Totally Robotic Distal Gastrectomy: A Safe and Feasible Minimally Invasive Technique for Gastric Cancer Patients Who Undergo Distal Gastrectomy

Experience sharing on perioperative clinical management of gastric cancer patients based on the "China Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery Guidelines"

BACKGROUND

With the popularization of robotic surgical systems in the field of surgery, robotic gastric cancer surgery has also been fully applied and promoted in China. The Chinese Guidelines for Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery was published in the Chinese Journal of General Surgery in August 2021.

METHODS

We have made a detailed interpretation of the process of robotic gastric cancer surgery regarding the indications, contraindications, perioperative preparation, surgical steps, complication, and postoperative management based on the recommendations of China's Guidelines for Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery and supplemented by other surgical guidelines, consensus, and single-center experience.

RESULTS

Twenty experiences of perioperative clinical management of robotic gastric cancer surgery were described in detail.

CONCLUSION

We hope to bring some clinical reference values to the front-line clinicians in treating robotic gastric cancer surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The guidelines were registered on the International Practice Guideline Registration Platform ( http://www.guidelines-registry.cn ) (registration number: IPGRP-2020CN199).

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in patients with obesity: systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

The number of overweight patients with gastric cancer (GC) is increasing, and no previous study has compared laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and robotic gastrectomy (RG) in obese patients with GC. To investigate the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of RG and LG in obese GC patients, we performed a meta-analysis of propensity matched scores and retrospective studies to compare the perioperative parameters, oncologic findings, and short-term postoperative outcomes between the two groups.

Methods

This study was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. A search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register to identify eligible propensity matched scores and retrospective studies conducted and published before December 2022. Data on perioperative and oncological outcomes were included in the meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, we identified 1 propensity score match study and 5 randomized control trials of RG and LG, enrolling a total of 718 patients (197 and 521 patients received RG and LG, respectively). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of complications, bleeding, or lymph node dissection. Of note, RG had a longer procedure time (P = 0.03), earlier oral intake (P = 0.0010), shorter hospital stay (P = 0.0002), and shorter time to defecation (P < 0.00001).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis concluded that patients in the RG group had shorter hospital stays, earlier postoperative feeding, and earlier postoperative ventilation; however, no differences were found in blood loss, number of lymph nodes removed, or overall complications. RG is an effective, safe, and promising treatment for obese patients with GC, compensating for the shortcomings of laparoscopy and allowing for less trauma and faster recovery.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022298967.

Anatomy and assessment of a modified technique during totally robotic distal gastrectomy: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Robotic surgery has potential benefits in the management of gastric cancer patients. This study compares the outcomes between totally robotic distal gastrectomy (TRDG) with modified port placement and arm positioning technique and conventional totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (CTLDG).

Materials and methods

Fifty-two patients were enrolled into the study following a retrospective review of an in-patient database between January 2019 and June 2021. Patients who underwent gastric resection with the modified robotic technique were recruited into the study. Patients who did not receive treatment using the modified technique were excluded from the study. Data on demographic, clinical data and surgical outcomes were collected, analyzed, and presented. All statistical analyses were done using IBM SPSS statistical software.

Results

Nineteen patients were in the TRDG group, and their mean age was 60.42 ± 11.53 years. There were no differences in demographic characteristics (all p > 0.05); nonetheless, laparoscopic patients had a significantly higher preoperative albumin level (p = 0.000). The operative time was longer in the TRDG group (223min), but the difference was insignificant. The reconstruction time was significantly shorter for the laparoscopic group (p = 0.000). Except for a significantly higher value of postoperative albumin level (p-value = 0.005) in the robotic group, there were no significant differences in all other surgical outcomes between the two groups. One (5.3%) patient had a severe complication in the robotic group compared to four (12.1%) in the laparoscopic group. Nevertheless, the differences in complications were statistically insignificant.

Conclusion

The modified approach is a safe and feasible in totally robotic distal gastrectomy for the treatment of gastric cancer patients.

•

The modified approach has an acceptable operative time from the initial results.

•

The short reconstruction time in laparoscopic group is ascribed to the surgeon's experience.

•

The modified approach results in less blood loss, notwithstanding its statistical insignificance.

•

The modified approach produces minimal surgical stress response witnessed by the levels of postoperative albumin.

•

The modified technique produces less severe postoperative complications than conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy.

Comparison of short-term outcomes and quality of life in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy and totally robotic distal gastrectomy for clinical stage I-III gastric cancer: study protocol for a multi-institutional randomised clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) is regarded as a standard treatment for patients with clinical stage I-III gastric cancer. With the popularisation of the Da Vinci robotic system in the 21st century, robotic distal gastrectomy has been increasingly applied, and its potential advantages over LDG have been proved by several studies. Intraperitoneal anastomosis is a hot topic in research as it highlights the superiority of minimally invasive surgery and is safe and feasible. We intend to conduct this randomised clinical trial to focus on short-term outcomes and quality of life (QOL) in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) and totally robotic distal gastrectomy (TRDG) for patients with clinical stage I-III gastric cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is a prospective, multi-institutional, open-label randomised clinical trial that will recruit 722 patients with a 1:1 ratio (361 patients in the TLDG group and 361 patients in the TRDG group) from eight large-scale gastrointestinal medical centres in China. The primary endpoint is 30-day postoperative morbidity. The secondary endpoints include QOL, 30-day severe postoperative morbidity and mortality, anastomotic-related complication rate, conversion to open surgery rate, intraoperative and postoperative indicators, operative and total costs during hospitalisation, 1-year overall survival and disease-free survival. QOL is determined by the The European Organization for Reasearch and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnare-Core 30 and Stomach22 (EORTC QLQ-C30 and STO22) questionnaires which are completed before surgery and 1, 3, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery. χ2 test will be used for the primary endpoint, while analysis of covariance will be used to compare the overall changes of QOL between the two groups.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Chinese PLA General Hospital. The trial's results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2000032670.

The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery versus laparoscopic NOSE for sigmoid and rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery with natural orifice specimen extraction (La-NOSE) is being performed more frequently for the minimally invasive management of sigmoid and rectal cancer. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical and oncological safety and efficacy of La-NOSE versus conventional laparoscopy (CL).

METHODS

A search of the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed for studies that compared clinical or oncological outcomes of conventional laparoscopic resection using NOSE with conventional laparoscopic resection for sigmoid and rectal cancer.

RESULTS

Compared with CL group, the length of hospital stay and the pain score on the first day were shorter in the La-Nose group. The La-NOSE group had a lower incidence of total perioperative complications (OR 0.46; 95% CI [0.32 to 0.66]; I² = 0%; P < 0.0001) and a lower incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) (OR 0.11; 95% CI [0.04 to 0.29]; I² = 0%; P < 0.0001) than the CL group, while the anastomotic leakage showed no significant difference between the La-Nose group and the CL group (P = 0.19). 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year overall survival (OS) were no significant difference between the La-Nose group and the CL group (P = 0.43, P = 0.40, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

La-NOSE can achieve oncological and surgical safety comparable to that of CL for patients with sigmoid and rectal cancer. La-NOSE in patients was associated with a shorter hospital stay, shorter time to first flatus or defecation, less postoperative pain, and fewer surgical site infections (SSIs) and total perioperative complications. In general, the operative time in La-NOSE was longer than that in CL. The long-term oncological efficacy of La-NOSE seems to be equivalent to that of CL.