Surgical Outcomes After Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Assessment of diagnostic value of indocyanine green for lymph node metastasis in laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: a prospective single-center study

PURPOSE

Evaluation of diagnostic value for lymph node (LN) metastasis and LN identification using indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence in laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

A prospective study on 79 patients who underwent radical subtotal gastrectomy with the use of ICG-guided LN dissection. The sensitivity and specificity of the ICG fluorescence lymphography method in detecting metastatic LNs were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 79 patients underwent surgery. The number of LNs was retrieved: 2992 LNs, of which 2392 were fluorescent (79.9%) and 600 were nonfluorescent (20.1%). The average number of LNs dissected was 37.7 ± 11.8 LNs, and the average number of fluorescent LNs was 30.3 ± 11.1; the LN metastasis rates in the total LNs and in the ICG group were 6.79% and 7.34%, respectively. The median number of retrieved LNs in patients with LN metastases (37 [IQR, 33-47]) was higher than in patients without LN metastases (36 [IQR, 27-43]), (P = .348). The median number of fluorescent LNs was significantly higher in patients with LN metastases (32 [IQR, 26-44]) than in those without LN metastases (26 [IQR, 21-36]; P < .001). The sensitivity of ICG in metastasis detection was 75.86% (22 of 29 patients), with a false-negative rate of 24.14% (7 of 29 patients). For the identification of metastatic LNs, the sensitivity of ICG was 90.7%, with the specificity of 20.8%. The negative predictive value of nonfluorescent LNs was 97%.

CONCLUSION

ICG fluorescence lymphography-guided lymphadenectomy can clearly visualize the lymphatic system and the LNs alongside the tumor. The high sensitivity in detecting metastatic LNs and the high negative predictive value of a nonfluorescent LNs suggest that this is an effective method for clinically radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes After Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Radical Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer in Elderly Individuals: A Propensity Score-Matching Study

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been widely used to treat gastric cancer. However, whether the short-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy are superior to those of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer has not been reported.

METHODS

The study enrolled of 594 elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer who underwent robotic or laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. The RG cohort was matched 1:3 with the LG cohort using propensity score-matching (PSM).

RESULTS

After PSM, 121 patients were included in the robot group and 363 patients in the laparoscopic group. Excluding the docking and undocking times, the operation time of the two groups was similar (P = 0.617). The RG group had less intraoperative blood loss than the LG group (P < 0.001). The time to ambulation and first liquid food intake was significantly shorter in the RG group than in the LG group (P < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the two groups (P = 0.14). Significantly more lymph nodes were dissected in the RG group than in the LG group (P = 0.001). Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy was started earlier in the RG group than in the LG group (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

For elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer, RG is safe and feasible. Compared with LG, RG is associated with less intraoperative blood loss; a faster postoperative recovery time, allowing a greater number of lymph nodes to be dissected; and earlier adjuvant chemotherapy.

Impact of Minimally Invasive Approach on Attainment of a Textbook Oncologic Outcome Following Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Review of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

Textbook oncologic outcome (TOO) is a composite outcome measure realized when all desired short-term quality metrics are met following an oncologic operation. This study examined whether minimally invasive gastrectomy (MIG) is associated with increased likelihood of TOO attainment.

METHODS

The 2010-2016 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with gastric cancer who underwent gastrectomy. Surgical approach was described as open (OG), laparoscopic (LG), or robotic (RG). TOO was defined as having met five metrics: R0 resection, AJCC compliant lymph node evaluation (n ≥ 15), no prolonged length of stay (< 75th percentile by year), no 30-day readmission, and receipt of guideline-accordant systemic therapy.

RESULTS

Of 21,015 patients identified, 5708 (27.2%) underwent MIG (LG = 21.9%, RG = 5.3%). Patients who underwent RG were more likely to have met all TOO criteria, and consequently TOO. Logistic regression models revealed that patients undergoing MIG were significantly more likely to attain TOO. MIG was associated with a higher likelihood of adequate LAD, no prolonged LOS, and concordant chemotherapy. Patients who underwent LG and achieved TOO had the highest median OS (86.7 months), while the OG non-TOO cohort experienced the lowest (34.6 months). The median OS for the RG TOO group was not estimable; however, the mortality rate (.7%) was the lowest of the six cohorts.

CONCLUSION

RG resulted in a significantly increased likelihood of TOO attainment. Although TOO is associated with increased OS across all surgical approaches, attainment of TOO following MIG is associated with a statistically significantly higher median OS.

Artificial intelligence in rectal cancer: What is the future?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most prevalent cancer in both men and women, and it is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Around 60%-70% of CRC patients are diagnosed at advanced stages, with nearly 20% having liver metastases. It is noteworthy that the 5-year survival rates decline significantly from 80%-90% for localized disease to a mere 10%-15% for patients with metastasis at the time of diagnosis. Early diagnosis, appropriate therapeutic strategy, accurate assessment of treatment response, and prognostication is essential for better outcome. There has been significant technological development in the last couple of decades to improve the outcome of rectal cancer including Artificial intelligence (AI). AI is a broad term used to describe the study of machines that mimic human intelligence, such as perceiving the environment, drawing logical conclusions from observations, and performing complex tasks. At present AI has demonstrated a promising role in early diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment outcomes for patients with rectal cancer, a limited role in surgical decision making, and had a bright future.

Impact of robotic and open surgery on patient wound complications in gastric cancer surgery: A meta-analysis

This meta-analysis is intended to evaluate the effect of both robotic and open-cut operations on postoperative complications of stomach carcinoma. From the earliest date until June 2023, a full and systemic search has been carried out on four main databases with keywords extracted from 'Robot', 'Gastr' and 'Opene'. The ROBINS-I instrument has been applied to evaluate the risk of bias in nonrandomized controlled trials. In these 11 trials, a total of 16 095 patients had received surgical treatment for stomach cancer and all 11 trials were nonrandomized, controlled trials. Abdominal abscesses were reported in 5 trials, wound infections in 8 trials, haemorrhage in 7 trials, wound dehiscence in 2 trials and total postoperative complications in 4 trials. Meta-analyses revealed no statistically significantly different rates of postoperative abdominal abscesses among patients who had received robotic operations than in those who had received open surgical procedures (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.25, 3.36; p = 0.89). The incidence of bleeding after surgery was not significantly different from that in both groups (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.69, 2.75; p = 0.37). Similarly, there was no significant difference between the two groups (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.52, 1.18; p = 0.24). No significant difference was found between the two groups (OR, 1. 28; 95% CI, 0.75, 2.21; p = 0.36). No significant difference was found between the two groups of patients who had received the robotic operation and those who had received the surgery after the operation (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.78, 1.66; p = 0.49). Generally speaking, this meta-analysis suggests that the use of robotics does not result in a reduction in certain postsurgical complications, including wound infections and abdominal abscesses. Thus, the use of a microinvasive robot for stomach carcinoma operation might not be better than that performed on the surgical site after the operation. This is a valuable guide for the surgeon to select the operative method.

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.

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.

