Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Adenocarcinoma: Propensity-Matched Analysis

A systematic review on the effectiveness of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy (RAMIG) is increasingly used as a surgical approach for gastric cancer. This study assessed the effectiveness of RAMIG and studied which stages of the IDEAL-framework (1 = Idea, 2A = Development, 2B = Exploration, 3 = Assessment, 4 = Long-term follow-up) were followed.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, Embase, Pubmed, and Web of Science were searched for studies on RAMIG up to January 2023. Data collection included the IDEAL-stage, demographics, number of participants, and study design. For randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and long-term studies, data on intra-, postoperative, and oncologic outcomes, survival, and costs of RAMIG were collected and summarized.

RESULTS

Of the 114 included studies, none reported the IDEAL-stage. After full-text reading, 18 (16%) studies were considered IDEAL-2A, 75 (66%) IDEAL-2B, 4 (4%) IDEAL-3, and 17 (15%) IDEAL-4. The IDEAL-stages were followed sequentially (2A-4), with IDEAL-2A studies still ongoing. IDEAL-3 RCTs showed lower overall complications (8.5-9.2% RAMIG versus 17.6-19.3% laparoscopic total/subtotal gastrectomy), equal 30-day mortality (0%), and equal length of hospital stay for RAMIG (mean 5.7-8.5 days RAMIG versus 6.4-8.2 days open/laparoscopic total/subtotal gastrectomy). Lymph node yield was similar across techniques, but RAMIG incurred significantly higher costs than laparoscopic total/subtotal gastrectomy ($13,423-15,262 versus $10,165-10,945). IDEAL-4 studies showed similar or improved overall/disease-free survival for RAMIG.

CONCLUSION

During worldwide RAMIG implementation, the IDEAL-framework was followed in sequential order. IDEAL-3 and 4 long-term studies showed that RAMIG is similar or even better to conventional surgery in terms of hospital stay, lymph node yield, and overall/disease-free survival. In addition, RAMIG showed reduced postoperative complication rates, despite higher costs.

Robotic gastrectomy is more beneficial for advanced than early-stage gastric cancer: a comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy using propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is the fifth most prevalent malignancy globally and the fourth major contributor to cancer-related mortality. The comparative effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy (RG) versus laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) at different stages of gastric cancer is unclear regarding surgical and survival outcomes. We compared surgical and survival outcomes between RG and LG in early-stage (cStage I) and advanced (cStage II/III) gastric cancers to elucidate the difference in the efficacy of RG across various stages of gastric cancer.

METHODS

We identified 299 patients (LG, 170; RG, 129) with cStage II/III disease and 569 (LG, 455; RG, 114) with cStage I disease who underwent either LG or RG. Following propensity score matching for RG and LG, 118 pairs were selected for cStage II/II and 113 pairs for cStage I. Surgical and survival outcomes of LG and RG were separately compared for cStage II/III and cStage I.

RESULTS

In cStage II/III, RG showed significantly fewer intra-abdominal complications of Clavien-Dindo (C.D.) Grade ≥ III in the RG group than in the LG group (LG = 8.5 vs. RG = 1.7%, P = 0.033). Multivariate analysis identified LG as an independent risk factor for intra-abdominal complications of C.D. Grade ≥ III (OR 5.69, 95% CI 1.17-27.70, P = 0.031). However, in cStage I, no difference in surgical outcomes between LG and RG was observed. No differences were observed in survival outcomes between LG and RG in both cStage I or cStage II/III.

CONCLUSIONS

The real benefit of RG was demonstrated in surgical outcomes, especially for advanced-stage gastric cancer.

Comparison of short‑term outcomes and 3-year overall survival between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing use of robotic gastrectomy (RG) as an alternative to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in treating gastric cancer, controversy remains over the advantages of RG compared to LG and there is a paucity of studies comparing the two techniques regarding patient survival.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, 675 patients undergoing minimally invasive gastrectomy were recruited from January 2016 to January 2018 (LG: n = 567; RG: n = 108). A one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was applied to minimize the selection bias due to confounding factors, yielding 104 patients in each of the RG and LG groups. After matching, the short-term outcomes and 3-year overall survival were compared in the two groups.

