Impact of an Ultrasonically Activated Device in Robot-Assisted Distal Gastrectomy

Comparison of Short-Term Surgical Outcomes of Two Types of Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Ultrasonic Shears Method Versus the Maryland Bipolar Forceps Method

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the impact and short-term surgical outcomes of two different main energy devices for robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The outcomes of robotic gastrectomy with ultrasonic shears and those of robotic gastrectomy with conventional forceps were compared.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 171 patients who underwent robotic distal gastrectomy or total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. We classified patients into the ultrasonic shears (US) and Maryland bipolar (MB) forceps groups according to the main energy device used for robotic gastrectomy.

RESULTS

We extracted 58 patients from the US group and 58 patients from the MB forceps groups using propensity score matching. The total console time (310 min [interquartile range (IQR), 253-369 min] and 332 min, [IQR, 294-429 min]; p = 0.022) and the console time to gastrectomy (222 min [IQR, 177-266 min] and 247 min [IQR, 208-321 min]; p = 0.004) were significantly shorter in the US group than in the MB forceps group. Less blood loss occurred in the US group than in the MB forceps group (20 mL [IQR, 10-40 mL] and 30 mL [IQR, 16-80 mL]; p = 0.014). The postoperative complication rate and postoperative hospital stay length were similar between groups. A multivariate multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated that the use of an ultrasonically activated device was one an independent factor that reduced the operative time of robotic gastrectomy.

CONCLUSION

Using ultrasonic shears as the main energy device may contribute to better surgical outcomes after robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Advantages of a robotic approach compared with laparoscopy gastrectomy for patients with high visceral fat area

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer surgery for obese patients is regarded as a technically challenging procedure. The morbidity after gastrectomy has been reported to be significantly higher in patients with high visceral fat area (VFA). Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is expected to be advantageous for complicated operations. However, whether RG is superior to conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for patients with visceral fat obesity remains unclear. The present study aimed to clarify the impact of RG on the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with high VFAs.

METHODS

This study included 1306 patients with clinical stage I/II gastric cancer who underwent minimally invasive gastrectomy between January 2012 and December 2020. The patients were subclassified according to VFA. The short- and long-term outcomes of RG were compared with those of LG in two VFA categories.

RESULTS

This study included 394 (high-VFA, 151; low-VFA, 243) and 882 patients (high-VFA, 366; low-VFA, 516) in the RG and LG groups, respectively. RG was associated with a significantly longer operative time than LG (high-VFA, P < 0.001; low-VFA, P < 0.001). The incidence rates of overall and intra-abdominal infectious complications in the high-VFA patients were lower in the RG group than in the LG group (P = 0.019 and P = 0.048, respectively) but not significantly different from those in the low-VFA patients. In the multivariate analysis, LG was identified as the only independent risk factor of overall (odds ratio [OR] 3.281; P = 0.012) and intra-abdominal infectious complications (OR 3.462; P = 0.021) in the high-VFA patients. The overall survival of high-VFA patients was significantly better in the RG group than in the LG group (P = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with visceral fat obesity, RG appears to be advantageous to LG in terms of reducing the risk of complications and better long-term survival.

Less Severe Intra-Abdominal Infections in Robotic Surgery for Gastric Cancer Compared with Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer (GC) on the incidence of postoperative complication is debatable and unclear.

METHODS

This study enrolled 200 patients with GC who were surgically treated and consisted of 100 RG and 100 laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) cases using an ultrasonic scalpel. The short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. These outcomes were compared using a 1:1 propensity score (PS)-matching analysis.

RESULTS

After PS matching, 76 cases in each group were well matched. Mean surgical time was significantly longer in the RG group than in the LG group (393 vs. 342 min, p < 0.005), whereas mean blood loss during surgery was significantly lower in the RG group than in the LG group (30.1 vs. 50.1 mL, p = 0.023). The median number of surgeons who attend the main part of the surgery was significantly less in the RG group than in the LG group (2.0 vs. 3.0, p = 0.01). The rate of severe intra-abdominal infectious complication was significantly lower in the RG group than in the LG group (0% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.014). The duration from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy was significantly shorter in the RG group than in the LG group (29.6 ± 11.0 vs. 45.2 ± 27.8 days, p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

RG using an ultrasonic scalpel may be a viable alternative to LG because of the improvement in the rate of postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications after curative surgery for GC.

Comparisons of surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic total gastrectomy in patients with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The robotic approach is especially promising for challenging surgeries, such as total gastrectomy. However, it remains unclear whether robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) is superior to conventional laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG). The present study aimed to clarify the impact of RTG on short- and long-term outcomes for patients with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer.

METHODS

This study included 98 patients with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer who underwent minimally invasive total gastrectomy from October 2013 to December 2020 at the Shizuoka Cancer Center. The short- and long-term outcomes of RTG were compared with those of LTG.

RESULTS

This study included 36 RTG and 58 LTG patients. RTG was associated with a significantly longer operative time than LTG (p = 0.023). All complications tended to be lower in the RTG group than in the LTG group (2.8% and 15.5%, respectively; p = 0.083). There were no patients with anastomotic leakage in the RTG group. The multivariate analysis identified LTG as the only independent risk factor for postoperative complications (odds ratio, 6.620; 95% confidence interval, 1.132-126.4; p = 0.034). The survival of the RTG and LTG groups was equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

RTG reduced the risk of complications compared to LTG. Patients treated using the two approaches showed equivalent survival.

Robotic Gastrectomy Compared with Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Clinical Stage I/II Gastric Cancer Patients: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been developed to address the drawbacks of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG); however, whether or not RG is superior to conventional LG remains to be seen. The present study aimed to clarify the impact of RG on clinical stage I/II gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

The present study included 1208 patients with clinical stage I/II gastric cancer who had minimally invasive gastrectomy from January 2012 to March 2020 at the Shizuoka Cancer Center. The short- and long-term outcomes of RG and LG were compared after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

This study involved 835 LG and 345 RG patients. After propensity score matching, there were 342 patients each in the RG and LG groups, with an improved balance of confounding factors between the two groups. RG was associated with a significantly longer operative time and lower amylase concentration in the drainage fluid on the first postoperative day than LG. Furthermore, the incidence of intra-abdominal infectious complications in the RG was lower than that in the LG (4.4% vs. 9.4%; P = 0.015). The survival of the RG and LG groups was equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

RG reduced the risk of intra-abdominal infectious complications in comparison with LG in the propensity score-matched analysis. Patients treated by the two approaches showed equivalent survival.

ICG-NIR-guided lymph node dissection during robotic subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. A single-centre experience

BACKGROUND

Near-infrared (NIR) fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green (ICG) allows intraoperative visualisation of the lymph nodes (LNs) draining the tumour.

METHODS

We included in our study 20 patients who underwent robotic subtotal gastrectomy + D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer. In 10 cases, intraoperative ICG-guided lymphography has been used (Group A). We compared the number of LNs retrieved with the use of NIR imaging and the number of LNs retrieved without the use of this technique (Group B, historical group).

RESULTS

No complications related to ICG injection or near-infrared imaging were observed. The mean number of overall LNs retrieved was significantly greater in Group A than in group B (40 vs. 24). No statistically significant difference in operative time was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

ICG-guided fluorescent lymphography can help in performing a more accurate locoregional lymphadenectomy during robotic subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. This technique represents a precious contribution to gastric cancer surgery.