Open vs robotic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis on 1469 patients from the IMIGASTRIC prospective database

BACKGROUND

Comparative data on D2-robotic gastrectomy (RG) vs D2-open gastrectomy (OG) are lacking in the Literature. Aim of this paper is to compare RG to OG with a focus on D2-lymphadenectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Data of patients undergoing D2-OG or RG for gastric cancer were retrieved from the international IMIGASTRIC prospective database and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 1469 patients were selected for inclusion in the study. After 1:1 propensity score matching, a total of 580 patients were matched and included in the final analysis, 290 in each group, RG vs OG. RG had longer operation time (210 vs 330 min, p < 0.0001), reduced intraoperative blood loss (155 vs 119.7 ml, p < 0.0001), time to liquid diet (4.4 vs 3 days, p < 0.0001) and to peristalsis (2.4 vs 2 days, p < 0.0001), and length of postoperative stay (11 vs 8 days, p < 0.0001). Morbidity rate was higher in OG (24.1% vs 16.2%, p = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

RG significantly expedites recovery and reduces the risk of complications compared to OG. However, long-term survival is similar.

Comparison of robotic camera holders with human assistants in endoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic camera holders can overcome the shortcomings of human assistants, such as shaking and accidental rotation in endoscopic surgery. Robotic camera holder is not affected by the operation time and surgical position and reduces the size of the team. However, there is still controversy over the practicality of robotic camera holders.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The last database search was performed on 30 April 2022. Two reviewers independently reviewed the studies.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies (n = 698, 354 controls and 344 robotic camera holders) were included in our analysis. The results showed that the robotic camera holder significantly outperformed human assistants on the frequency of lens cleaning (SMD, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.90 to -0.05) and inappropriate movements (MD, -3.57; 95% CI, -4.93 to -2.21). There was no difference in total operation time (MD, 6.99; 95% CI, -2.47 to 16.72), preparation time (MD, 2.43; 95% CI, -0.32 to 5.18) or blood loss (MD, 34.47; 95% CI, -8.05 to 76.98) between the robotic camera holder and human assistant. However, the robotic camera holder was significantly slower in the core operation (MD, 5.06; 95% CI, 1.18 to 8.94), and surgeons had mixed reviews of robotic systems.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic camera holder provided the surgeon with a highly stable environment. Although the robotic camera holder will not increase the total time, it still needs to improve the core operation time. There is much room for improvement in robotic camera holders. Further development of devices with intuitive control systems and a greater range of motion will be required to accommodate more complex surgeries.

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.

Solo surgery in robot-assisted gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer is still not well standardized. This study aimed to explore the feasibility and effectiveness of solo surgery in robot-assisted gastrectomy (SRG) for gastric cancer compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective comparative study between SRG and conventional LG. Between April 2015 and December 2022, 510 patients underwent gastrectomy, and data from a prospectively collected database were analyzed. We identified 372 patients who underwent LG (n = 267) and SRG (n = 105) and the remaining 138 patients were excluded because of remnant gastric cancer, esophagogastric junction cancer, open gastrectomy, concurrent surgery for concomitant malignancies, RG before starting SRG, or cases in which the author was unable to perform or supervise gastrectomy. Propensity score matching was performed at a ratio of 1:1 to reduce bias from confounding patient-related variables, and short-term outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 90 pairs of patients who underwent LG and SRG were selected. In the propensity-matched cohort, the operation time was significantly shorter in the SRG group than that in the LG group (SRG = 305.7 ± 74.0 min vs. LG = 340.3 ± 91.65 min, p < 0.0058), less estimated blood loss was observed in the SRG group than that in the LG group (SRG = 25.6 ± 50.6 mL vs. LG = 76.1 ± 104.2 mL, p < 0.0001) and postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the SRG group than that in the LG group (SRG = 7.1 ± 0.8 days vs. LG = 9.1 ± 7.7 days, p = 0.015).

CONCLUSION

We found that SRG for gastric cancer was technically feasible and effective with favorable short-term outcomes, including shorter operative time, less estimated blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and lower postoperative morbidity than those in LG.

Short-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic gastrectomy with articulating instruments for gastric cancer compared with the robotic approach

To overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, robotic systems have been commonly used in the era of minimally invasive surgery despite their high cost. However, the articulation of instruments can be achieved without a robotic system at lower cost using articulating laparoscopic instruments (ALIs). Between May 2021 and May 2022, perioperative outcomes following laparoscopic gastrectomy using ALIs versus robotic gastrectomy were compared. A total of 88 patients underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy using ALIs, while 96 underwent robotic gastrectomy. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups except for a higher proportion of patients with a medical history in the ALI group (p = 0.013). Clinicopathologic and perioperative outcomes were not significantly different between the groups. However, the operation time was significantly shorter in the ALI group (p = 0.026). No deaths occurred in either group. In conclusion, laparoscopic gastrectomy using ALIs was associated with comparable perioperative surgical outcomes and a shorter operation time compared to robotic gastrectomy in this prospective cohort study.

Risk factors and conservative therapy outcomes of anastomotic leakage after gastrectomy: Experience of 3,926 patients from a single gastric surgical unit

Background

Anastomotic leakage (AL) after gastrectomy is one of the severest postoperative complications and is related to increasing mortality. In addition, no consensus guidelines about strategies of AL treatment have been established. This large cohort study aimed to inspect the risk factors and efficacy of the conservative treatment for AL in patients with gastric cancer.

Methods

We reviewed the clinicopathological data of 3,926 gastric cancer patients undergoing gastrectomy between 2014 and 2021. Results contained the rate, risk factors, and conservative therapy outcomes of AL.

Results

In total, 80 patients (2.03%, 80/3,926) were diagnosed with AL, and esophagojejunostomy was the most frequent AL site (73.8%, 59/80). Among them, one patient (2.5%, 1/80) died. Multivariate analysis indicated that low albumin concentration (P = 0.001), presence of diabetes (P = 0.025), laparoscopic method (P &lt; 0.001), total gastrectomy (P = 0.003), and proximal gastrectomy (P = 0.002) were predicting factors for AL. The closure rate for the conservative treatment of AL in the first month after AL diagnosis was 83.54% (66/79), and the median time from leakage diagnosis to the closure of leakage was 17 days (interquartile range 11–26 days). Low level of plasma albumin (P = 0.004) was associated with late leakage closures. In terms of 5-year overall survival, no significant difference was observed between patients with and without AL.

Conclusion

The incidence of AL after gastrectomy is associated with low albumin concentration, diabetes, the laparoscopic method, and extent of resection. The conservative treatment is relatively safe and effective for the AL management in patients after gastric cancer surgery.