RESULTS

The PSM cohort analysis showed a similar 3-year overall survival between RG and LG groups (p = .249). Concerning the short-term outcomes, the RG compared to LG resulted in lower blood loss (p = .01), lower postoperative complications (p = .001), lower postoperative pain (p = .016), earlier initiation of soft diet (p = .011), shorter hospital stay ‌(p = .012), but higher hospitalization expenses (p = .001).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that RG may offer advantages in terms of blood loss, surgical complications, recovery time, and pain management compared to LG while maintaining similar overall survival rates. However, RG is associated with higher hospital costs, potentially limiting its wider adoption. Further research, including large, multi-center randomized controlled trials with longer patient follow-up, particularly for advanced gastric cancer, is needed to confirm these findings.

Comparison of Short-term and Three-year Oncological Outcomes Between Robotic and Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Large Multicenter Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short-term and long-term outcomes between robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND

The clinical outcomes of RG over LG have not yet been effectively demonstrated.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 3599 patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy at eight high-volume hospitals in China from January 2015 to June 2019. Propensity score matching was performed between patients who received RG and LG. The primary end point was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

After 1:1 propensity score matching, 1034 pairs of patients were enrolled in a balanced cohort for further analysis. The 3-year DFS in the RG and LG was 83.7% and 83.1% ( P =0.745), respectively, and the 3-year overall survival was 85.2% and 84.4%, respectively ( P =0.647). During 3 years of follow-up, 154 patients in the RG and LG groups relapsed (cumulative incidence of recurrence: 15.0% vs 15.0%, P =0.988). There was no significant difference in the recurrence sites between the 2 groups (all P >0.05). Sensitivity analysis showed that RG had comparable 3-year DFS (77.4% vs 76.7%, P =0.745) and overall survival (79.7% vs 78.4%, P =0.577) to LG in patients with advanced (pathologic T2-4a) disease, and the recurrence pattern within 3 years was also similar between the 2 groups (all P >0.05). RG had less intraoperative blood loss, lower conversion rate, and shorter hospital stays than LG (all P >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For resectable gastric cancer, including advanced cases, RG is a safe approach with comparable 3-year oncological outcomes to LG when performed by experienced surgeons.

Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery: Short-Term Outcomes-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 25,521 Patients

Background: Gastric cancer has the third highest cancer-related mortality worldwide. There is no consensus regarding the optimal surgical technique to perform curative resection surgery. Objective: Compare laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and robotic gastrectomy (RG) regarding short-term outcomes in patients with gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched the following topics: "Gastrectomy," "Laparoscopic," and "Robotic Surgical Procedures." The included studies compared short-term outcomes between LG and RG. Individual risk of bias was assessed with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) scale. Results: There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding conversion rate, reoperation rate, mortality, overall complications, anastomotic leakage, distal and proximal resection margin distances, and recurrence rate. However, mean blood loss (mean difference [MD] -19.43 mL, P < .00001), length of hospital stay (MD -0.50 days, P = .0007), time to first flatus (MD -0.52 days, P < .00001), time to oral intake (MD -0.17 days, P = .0001), surgical complications with a Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, P < .0001), and pancreatic complications (RR 0.51, P = .007) were significantly lower in the RG group. Furthermore, the number of retrieved lymph nodes was significantly higher in the RG group. Nevertheless, the RG group showed a significantly higher operation time (MD 41.19 minutes, P < .00001) and cost (MD 3684.27 U.S. Dollars, P < .00001). Conclusion: This meta-analysis supports the choice of robotic surgery over laparoscopy concerning relevant surgical complications. However, longer operation time and higher cost remain crucial limitations. Randomized clinical trials are required to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of RG.

Short-Term and Textbook Surgical Outcomes During the Implementation of a Robotic Gastrectomy Program

BACKGROUND

Whether gastric cancer patients derive greater benefit from robotic gastrectomy (RG), or open gastrectomy (OG) is unknown. We initiated a RG program in 2018, with prospective short-term outcome monitoring to ensure safety. We hypothesized that the RG program for gastric cancer can be safely implemented with equivalent safety and oncological textbook outcomes (TOs) to conventional open gastrectomy (OG).

