Robotic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

Surgical Techniques and Related Perioperative Outcomes After Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy (RAMIG): Results From the Prospective Multicenter International Ugira Gastric Registry

OBJECTIVE

To gain insight into the global practice of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy (RAMIG) and evaluate perioperative outcomes using an international registry.

BACKGROUND

The techniques and perioperative outcomes of RAMIG for gastric cancer vary substantially in the literature.

METHODS

Prospectively registered RAMIG cases for gastric cancer (≥10 per center) were extracted from 25 centers in Europe, Asia, and South-America. Techniques for resection, reconstruction, anastomosis, and lymphadenectomy were analyzed and related to perioperative surgical and oncological outcomes. Complications were uniformly defined by the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group.

RESULTS

Between 2020 and 2023, 759 patients underwent total (n=272), distal (n=465), or proximal (n=22) gastrectomy (RAMIG). After total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y-reconstruction, anastomotic leakage rates were 8% with hand-sewn (n=9/111) and 6% with linear stapled anastomoses (n=6/100). After distal gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y (67%) or Billroth-II-reconstruction (31%), anastomotic leakage rates were 3% with linear stapled (n=11/433) and 0% with hand-sewn anastomoses (n=0/26). Extent of lymphadenectomy consisted of D1+ (28%), D2 (59%), or D2+ (12%). Median nodal harvest yielded 31 nodes (interquartile range: 21-47) after total and 34 nodes (interquartile range: 24-47) after distal gastrectomy. R0 resection rates were 93% after total and 96% distal gastrectomy. The hospital stay was 9 days after total and distal gastrectomy, and was median 3 days shorter without perianastomotic drains versus routine drain placement. Postoperative 30-day mortality was 1%.

CONCLUSIONS

This large multicenter study provided a worldwide overview of current RAMIG techniques and their respective perioperative outcomes. These outcomes demonstrated high surgical quality, set a quality standard for RAMIG, and can be considered an international reference for surgical standardization.

Transition from open to robotic distal pancreatectomy in a low volume pancreatic surgery country: a single Australian centre experience

BACKGROUND

Advances in technology and techniques have allowed for robotic distal pancreatectomies to be readily performed in patients at high volume centres. This study describes the experience of a single surgeon during the learning curve and transition from open to robotic distal pancreatectomy in Australia, a traditionally low volume pancreatic surgery country.

METHODS

All patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy at an Australian-based tertiary referral centre between 2010 and 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Demographic, clinicopathologic and survival data were analysed to compare perioperative and oncological outcomes between patients who underwent open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomies.

RESULTS

A total of 178 distal pancreatectomies were identified for analysis during the study period. Ninety-one open distal pancreatectomies (ODP), 48 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP), and 39 robotic distal pancreatectomies (RDP) were performed. Robotic distal pancreatectomy was non-inferior with respect to perioperative outcomes and yielded statistically non-significant advantages over LDP and ODP.

CONCLUSION

RDP is feasible and can be performed safely in well-selected patients during the learning phase at large pancreatic centres in a traditionally low-volume country like Australia. Referral to large pancreatic centres where access to the robotic platform and surgeon experience is not a barrier, and where a robust multidisciplinary team meeting can take place, remains pivotal in the introduction and transition toward the robotic approach for management of patients with pancreatic body or tail lesions.

Improved Morbidity, Mortality, and Cost with Minimally Invasive Colon Resection Compared to Open Surgery

Background and Objectives:

Despite the growth of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in many specialties, open colon surgery is still routinely performed. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes and costs between open colon and minimally invasive colon resections.

Methods:

We analyzed outcomes between January 1, 2016 and December31, 2018 using the Vizient® clinical database. Demographics, hospital length of stay, readmissions, complications, mortality, and costs were compared between patients undergoing elective open and minimally invasive colon resections. For bivariate analysis, Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for continuous variables and χ² test was used for categorical variables. Multiple Logistic and Quintile regression were used for multivariable analyses.

Results:

A total of 88,405 elective colon resections (open: 56,599; minimally invasive: 31,806) were reviewed. A significantly larger proportion of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery were obese (body mass index > 30) compared to those undergoing open surgery (71.4% vs. 59.6%; p < 0.0001). As compared to minimally invasive colectomy, open colectomy patients had: a longer median length of stay [median (range): 7 (4–13) days vs. 4 (3 – 6) days, p < 0.0001], higher 30-day readmission rate [n = 8557 (15.1%) vs. 2815 (8.9%), p < 0.0001], higher mortality [n = 2590 (4.4%) vs. 107 (0.34%), p < 0.0001], and a higher total direct cost [median (range): $13,582 (9041–23,094) vs. $9013 (6748 – 12,649), p < 0.0001]. Multivariable models confirmed these findings.

Conclusion:

Minimally invasive colon surgery has clear benefits in terms of length of stay, readmission rate, mortality and cost, and the routine use of open colon resection should be revaluated.

Comparative analysis of open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatic resection: The United Kingdom's first single-centre experience

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has potential advantages over its open equivalent open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic disease in the neck, body and tail. Within the United Kingdom (UK), there has been no previous experience describing the role of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). This study evaluated differences between ODP, LDP and RDP.