A comparison of the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic distal gastrectomy: A retrospective study using a nationwide inpatient database

BACKGROUND

Although the safety of robotic distal gastrectomy has been studied in several single-center trials, the nationwide outcomes of robotic distal gastrectomy that meet the requirements of Japanese national health insurance, such as facility case volume and skill level of the surgeon, are still not clear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robotic distal gastrectomy, which was covered by national health insurance, compared to laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

METHODS

We retrieved gastric cancer cases with cStage I to III who underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (15,539 patients) and robotic distal gastrectomy (1,312 patients) between April 2018 and March 2020 from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. We compared the frequency of postoperative complications, anesthesia time, and postoperative hospitalization days between laparoscopic distal gastrectomy and robotic distal gastrectomy using propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

The postoperative complication rate were not different between laparoscopic distal gastrectomy and robotic distal gastrectomy (odds ratio = 0.90, 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 1.23, P = .52). The anesthesia time (minutes) was significantly longer (coefficient = 70.2, 95% confidence interval: 63.8 to 76.7, P < .001) and postoperative hospitalization (days) was significantly shorter (coefficient = -0.89, 95% confidence interval: -1.48 to -0.31, P = .003) in robotic distal gastrectomy than laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic distal gastrectomy that met strict national health insurance coverage requirements in Japan was performed as safely as laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with reduced hospitalization days.

Comparison of short-term efficacy and safety between total robotic and total 3D laparoscopic distal radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol: a propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

The application of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol in gastrointestinal surgery has been widely accepted. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of ERAS in total robotic distal gastrectomy (TRDG) versus 3D total laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (3D-TLDG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 73 patients underwent TRDG and 163 patients who received 3D-TLDG. The propensity score was used for matching analysis according to a 1:1 ratio, so that there was no significant difference in the baseline data between the two groups. The short-term effect and safety of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The TRDG group had a less intraoperative bleeding (30.21 ± 13.78 vs. 41.44 ± 17.41 ml, P < 0.001), longer intraoperative preparation time (31.05 ± 4.93 vs. 15.48 ± 2.43 min, P < 0.001), shorter digestive tract reconstruction time (32.67 ± 4.41 vs. 39.78 ± 4.95 min, P < 0.001), shorter postoperative ambulation time (14.07 ± 8.97 vs. 17.49 ± 5.98 h, P = 0.007), shorter postoperative anal exhaust time (1.78 ± 0.79 vs. 2.18 ± 0.79 days, P = 0.003), shorter postoperative hospital stay (7.74 ± 3.15 vs. 9.97 ± 3.23 days, P < 0.001), lower postoperative pain score (P = 0.006) and higher hospitalization cost (89,907.15 ± 17,147.19 vs. 125,615.82 ± 11,900.80 RMB, P < 0.001) than the 3D-TLDG group.

CONCLUSION

TRDG and 3D-TLDG under ERAS protocol are safe and feasible. Compared with 3D-TLDG, the TRDG has better intraoperative bleeding control effect and greater advantages in digestive tract reconstruction. After the combination of ERAS protocol, TRDG also has certain advantages in the recovery process of patients after surgery.

Postoperative outcomes in robotic gastric resection compared with laparoscopic gastric resection in gastric cancer: A meta‐analysis and systemic review

Background

Robotic gastrectomy is a commonly used procedure for early gastric cancer and it also overcomes the limitation of laparoscopic. However, the complications of robotic gastrectomy (RG) still need to be assessed. Our study was designed to compare postoperative complications of RG with laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

Materials and Methods

A meta‐analysis and systemic review were prospectively collected using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE database of published studies by comparing the RG and LG with gastric cancer up to December 2021. To evaluate the postoperative outcomes, odds ratios were calculated for Dichotomous data and the mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for continuous data, and measured by the random‐effect model.

Results

Thirty‐two retrospective studies describing 13,585 patients (4484 RG and 9101 LG) satisfied the inclusion criteria. A statistically significant result was in blood loss (MD = −17.97, 95% Cl: −25.61 to 10.32, p < 0.001), Clavien−Dindo grade Ⅲ (odds ratio (OR) = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.48−0.76, p < 0.01), and harvested lymph node (MD = 2.62, 95% CI: 2.14−3.11, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between robotic gastrectomy surgery (RGS) and laparoscopic gastrectomy surgery (LGS) regarding distal resection margin (DRM), proximal resection margin (PRM), conversion rate, anastomotic leakage, and overall complications.

Conclusion

Having significant outcomes in Clavien–Dindo grade III, and blood loss, harvested lymph nodes are more common in RGS, and they also help in increasing the quality of life.

A national advanced training program for laparoscopic radical gastrectomy has a positive impact on surgical trainees: A before and after study (ATP-LRG-1)

BACKGROUND

Due to the high technical requirements of laparoscopic radical gastrectomy (LRG), establishing an effective training system to promote clinical technology and operation specifications is necessary. We aimed to evaluate the effect of a national advanced training program for LRG (ATP-LRG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The contents of the training include the following: 1) detailed technique descriptions; 2) prevention and solving of intraoperative complications; 3) live surgery performance; 4) theory and practice of clinical research; 5) comments on trainees' videos; and 6) questions, answers, and discussions. This retrospective before and after study surveyed 875 trainees from January 2015 to October 2020. Endpoints were general surgical skills (GSS), laparoscopic gastrectomy acceptance (LGA), and clinical research possibilities (CRP). The analysis took place in December 2021.

RESULTS

The response rate was 70.5% (617/875). ATP-LRG reportedly had a positive impact on the LRG practice of 99.5% (614/617) of trainees. Their GSS (before vs. after: 16.5 ± 3.7 vs. 20.3 ± 3.1, P < 0.001), LGA (4.2 ± 0.9 vs. 4.6 ± 0.7, P < 0.001), and CRP (2.6 ± 1.2 vs. 3.2 ± 1.1, P < 0.001) significantly improved. The improvement in GSS for those with professional titles of associate chief surgeons and below was significantly higher than that for chief surgeons (4.0 ± 3.0 vs 3.3 ± 2.4, P = 0.017), while those of LGA and CRP were not. The annual number of operations before training was negatively correlated with improvement in GSS (P < 0.001, Pearson's correlation coefficient: 0.14). Multivariate logistic regression showed that those with professional titles of associate chief surgeons and below (odds ratio [OR]: 1.719, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.038-2.846, P = 0.035), and with annual number of operations before training being <60, (OR: 5.257, 95% CI: 2.573-10.742, P < 0.001) were most prone to high-GSS improvement.

CONCLUSION

The nationwide ATP-LRG facilitates the improvement of trainees' GSS, LGA, and CRP levels. Surgeons with lower professional titles and fewer performed operations are most likely to improve their GSS through training.

What is necessary to shorten the operative time in initial introduction of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer?

INTRODUCTION

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is a good alternative to laparoscopic gastrectomy, as it improves treatment outcomes and reduces the burden of technical difficulties; however, prolonged operative time may be a disadvantage. This study aimed to identify measures to shorten the operative time during the initial introduction of RG at an institution.

METHODS

We assessed 33 patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical distal gastrectomy with Billroth-I reconstruction and divided them into three groups: laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG), robotic distal gastrectomy in the early phase (RDG-E), and in the late phase (RDG-L). Operative time, six technical steps, and junk time, including the roll-in/roll-out, docking/undocking, and instrument exchange times, were compared among the groups.

