articles reported the recurrence rate, and the meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the RG and LG groups (OR = 0.88, 95% CIs = 0.69–1.12, P = 0.31).

Conclusions:

This meta-analysis indicated that the long-term oncological outcomes in the RG group were similar to that in the LG group.

Current perspectives on the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted surgery for gastric cancer

INTRODUCTION

Robotic gastrectomy is performed worldwide as part of the treatment for gastric cancer and is associated with good clinical outcome. This review aims to describe the current issues, debates, and future directions associated with the use of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

AREA COVERED

Here, we review the current evidence surrounding the safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy, including our institutional experience. Current issues associated with robotic gastrectomy, including feasibility, perioperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes, are described.

EXPERT OPINION

Sophisticated movements, articulating instruments, and the rapid introduction of fast-developing novel technology make robotic gastrectomy use more frequent. However, the need for well-designed prospective randomized trials is warranted.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: an overview of systematic reviews with quality assessment of current evidence

Many systematic reviews have been published to evaluate the clinical benefits of robotic surgery for gastric cancer. However, these reviews have investigated various outcomes and differ considerably in quality. In this overview, we summarize the findings and quality of these reviews. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses that compared robotic surgery with laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer. We summarized the results of the meta-analyses and evaluated the quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR-2 tool. The literature search identified 14 eligible reviews. The reviews showed that estimated blood loss was significantly less and time to resumption of oral intake was significantly shorter in patients who underwent robotic surgery than in those who underwent laparoscopic surgery. However, no significant differences in other outcomes were found between the two types of surgery. The quality of the included reviews was judged to be critically low. In conclusion, the available evidence, albeit of critically low quality, suggests that robotic surgery decreases estimated blood loss and shortens the time to resumption of oral intake in patients with gastric cancer. There is currently no high-quality evidence that robotic surgery has clinical benefits for gastric cancer patients.

Non-robotic minimally invasive gastrectomy as an independent risk factor for postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications: A single-center, retrospective and propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer (GC) has gained widespread use as a safe curative procedure especially for early GC.

AIM

To determine risk factors for postoperative complications after minimally invasive gastrectomy for GC.

METHODS

Between January 2009 and June 2019, 1716 consecutive patients were referred to our division for primary GC. Among them, 1401 patients who were diagnosed with both clinical and pathological Stage III or lower GC and underwent robotic gastrectomy (RG) or laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) were enrolled. Retrospective chart review and multivariate analysis were performed for identifying risk factors for postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

Morbidity following minimally invasive gastrectomy was observed in 7.5% of the patients. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that non-robotic minimally invasive surgery, male gender, and an operative time of ≥ 360 min were significant independent risk factors for morbidity. Therefore, morbidity was compared between RG and LG. Accordingly, propensity-matched cohort analysis revealed that the RG group had significantly fewer intra-abdominal infectious complications than the LG group (2.5% vs 5.9%, respectively; P = 0.038), while no significant differences were noted for other local or systemic complications. Multivariate analyses of the propensity-matched cohort revealed that non-robotic minimally invasive surgery [odds ratio = 2.463 (1.070–5.682); P = 0.034] was a significant independent risk factor for intra-abdominal infectious complications.

CONCLUSION

The findings showed that robotic surgery might improve short-term outcomes following minimally invasive radical gastrectomy by reducing intra-abdominal infectious complications.

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a European perspective

Gastrectomy is the mainstay treatment for gastric cancer. To reduce the associated patient burden, minimally invasive gastrectomy was introduced in almost 30 years ago. The increase in the availability of surgical robotic systems led to the first robotic-assisted gastrectomy to be performed in 2002 in Japan. Robotic gastrectomy however, particularly in Europe, has not yet gained significant traction. Most reports to date are from Asia, predominantly containing observational studies. These cohorts are commonly different in the tumour stage, location (particularly with regards to gastroesophageal junctional tumours) and patient BMI compared to those encountered in Europe. To date, no randomised clinical trials have been performed comparing robotic gastrectomy to either laparoscopic or open equivalent. Cohort studies show that robotic gastrectomy is equal oncological outcomes in terms of survival and lymph node yield. Operative times in the robotic group are consistently longer compared to laparoscopic or open gastrectomy, although evidence is emerging that resectional surgical time is equal. The only reproducibly significant difference in favour of robot-assisted gastrectomy is a reduction in intra-operative blood loss and some studies show a reduction in the risk of pancreatic fistula formation.