METHODS

The study included patients who underwent curative-intent OG or RG for gastric adenocarcinoma between January 2018 and December 2021. TO metrics were negative surgical margins, ≥ 15 lymph nodes examined, no severe (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa) postoperative complications, no reinterventions within 90 days after surgery, no ICU admission, no prolonged length of stay (LOS; > 10 days), no 90-day postoperative mortality, and no readmission within 90 days after surgery. Overall TO was achieved when all these metrics were met.

RESULTS

Of 161 patients, 120 underwent OG, and 41 underwent RG. The two groups' demographic and disease characteristics did not differ significantly. Compared with OG patients, RG patients had a longer median surgery time (348 vs. 282 min), smaller median blood loss volume (50 vs. 150 mL), lower mean prescribed opioid dose at discharge (12 vs. 45 mg), and shorter median LOS (4 vs. 7 days; all p < 0.001). The groups' postoperative complication rates (10% vs. 17%) did not differ significantly (p = 0.283). The overall TO rate of the RG group (73%) was higher than that of the OG group (60%), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.131).

CONCLUSION

We were able to implement the RG program safely, without compromising safety or oncological outcomes.

Comparison of Long-Term and Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of PSM and RCT Studies

Background

To investigate the perioperative and oncological outcomes of gastric cancer (GC) after robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy (RG versus LG), we carried out a meta-analysis of propensity score matching (PSM) studies and randomized controlled study (RCT) to compare the safety and overall effect of RG to LG for patients with GC.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible PSM and RCT studies before July 2021. Data on perioperative and oncological outcomes were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, we identified 19 PSM studies and 1 RCT of RG versus LG, enrolling a total of 13,446 patients (6,173 and 7,273 patients underwent RG and LG, respectively). The present meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant differences in tumor size, proximal resection margin distance, distal resection margin distance, abdominal bleeding, ileus, anastomosis site leakage, duodenal stump leakage rate, conversion rate, reoperation, overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate between the two groups. Alternatively, comparing RG with LG, RG has a longer operative time (p < 0.00001), less blood loss (p <0.0001), earlier time to first flatus (p = 0.0003), earlier time to oral intake (p = 0.0001), shorter length of stay (p = 0.0001), less major complications (p = 0.0001), lower overall complications (p = 0.0003), more retrieved lymph nodes (P < 0.0001), and more cost (p < 0.00001).

Conclusions

In terms of oncological adequacy and safety, RG is a feasible and effective treatment strategy for gastric cancer but takes more cost in comparison with LG.

Safe implementation of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer under the requirements for universal health insurance coverage: a retrospective cohort study using a nationwide registry database in Japan

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has increased since being covered by universal health insurance in 2018. However, to ensure patient safety the operating surgeon and facility must meet specific requirements. We aimed to determine whether RG has been safely implemented under the requirements for universal health insurance in Japan.

METHODS

Data of consecutive patients with primary gastric cancer who underwent minimally invasive total or distal gastrectomy-performed by a surgeon certified by the Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery (JSES) endoscopic surgical skill qualification system (ESSQS) between October 2018 and December 2019-were extracted from the gastrointestinal surgery section of the National Clinical Database (NCD). The primary outcome was morbidity over Clavien-Dindo classification grade IIIa. Patient demographics and hospital volume were matched between RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) using propensity score-matched analysis (PSM), and the short-term outcomes of RG and LG were compared.

RESULTS

After PSM, 2671 patients who underwent RG and 2671 who underwent LG were retrieved (from a total of 9881), and the standardized difference of all the confounding factors reduced to 0.07 or less. Morbidity rates did not differ between the RG and LG patients (RG, 4.9% vs. LG, 3.9%; p = 0.084). No difference was observed in 30-day mortality (RG, 0.2% vs. LG, 0.1%; p = 0.754). The reoperation rate was greater following RG (RG, 2.2% vs. LG, 1.2%; p = 0.004); however, the duration of postoperative hospitalization was shorter (RG, 10 [8-13] days vs. LG, 11 [9-14] days; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Insurance-covered RG has been safely implemented nationwide.