RESULTS

The median (range) overall operative times of LDG, RDG-E, and RDG-L were 248 (179-323), 304 (249-383), and 263 (220-367) min, respectively, but no significant differences were observed. For each surgical step of RG, RDG-L in suprapancreatic lymph node dissection was significantly shorter than that in RDG-E. The median (range) junk times of LDG, RDG-E, and RDG-L were 16.7 (12.7-26.4), 48.3 (38.6-67.7), and 42.0 (35.4-49.2) min, respectively. Junk time was significantly longer in RDG-L than in LDG (p = 0.003), but not significant between RDG-E and RDG-L. The learning curve effect of overall, console, and junk times were achieved in four cases of RDG.

CONCLUSION

Junk time is a major factor in prolonging RDG operative time. However, to reduce the time after initial introduction, measures to promote robot-specific standardization and more effective use of robotic instruments are essential.

Surgical invasiveness and lymphadenectomy in robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy: A retrospective study with propensity-score matching

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus amongst comparative studies about the advantages of robotic over laparoscopic surgeries for gastric cancer (GC). We compared invasiveness and lymph node dissection between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomies (RG and LG).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 215 consecutive patients with GC who underwent RG or LG with lymphadenectomy from January 2011-December 2020. Propensity score matching analysis was performed to control selection bias.

RESULTS

The RG group had less operative blood loss (P = 0.0005) and higher C-reactive protein levels on postoperative day 1 (P = 0.0006) than the LG group. When analyzing the specific sites of dissected lymph nodes, station groups of supra-pancreatic and lesser curvature areas accounted for this difference (P = 0.0073 and 0.0362, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

RG demonstrated lesser intraoperative bleeding, less of a postoperative inflammatory response, and a higher proportion of lymph node removal than LG, suggesting that it is a better surgical and oncological procedure.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Mega Meta-Analysis

Background

Laparoscopic gastrectomy and robotic gastrectomy are the most widely adopted treatment of choice for gastric cancer. To systematically assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis on short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy.

Methods

In order to find relevant studies on the efficacy and safety of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in the treatment of gastric cancer, numerous medical databases including PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, and China Journal Full-text Database (CNKI) were consulted, and Chinese and English studies on the efficacy and safety of RG and LG in the treatment of gastric cancer published from 2012 to 2022 were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.

Results

The meta-analysis inlcuded 48 literatures, with 20,151 gastric cancer patients, including 6,175 in the RG group and 13,976 in the LG group, respectively. Results of our meta-analysis showed that RG group had prololonged operative time (WMD = 35.72, 95% CI = 28.59–42.86, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 258.69 min ± 32.98; LG: mean ± SD = 221.85 min ± 31.18), reduced blood loss (WMD = −21.93, 95% CI = −28.94 to −14.91, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 105.22 ml ± 62.79; LG: mean ± SD = 127.34 ml ± 79.62), higher number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.99–3.63, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 35.88 ± 4.14; LG: mean ± SD = 32.73 ± 4.67), time to first postoperative food intake shortened (WMD = −0.20, 95% CI = −0.29 to −0.10, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 4.5 d ± 1.94; LG: mean ± SD = 4.7 d ± 1.54), and lower length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD = −0.54, 95% CI = −0.83 to −0.24, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 8.91 d ± 6.13; LG: mean ± SD = 9.61 d ± 7.74) in comparison to the LG group. While the other variables, for example, time to first postoperative flatus, postoperative complications, proximal and distal mar gin, R₀ resection rate, mortality rate, conversion rate, and 3-year overall survival rate were all found to be statistically similar at P > 0.05.

Conclusions

In the treatment of gastric cancer, robotic gastrectomy is a safe and effective procedure that has both short- and long-term effects. To properly evaluate the advantages of robotic surgery in gastric cancer, more randomised controlled studies with rigorous research methodologies are needed.

The impact of robotic technology on the learning curve for robot-assisted gastrectomy in the initial clinical application stage

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of robotic technology on the learning curve for robot-assisted gastrectomy in the initial clinical application stage and to compare RAG with laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy using a short-term evaluation.

METHODS

Between September 2016 and December 2018, 111 consecutive distal gastric cancer patients who were candidates for RAG or LAG were prospectively enrolled. Operative findings, morbidity, oncological findings, and the learning curve were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients underwent RAG with the da Vinci Si robot system, and eighty-one patients underwent LAG. Blood loss was lower during RAG than during LAG (133.80 ± 95.28 vs. 178.83 ± 98.37, P = 0.046). The operative time for RAG was significantly longer (304.45 ± 42.08 vs. 281.17 ± 32.69, P = 0.015). The number of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) was greater (37.33 ± 8.25 vs. 32.78 ± 5.98, P = 0.003) with RAG. Notably, RAG had an advantage in the dissection of No. 9 and 11p LNs (3.56 ± 1.76 vs. 2.78 ± 1.30, P = 0.038; 2.48 ± 0.93 vs. 1.99 ± 0.84, P = 0.015, respectively). Severe complications were less frequent in the RAG group (7 (8.6%) vs. 1 (3.3%), P = 0.003). No significant differences in terms of postoperative recovery were found between the two groups. The learning curve for RAG showed that the cumulative sum value decreased from the 10th case, while it decreased from the 28th case in the LAG group.

CONCLUSION

By means of robotic technology, RAG is better than LAG for the dissection of No. 9 and 11p LNs and for the alleviation of surgical trauma, and the technique is learned more rapidly during the preliminary stage than the LAG technique.

Comparison of Short-Term Results of Laparoscopic and Open Surgeries for Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center Experience

OBJECTIVE

Although laparoscopic colon cancer surgeries have increased in recent years, their oncological competence is questioned. In our study, we aimed to evaluate oncological competence by comparing laparoscopic and open surgery.

METHOD

The study was planned retrospectively. A total of 94 patients were included in the study, 42 of whom underwent laparoscopy, and 52 patients underwent open surgery. Both groups were compared in terms of demographic characteristics, staging, number of benign/malignant lymph nodes, histological findings, and complications.

RESULT

The final pathology report of all patients was adenocarcinoma. The median number of dissected lymph nodes was 20.9 in the open group (8-34) and 19.46 in the laparoscopy group (7-31) (p = 0.639). The median number of dissected malignant lymph nodes was 1 (0-13) in the open surgery group and 3.1 (0-8) in the laparoscopy group (p = 0.216). The laparoscopy group exhibited a longer operation time (281.2 ± 54.2 and 221.0 ± 51.5 min, respectively; p = 0.036) than the open surgery group, but a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) discharge, quicker initiation oral feeding, and shorter length of hospital stay (4.0 ± 0.9 vs 5.7 ± 2.0 days, respectively; p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Laparoscopic surgery elicits many benefits such as less wound infection, lower requirement for blood transfusion, shorter hospitalization, quicker initiation of oral feeding, and mobilization. Our study has shown that laparoscopic surgery provides quite adequate lymph node dissection when compared to oncological surgery, which is viewed with suspicion in the light of these benefits of laparoscopy.

Colorectal cancer: Artificial intelligence and its role in surgical decision making

Despite several advances in the oncological management of colorectal cancer (CRC), there still remains a lacuna in the treatment strategy, which differs from center to center and on the philosophy of the treating clinician that is not without bias. Personalized treatment is essential for the treatment of CRC to achieve better long-term outcomes and to reduce morbidity. Surgery has an important role to play in the treatment. Surgical treatment of CRC is decided based on clinical parameters and investigations and hence likely to have judgmental errors. Artificial intelligence has been reported to be useful in the surveillance, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up with accuracy in several malignancies. However, it is still evolving and yet to be established in surgical decision making in CRC. It is not only useful preoperatively but also intraoperatively. Artificial intelligence helps to rectify the human surgical decision when clinical data and radiological and laboratory parameters are fed into the computer and may guide correct surgical treatment.

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.

The role of AI technology in prediction, diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a fascinating new technology that incorporates machine learning and neural networks to improve existing technology or create new ones. Potential applications of AI are introduced to aid in the fight against colorectal cancer (CRC). This includes how AI will affect the epidemiology of colorectal cancer and the new methods of mass information gathering like GeoAI, digital epidemiology and real-time information collection. Meanwhile, this review also examines existing tools for diagnosing disease like CT/MRI, endoscopes, genetics, and pathological assessments also benefitted greatly from implementation of deep learning. Finally, how treatment and treatment approaches to CRC can be enhanced when applying AI is under discussion. The power of AI regarding the therapeutic recommendation in colorectal cancer demonstrates much promise in clinical and translational field of oncology, which means better and personalized treatments for those in need.

The Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gastric Cancer

Objective: This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in gastric cancer and to compare MIS versus open gastrectomy (OG) in terms of early mortality and morbidity, long-term oncological outcomes, and recurrence rates.

Methods: A total of 75 patients who underwent MIS or OG for gastric cancer at Koç University School of Medicine between December 2014 and December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Postoperative complications and disease-specific survival were compared between surgical approaches.

Results: Of the patients, 44 were treated with MIS and 31 with OG. In the MIS group, 33 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery, and 11 patients underwent robotic gastrectomy. Duration of operation was significantly longer in the MIS group than in the OG group (p<0.0001). The median amount of blood loss was 142.5 (range, 110 to 180) mL in the MIS group and 180.4 (range, 145 to 230) mL in the OG group (p<0.706). The median number of lymph node dissection was 38.9 (range, 15 to 66) and 38.7 (range, 12 to 70) in the MIS and OG groups, respectively (p<0.736). The median length of hospitalization, twelve days in the OG group and nine days in the MIS group. Median follow-up was 19.1 (range, 2 to 61) months in the MIS group and 22.1 (range, 2 to 58) months in the OG group. The median OS and DFS rates were 56.8 months and 39.6 months in the MIS group, respectively (log-rank; p=0.004) and 31.6 months and 23.1 months in the OG group, respectively (log-rank; p=0.003).

Conclusion: Our study results suggest that, despite its technical challenges, MIS is an effective and safe method in treating gastric cancer with favorable early mortality and morbidity rates and long-term oncological outcomes, and acceptable recurrence rates.

Current Status and Trends of Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy in Korea

Since its introduction in the early 1990s, laparoscopic gastrectomy has been widely accepted for the treatment of gastric cancer worldwide. In the last decade, the Korean Laparoendoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery Study group performed important clinical trials and exerted various efforts to enhance the quality of scientific knowledge and surgical techniques in the field of gastric cancer surgery. Laparoscopic gastrectomy has shifted to a new era in Korea due to recent advances and innovations in technology. Here, we discuss the recent updates of laparoscopic gastrectomy—namely, reduced-port, single-incision, robotic, image-guided, and oncometabolic surgery.

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.

Application of robots in general surgery

Background: Application of robotic surgery in the field of general surgery has been increasing. This paper is an overview of the current uses and future perspectives of robotic surgery in four major divisions—endocrine, upper gastrointestinal, hepato-biliary-pancreatic (HBP), and colorectal surgery.Current Concepts: In endocrine surgery, cosmetic advantage is the highest priority when selecting a surgical approach for thyroidectomy. Currently, the transaxillary route is the most common approach. The introduction of the single-port system could maximize the advantages of this technique. In upper gastrointestinal surgery, the use of robots has the advantage of better retrieval of lymph nodes, less bleeding, earlier discharge, and less complications than the laparoscopic approach. However, a more prospective comparative trial is required to confirm those findings. In the HBP field, the indications of robotic surgery have expanded, starting with cholecystectomy to more challenging procedures, such as donor hepatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. Meticulous dissection using robots could provide benefits to patients. In colorectal surgery, robotic surgery is an excellent technical tool for minimally invasive surgeries for rectal cancers, especially in male patients with narrow, deep pelvises. However, further studies are required to confirm the impact of robotic surgery on rectal cancers.Discussion and Conclusion: Robots are used to provide optimal surgical outcomes. Investigating new technologies and innovative surgical procedures is the highly important for a surgeon in the era of minimally invasive surgery.

Comparison of the Postoperative Complications Between Robotic Total and Distal Gastrectomies for Gastric Cancer Using Clavien-Dindo Classification: A Propensity Score-matched Retrospective Cohort Study of 726 Patients

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to compare the postoperative complications after Robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) and robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) and to systematically evaluate the safety and feasibility of RTG for the treatment of gastric cancer (GC).

METHODS

Patients with GC who underwent RTG or RDG for curative intent between March 2010 and August 2019 were analyzed. We used propensity score matching (PSM) to reduce selection bias. The morbidity and mortality within 30 days after surgery between the RTG and the RDG groups were compared.

RESULTS

According to Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification, the morbidity and mortality of the RTG group were comparable to those of the RDG group. Subgroup analyses showed no significant difference between the RTG and RDG groups in all stratified parameters (all P > .05). Multivariate analysis revealed that age ≥70 years (P = .002) and surgeons' experience ≤25 cases (P = .013) were independent risk factors for overall complication. Surgeons' experience ≤25 cases (P = .010) was identified as an independent risk factor for severe complication.

CONCLUSION

RTG is a safe and feasible surgical procedure for the treatment of GC with acceptable morbidity and mortality. More complications were observed for RTG, indicating that RTG is more invasive than RDG.

Detection of sarcopenic obesity and prediction of long-term survival in patients with gastric cancer using preoperative computed tomography and machine learning

Background

Previous studies evaluating the prognostic value of computed tomography (CT)‐derived body composition data have included few patients. Thus, we assessed the prevalence and prognostic value of sarcopenic obesity in a large population of gastric cancer patients using preoperative CT, as nutritional status is a predictor of long‐term survival after gastric cancer surgery.

Methods

Preoperative CT images were analyzed for 840 gastric cancer patients who underwent gastrectomy between March 2009 and June 2018. Machine learning algorithms were used to automatically detect the third lumbar (L3) vertebral level and segment the body composition. Visceral fat area and skeletal muscle index at L3 were determined and used to classify patients into obesity, sarcopenia, or sarcopenic obesity groups.