Effectiveness and safety of robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of 12,401 gastric cancer patients

Advanced minimally invasive techniques, such as robotic surgeries, are applied increasingly frequently around the world and are primarily used to improve the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Against that background, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy (RG). Studies comparing surgical outcomes between LG and RG patients were retrieved from medical databases, including RCTs and non-RCTs. The primary outcome of this study was overall survival, which was obtained by evaluating the 3-year survival rate and the 5-year survival rate. In addition, postoperative complications, mortality, length of hospital stay, and harvested lymph nodes were also assessed. We also conducted subgroup analyses stratified by resection type, body mass index, age, depth of invasion and tumour size. Ultimately, 31 articles met the criterion for our study through an attentive check of each text, including 1 RCT and 30 non-RCTs. A total of 12,401 patients were included in the analysis, with 8127 (65.5%) undergoing LG and 4274 (34.5%) undergoing RG. Compared with LG, RG was associated with fewer postoperative complications (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.71-0.93; P = 0.002), especially pancreas-related complications (OR 0.376; 95% CI 0.156-0.911; P = 0.030), increased harvested lymph nodes (WMD 2.03; 95% CI 0.95-3.10; P < 0.001), earlier time to first flatus (WMD - 0.105 days; 95% CI - 0.207 to - 0.003; P = 0.044), longer operation time (WMD 40.192 min, 95% CI 32.07-48.31; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD - 20.09 ml; 95% CI - 26.86 to - 13.32; P < 0.001), and higher expense (WMD 19,141.68 RMB; 95% CI 11,856.07-26,427.29; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding 3-year overall survival (OR 1.030; 95% CI 0.784-1.353; P = 0.832), 5-year overall survival (OR 0.862; 95% CI 0.721-1.031; P = 0.105), conversion rate (OR 0.857; 95% CI 0.443-1.661; P = 0.648), postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.368 days; 95% CI - 0.75-0.013; P = 0.059), mortality (OR 1.248; 95% CI 0.514-3.209; P = 0.592), and reoperation (OR 0.855; 95% CI 0.479-1.525; P = 0.595). Our study revealed that postoperative complications, especially pancreas-related complications, occurred less often with RG than with LG. However, long-term outcomes between the two surgical techniques need to be further examined, particularly regarding the oncological adequacy of robotic gastric cancer resections.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy for early-stage gastric cancer: Case series of initial experience

BACKGROUND

In the last decade's robotic gastrectomy (RG) has increasingly widespread as a valid minimally invasive option for treatment of gastric cancer. In literature, evidence of its routine use is not yet well established. The aims of this study are to report our initial experience and to present possible advantages of our hybrid operative technique for subtotal gastrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospectively, we analyzed data from 41 patients (22 male and 19 female) who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (RALG) with D2 lymphadenectomy using the da Vinci XI robotic system. Inclusion criteria were gastric cancer in the middle or lower portion of the stomach amenable of radical subtotal gastrectomy without preoperative suspicion of positive lymph-nodes or other organs involving and distant metastasis. All the procedures were performed by attending surgeons.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 270 min with one case of conversion to open surgery. The mean age was 71.4 (IQR 68.2-76.8) with 43.9% of patients classified as ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score ≥3. The median of lymph-nodes retrieved was 25 (IQR 19-35). No intra-operative complications occurred. Time to resume a soft diet was 5 days. Patients were hospitalized a median of 7 days. According to pathological AJCC-TNM, 21 patients were classified as advanced gastric cancer. Post-operative morbidity was recorded in 9 patients (21.9%) with major complications requiring surgical operation in 4 patients (9.8%). Elevated ASA score, fewer lymph-nodes retrieved and ICU recovery requirements were significant increased in patients with major complications.

CONCLUSION

The preliminary results demonstrated that robot-assisted laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy is safe and feasible. In particular, we found that the da Vinci platform improves surgeon abilities to perform an adequate lymphadenectomy and digestive reconstruction. Further studies are necessary to better clarify the role of this high-cost technology in minimally invasive treatment of gastric cancer.