Results

Out of 840 patients (mean age = 60.4 years; 526 [62.6%] men), 534 (63.5%) had visceral obesity, 119 (14.2%) had sarcopenia, and 48 (5.7%) patients had sarcopenic obesity. Patients with sarcopenic obesity had a poorer prognosis than those without sarcopenia (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.325; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.698–6.508). Multivariate analysis identified sarcopenic obesity as an independent risk factor for increased mortality (HR = 2.608; 95% CI = 1.313–5.179). Other risk factors were greater extent of gastrectomy (HR = 1.928; 95% CI = 1.260–2.950), lower prognostic nutritional index (HR = 0.934; 95% CI = 0.901–0.969), higher neutrophil count (HR = 1.101; 95% CI = 1.031–1.176), lymph node metastasis (HR = 6.291; 95% CI = 3.498–11.314), and R1/2 resection (HR = 4.817; 95% CI = 1.518–9.179).

Conclusion

Body composition analysis automated by machine learning predicted long‐term survival in patients with gastric cancer.

Challenges in improving the minimal invasiveness of the surgical treatment for gastric cancer using robotic technology

The number of operations performed using the da Vinci Surgical System® (DVSS) has been increasing worldwide in the past decade. We introduced robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC) in January 2009 to overcome the disadvantage of conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy. Initially, we experienced some troubles in the technical aspect and cost of robotic surgery. After extensive trial and error, we were able to develop the "double bipolar method" and the "da Vinci's plane theory" to use DVSS effectively. We then conducted "Senshiniryo B," which was a multi-institutional prospective single-arm study to determine the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy for GC in 2014. In that study, we demonstrated that the morbidity rate in the robotic group (2.45%) was significantly lower than that in the historical control group (6.4%). As a consequence of that clinical trial, 12 procedures, including robotic gastrectomy for GC, have been covered under the Japanese national insurance in 2018. An additional seven procedures were newly covered in April 2020. In the first half of this article, we describe the history of robotic surgery in the world and Japan and demonstrate the "double bipolar method" and "da Vinci's plane theory." In the latter half, we explain the Japanese systems for the safe dissemination of robotic surgery and state our efforts to solve some problems in robotic surgery.

A meta-analysis of robotic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy in gastric cancer treatment

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) shows potential as an alternative to open gastrectomy (OG), the gold standard in the surgical management of gastric cancer (GC). This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the short-term efficacy and safety of RG versus OG for GC.A systematic literature search was conducted on RG with OG for GC in randomized and semi-randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Published materials and conference papers in English and trace references included in the literature were manually searched. The retrieval period was set to end in February 2021. The quality of the included studies was evaluated, and meta-analysis was conducted using the software STATA 15.1. Eleven studies with 6693 patients were included. Major blood loss (weighted mean differences (WMD) = -114.63, 95 % CI, -182.37-46.88, P = 0.001), hospital stay (WMD = -2.21, 95 % CI, -4.32-0.09, P = 0.041), and postoperative complications (odds ratio (OR) = OR = 0.57, 95 % CI, 0.35-0.93, P = 0.025) were fewer in the RS group, and R0 resection (odds ratio (OR) = 6.26, 95 % CI, 2.733-14.35, P = 0.000) occurred more frequently in the RG group than in the OG group. But positive lymph nodes (WMD = -2.09, 95 % CI,-3.73-0.45, P = 0.012) occurred less frequently in the RG group than in the OG group, and operative time was longer in the RG group than in the OG group (WMD = 83.21, 95 % CI, 19.88-146.55, P = 0.010). RG not only provides a technique for the treatment of GC but is also safe and feasible. This finding needs to be verified by multicenter, large-sample randomized controlled trials in the future.

Is sufficient experience performing open gastrectomies necessary to start laparoscopic distal gastrectomy training?

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic gastrectomy has become a standard procedure for treatment of gastric cancer, and hence, the opportunity for trainees to perform open gastrectomies may decrease. We investigated whether laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, performed by surgical trainees without sufficient experience performing open gastrectomies, was feasible and safe.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We compared short-term outcomes in patients when laparoscopic distal gastrectomies were performed by experienced trainees (ET group; n = 124) and inexperienced trainees (IT group; n = 98) from 2013 to 2019.

RESULTS

The operation time was significantly shorter in the ET group (median time: 253 minutes vs 286 minutes, P < 0.001). The incidence of grade ≥ 2 postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the groups. In the multivariate analysis, experience performing open gastrectomies was not an independent predictor of postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic distal gastrectomies performed by trainees, with insufficient experience performing open gastrectomies, are as feasible and safe as that performed by ET.

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for gastric cancer in Turkish population

Objective: In this study, it was aimed to compare short-term outcomes of minimally invasive and open surgery for gastric cancer in the Turkish population carrying both European and Asian characteristics.

Material and Methods: Short-term (30-day) outcomes of the patients undergoing minimally invasive and open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenec- tomy for gastric adenocarcinoma between January 2013 and December 2017 were compared. Patient demographics, history of previous abdominal surgery, comorbidities, short-term perioperative outcomes and histopathological results were evaluated between the study groups.

Results: There were a total of 179 patients. Fifty (28%) patients underwent minimally invasive [laparoscopic (n= 19) and robotic (n= 31)] and 129 (72%) patients underwent open surgery. There were no differences between the two groups in terms of age, sex, body mass index and ASA scores. While operative time was significantly longer in the minimally invasive surgery group (p< 0.0001), length of hospital stay and operative morbidity were com- parable between the groups.

Conclusion: While both laparoscopic and robotic surgery is safe and feasible in terms of short-term outcomes in selected patients, long operating time and increased cost are the major drawbacks of the robotic technique preventing its widespread use.

Surgical Merits of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Gastrectomy Techniques with D2 Lymphadenectomy in Obese Patients with Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been widely adopted for complex procedures to overcome technical limitations of open or laparoscopic methods. However, evidence of any subsequent benefit is lacking. This study was undertaken to compare open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy in technically demanding procedure-D2 dissection in obese patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

Data collected between 2010 and 2018 on D2 gastrectomy in obese patients with gastric cancer were used to conduct retrospective analysis, comparing short- and long-term outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic techniques.

RESULTS

In a total of 185 patients, there were 69 open, 62 laparoscopic, and 54 robotic gastrectomy procedures. Median ages for respective surgical groups were 66 (interquartile range [IQR]: 61-64 years), 63 (IQR: 59-63), and 59 years (IQR: 56-60 years) (p = 0.009). Early-stage gastric cancer ranked proportionately higher in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.005), but operative times were similar among groups. Estimated blood loss (p < 0.001) and drainage volumes (p = 0.001) were higher in the open group, relative to others. Although a robotic approach performed best in overall compliance and in mean number of retrieved lymph node, observed rates of early or late complications did not differ by technique. The open group experienced significantly poorer overall (p = 0.039) and relapse-free (p < 0.001) survival compared with the laparoscopic or robotic group. Robotic surgery emerged from multivariable Cox regression as a protective factor for relapse-free survival (HR = 0.314, 95% CI 0.116-0.851).

CONCLUSIONS

In obese patients with gastric cancer, robotic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy proved comparable to open or laparoscopic technique short-term, yielding better long-term outcomes.

Assessment of diagnostic value of fluorescent lymphography-guided lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Indocyanine green fluorescent lymphography helps visualize the lymphatic drainage pattern in gastric cancer; however, it is unknown whether fluorescent lymphography visualizes all metastatic lymph nodes. This study aimed to evaluate the sensitivity of fluorescent lymphography to detect metastatic lymph node stations and lymph nodes and the risk of false-negative findings.

METHODS

Patients with clinical T1-4a gastric cancer were included. Indocyanine green was peritumorally injected the day prior to surgery by endoscopy. Gastrectomy with systematic D1+ or D2 lymphadenectomy was performed. Stations and lymph nodes were retrieved at the back-table using near-infrared imaging and classified as "fluorescent" or "non-fluorescent" and later matched with histopathological findings.

RESULTS

Among 592 patients who underwent minimally invasive gastrectomy from September 2013 until December 2016, lymph node metastases were present in 150. The sensitivity of fluorescent lymphography in detecting all metastatic lymph node stations was 95.3% (143/150 patients), with a false-negative rate of 4.7% (7/150 patients) and the sensitivity in detecting all metastatic lymph nodes was 81.3% (122/150 patients). The negative predictive value was 99.3% for non-fluorescent stations and 99.2% for non-fluorescent LNs. For detecting all metastatic LN stations, subgroup analysis revealed 100% sensitivity for pT1a, 96.8% for pT1b, 100% for pT2, 91.3% for pT3, and 93.6% for pT4a tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

Fluorescent lymphography-guided lymphadenectomy can be a useful method for radical lymphadenectomy by facilitating the complete dissection of all potentially positive LN stations. Fluorescent lymphography-guided lymphadenectomy appears to be a reasonable alternative to conventional systematic lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer.

Incidence and treatment outcomes of leakage after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Experience of 14,075 patients from a large volume centre

INTRODUCTION

Leakage is a serious and potentially fatal complication of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. However, comprehensive reports regarding leakage after gastrectomy remain limited. We aimed to evaluate the incidence and treatment outcomes of leakage after gastrectomy for cancer.

METHODS

We reviewed the prospectively collected data of 14,075 Patients who underwent gastrectomy for gastric cancer between 2005 and 2017. Outcomes included incidence, risk factors of leakage, and leakage treatment outcomes.

RESULTS

The median day of leakage detection was postoperative day 7 (range 1-29days). The overall leakage incidence was 1.51% (213/14,075), and the most frequent location was the oesophagojejunostomy (2.07%). Leakage after total gastrectomy was more frequent with minimally invasive surgery (open:1.64%, laparoscopic:3.56%, robotic:5.83%; P < 0.001). Leakage incidence was higher in the surgeon's initial 100 cases than in later cases (2.4 vs. 1.3%; P < 0.001), especially with minimally invasive surgery. Early leakage (within 4 days of surgery) occurred more often after minimally invasive surgery (open:12.7%, laparoscopic:35.4%, robotic:29.0%; P = 0.006). The success rate for initial treatment of leakage was 70.4% (150/213). Surgery after initial treatment failure demonstrated a higher success rate for early leakage than for late leakage (80.0 vs. 22.2%). Among 213 patients who experienced leakage, fifteen patients (7.0%) died, and leakage-related mortality accounted for 38.5% (15/39) of all surgery-related mortality after gastrectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Leakage after gastric cancer surgery is associated with high mortality. Improved surgeon experience using minimally invasive techniques is required to reduce the risk of leakage. Surgery is an effective treatment for early leakage, although further studies are needed to establish the most appropriate treatment strategies.

Incidence and risk factors of postoperative complications after robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an analysis of 817 cases based on 10-year experience in a large-scale center

BACKGROUND

In this study, we investigated the incidence and risk factors for postoperative complications after robotic gastrectomy (RG) in patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

A total of 817 patients who underwent RG for gastric cancer between March 2010 and August 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Postoperative complications were categorized according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, and possible risk factors were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 817 patients who underwent RG, overall, severe, local and systemic complication rates were 13.8, 4.2, 7.0 and 6.9%, respectively. Multivariable analysis revealed that an age of 70 years or older (P < 0.001) and multiorgan resection (P = 0.031) were independent risk factors for the occurrence of overall complications. Multivariable analysis showed that an age of 70 years or older (P = 0.005) and surgeons' experience ≤ 25 cases (P = 0.004) were independent risk factors for severe complications. Regarding local complications, an age of 70 years or older (P < 0.001), multiorgan resection (P = 0.010) and surgeons' experience ≤ 25 cases (P = 0.005) were identified as independent risk factors. An age of 70 years or older (P < 0.001), a BMI of 25 or higher (P = 0.045) and the presence of comorbidity (P = 0.029) were identified as independent risk factors for systemic complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated that RG is a safe and feasible procedure for the treatment of gastric cancer, and it has an acceptable postoperative morbidity. Elderly patients and insufficient surgeon experience were two major risk factors for the occurrence of complications following RG. We suggest that surgeons choose patients in good condition during their RG learning phase to reduce learning-associated morbidity.

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.

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.

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

By overcoming technical difficulties with limited access faced when performing reduced-port surgery for gastric cancer, reduced-port totally robotic gastrectomy (RPRDG) could be a safe alternative to conventional minimally invasive gastrectomy. An initial 100 consecutive cases of RPRDG for gastric cancer were performed from February 2016 to September 2018. Short-term outcomes for RPRDG with those for 261 conventional laparoscopic (CLDG) and for 241 robotic procedures (CRDG) over the same period were compared. Learning curve analysis for RPRDG was conducted to determine whether this procedure could be readily performed despite fewer access. During the first 100 cases of RPRDG, no surgeries were converted to open or laparoscopic surgery, and no additional ports were required. RPRDG showed longer operation time than CLDG (188.4 min vs. 166.2 min, p < 0.001) and similar operation time with CRDG (183.1 min, p = 0.315). The blood loss was 35.4 ml for RPRDG, 85.2 ml for CLDG (p < 0.001), and 41.2 ml for CRDG (p = 0.33). The numbers of retrieved lymph nodes were 50.5 for RPRDG, 43.9 for CLDG (p = 0.003), and 55.0 for CRDG (p = 0.055). Postoperative maximum C-reactive protein levels were 96.8 mg/L for RPRDG, 87.8 mg/L for CLDG (p = 0.454), and 81.9 mg/L for CRDG (p = 0.027). Learning curve analysis indicated that the overall operation time of RPRDG stabilized at 180 min after 21 cases. The incidence of major postoperative complications did not differ among groups. RPRDG for gastric cancer is a feasible and safe alternative to conventional minimally invasive surgery. Notwithstanding, this procedure failed to reduce postoperative inflammatory responses.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: The largest meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been increasingly used in the treatment of gastric cancer (GC). Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has shown several advantages over open surgery in dealing with GC, although it is still considered a demanding procedure. Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is now being employed with increased frequency worldwide and has been reported to overcome some limitations of conventional LG. The aim of this updated meta-analysis is to compare surgical and oncological outcomes of RG versus LG for gastric cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane library database of published studies comparing RG and LG up to March 2020. The evaluated end-points were intra-operative, post-operative and oncological outcomes. Dichotomous data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) and continuous data were calculated by mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and a random-effect model was always applied.

RESULTS

Forty retrospective studies describing 17,712 patients met the inclusion criteria. With respect to surgical outcomes, robotic compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy was associated with higher operating time [MD 44.73, (95%CI 36.01, 53.45) p < 0.00001] and less intraoperative blood loss [MD -18.24, (95%CI -25.21, -11.26) p < 0.00001] and lower rate of surgical complication in terms of Dindo-Clavien ≥ 3 classification [OR 0.66, (95%CI 0.49, 0.88) p = 0.005]. With respect to oncological outcomes, the RG group showed a significantly increased mean number of retrieved lymph nodes [MD 1.84, (95%CI 0.84, 2.84) p = 0.0003], but mean proximal and distal resection margin distance and the recurrence rate were not significantly different between the two approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

With respect to safety, technical feasibility and oncological adequacy, robotic and laparoscopic groups were comparable, although the robotic approach seems to achieve better short-term surgical outcomes. Moreover, a higher rate of retrieved lymph nodes was observed in the RG group.

Totally minimally invasive radical gastrectomy with the da Vinci Xi® robotic system versus straight laparoscopy for gastric adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the outcomes of pure minimally invasive techniques of radical gastrectomy are scarce. We aimed to compare short-term post-operative outcomes in patients undergoing totally minimally invasive radical gastrectomy with the da Vinci Xi^® robotic system versus straight laparoscopy for gastric adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Between December 2013 and March 2018, robotic and laparoscopic radical gastrectomy performed in two centres were included. Both groups were compared with respect to perioperative short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients were included in the study. Anticoagulant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy use were higher in the robotic group (p = 0.02, p = 0.02). There were conversions in the laparoscopy group whereas no conversions occurred in the robotic group (p = 0.052). Operating time in the robotic group was longer (p = 0.001). The number of harvested lymph nodes in the laparoscopic group was higher (p = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

Totally robotic technique with the da Vinci Xi^® robotic system provides similar short-term results compared to laparoscopic surgery in radical gastrectomy.

Morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a large cohort study

BACKGROUND

Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of gastric cancer in recent year. However, whether RDG could reduce the morbidity when compared to laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes of RDG and LDG for gastric cancer and identify the related risk factors.

METHODS

Between March 2010 and August 2019, consecutive patients undergoing RDG or LDG (519 and 957 patients, respectively) at our institution were included in this study. Postoperative complications were stratified according to the Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification. We performed one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, and evaluated postoperative morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes in PSM 1032 patients undergoing RDG or LDG.

RESULTS

After PSM, the two groups were well-balanced. The mean blood loss of the RDG group was about 27 mL less than that of the LDG group (112.1 vs 139.0 mL, P < 0.001). The RDG group had more retrieved lymph nodes than that in the LDG group (32.7 v 30.2, P < 0.001). The RDG group showed a similar overall (9.9% vs 10.7%, P = 0.682), severe (2.7% vs 3.7%, P = 0.376), local (5.6% vs 5.2%, P = 0.783), and systemic complication rates (5.4% vs 6.0%, P = 0.688). There were no significant differences in mortality between the two groups (RDG 0% vs LDG 0.2%, P = 1.000). Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in most stratified parameters. Age > 65 years and ASA III were identified as two major risk factors for complications.

CONCLUSION

RDG could be a safe and feasible in treating gastric cancer compared to LDG. However, we did not observe significant reduction in postoperative complications of RDG compared with LDG, although the use of robotic system is assumed to provide a technically superior operative environment.

Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Adenocarcinoma in the USA: Insights and Oncologic Outcomes in 220 Patients

BACKGROUND

While multiple Asian and a few Western retrospective series have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer, its reliability for thorough resection, especially for locoregional disease, has not yet been firmly established, and reported learning curves vary widely. To support wider implementation of robotic gastrectomy, we evaluated the learning curve for this approach, assessed its oncologic feasibility, and created a selection model predicting the likelihood of conversion to open surgery in a US patient population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data on all consecutive patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy at a high-volume institution between May 2012 and March 2019.

RESULTS

Of the 220 patients with gastric cancer selected to undergo curative-intent robotic gastrectomy, surgery was completed using robotics in 159 (72.3%). The median number of removed lymph nodes was 28, and ≥ 15 lymph nodes were removed in 94% of procedures. Surgical time decreased steadily over the first 60-80 cases. Complications were generally minor: 7% of patients experienced complications of grade 3 or higher, with an anastomotic leak rate of 2% and mortality rate 0.9%. Factors predicting conversion to open surgery included neoadjuvant chemotherapy, BMI ≥ 31 kg/m², and tumor size ≥ 6 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the safety and oncologic feasibility of robotic gastrectomy for selected patients with gastric cancer. Proficiency can be achieved by 20 cases and mastery by 60-80 cases. Ideal candidates for this approach are patients with few comorbidities, BMI < 31 kg/m², and tumors < 6 cm.

Next-generation robotics in gastrointestinal surgery

The global numbers of robotic gastrointestinal surgeries are increasing. However, the evidence base for robotic gastrointestinal surgery does not yet support its widespread adoption or justify its cost. The reasons for its continued popularity are complex, but a notable driver is the push for innovation - robotic surgery is seen as a compelling solution for delivering on the promise of minimally invasive precision surgery - and a changing commercial landscape delivers the promise of increased affordability. Novel systems will leverage the robot as a data-driven platform, integrating advances in imaging, artificial intelligence and machine learning for decision support. However, if this vision is to be realized, lessons must be heeded from current clinical trials and translational strategies, which have failed to demonstrate patient benefit. In this Perspective, we critically appraise current research to define the principles on which the next generation of gastrointestinal robotics trials should be based. We also discuss the emerging commercial landscape and define existing and new technologies.

Effectiveness and safety of robotic versus traditional laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Gastrectomy is considered the gold standard treatment for gastric cancer patients. Currently, there are two minimally invasive surgical methods to choose from, robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Nevertheless, it is still unclear which is superior between the two. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of RG and LG for gastric cancer. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases until September 2018 in studies that compared RG and LG in gastric cancer patients. Operative and postoperative outcomes analyzed were assessed. The quality of the evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. Twenty-four English studies were analyzed. The meta-analysis revealed that the RG group had a significantly longer operation time, lower intraoperative blood loss, and higher perioperative costs compared to the LG group. However, there were no differences in complications, conversion rate, reoperation rate, mortality, number of lymph nodes harvested, days of first flatus, postoperative hospitalization time, and survival rate between the two groups. RG was shown to be associated with decreased intraoperative blood loss and increased perioperative cost and operation time compared to LG. Several higher-quality original studies and prospective clinical trials are required to confirm the advantages of RG.