METHODS

Patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy performed in the Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery at the Freeman Hospital between September 2007 and December 2018 were included from a prospectively maintained database. The primary outcome measure was length of hospital stay, and the secondary outcome measures were complication rates graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Of the 125 patients, the median age was 61 years and 46% were male. Patients undergoing RDP (n = 40) had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grading III compared to ODP (n = 38) and LDP (n = 47) (57% vs. 37% vs. 38%, P = 0.02). RDP had a slightly lower but not significant conversion rate (10% vs. 13%, P = 0.084), less blood loss (median: 0 vs. 250 ml, P < 0.001) and a higher rate of splenic preservation (30% vs. 2%, P < 0.001) and shorter operative time, once docking time excluded (284 vs. 300 min, P < 0.001) compared to LDP. RDP had a higher R0 resection rate than ODP and LDP (79% vs. 47% vs. 71%, P = 0.078) for neoplasms. RDP was associated with significantly shorter hospital stay than LDP and ODP (8 vs. 9 vs. 10 days, P = 0.001). While there was no significant different in overall complications across the groups, RDP was associated with lower rates of Grade C pancreatic fistula than ODP and LDP (2% vs. 5% vs. 6%, P = 0.194).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection offers potential advantages over ODP, with a trend showing RDP to be marginally superior when compared to conventional LDP, but it is accepted that that this is likely to be at greater expense compared to the other current techniques.

Robotic gastric surgery: a monocentric case series and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

The technical complexity of D2 lymphadenectomy and esophago-jejunal anastomosis are the main factors that limit the application of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer. Robotic assisted gastric surgery provides potential technical advantages over conventional laparoscopy but an improvement in clinical outcomes after robotic surgery has not been demonstrated yet.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Data from 128 consecutive patients who had undergone robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer at our center institution from April 2017 to June 2020 where retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively updated database. A narrative review was then carried out on PubMed, Embase and Scopus using the following keywords: "gastric cancer," "robotic surgery," "robotic gastrectomy" and "robotic gastric surgery".

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Ninety-eight patients underwent robotic distal gastrectomy and 30 underwent robotic total gastrectomy. The mean value of estimated blood loss was 99.5 ml. No patients required conversion to laparoscopy or open surgery. The median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 42. No tumor involvement of the proximal or distal margin was found in any patient. The median time to first flatus and first oral feeding was on postoperative day 3 and 5, respectively. We registered 6 leakages (4.6%), namely, 1 duodenal stump leakage and 5 anastomotic leakages. No 30-day surgical related mortality was recorded. The median length of hospital stay was 10.5 days (range 4-37).

CONCLUSIONS

Published data and our experience suggest that the robotic approach for gastric cancer is safe and feasible with potential advantages over conventional laparoscopy.

Effect of Surgical Approach on Node Harvest in Gastrectomy: Analysis of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

Gastrectomy is the cornerstone of treatment for gastric cancer. Recent studies demonstrated significant surgical outcome advantages for patients undergoing minimally invasive versus open gastrectomy. Lymph node harvest is an indicator of adequate surgical resection, and greater harvest is associated with improved staging and patient outcomes. This study evaluated lymph node harvest based on surgical approach.

METHODS

Gastric adenocarcinoma patients were identified from NCDB who underwent gastrectomy between 2010 and 2016. Patients were classified by surgical approach into three cohorts: robotic, laparoscopic, or open gastrectomy. Clinical and demographic data were collected. Lymph node harvest was compared with univariate analysis and multivariable generalized linear mixed model. Univariate analysis with propensity matching was also performed to control for differences in patient population across cohorts.

RESULTS

We identified 10,690 patients that underwent gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma, with 68% males and median age of 66 (IQR 5774) years. 7161 (67%) underwent open, 2841 (26.6%) laparoscopic, and 688 (6.4%) robotic gastrectomy. Multivariable analysis revealed robotic was associated with a significantly higher median node harvest (18, IQR 1326) compared to laparoscopic (17, IQR 1125) and open gastrectomy (16, IQR 1023). Laparoscopic was also associated with significantly higher node harvest then open gastrectomy. Propensity-matched analysis (6950 patients) showed robotic gastrectomy was still associated with significantly higher node harvest (18, IQR 1226) compared to laparoscopic (17, IQR 1125) and open (17, IQR 1124); however, laparoscopic and open were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Robotic approach is associated with increased node harvest compared to laparoscopic and open approach in gastrectomy patients.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREA COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Robotic versus open oncological gastric surgery in the elderly: a propensity score-matched analysis

Although there is no agreement on a definition of elderly, commonly an age cutoff of ≥ 65 or 75 years is used. Even if robot-assisted surgery is a validated option for the elderly population, there are no specific indications for its application in the surgical treatment of gastric cancer. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted gastrectomy and to compare the short and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted (RG) versus open gastrectomy (OG). Patients aged ≥ 70 years old undergoing surgery for gastric cancer at the Department of Surgery of San Donato Hospital in Arezzo, between September 2012 and March 2017 were enrolled. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed according to the following variables: age, Sex, BMI, ASA score, comorbidity, T stage and type of resection performed. 43 OG were matched to 43 RG. The mean operative time was significantly longer in the RG group (273.8 vs. 193.5 min, p < 0.01). No differences were observed in terms of intraoperative blood loss, an average number of lymph nodes removed, mean hospital stay, morbidity and mortality. OG had higher rate of major complications (6.9 vs. 16.3%, OR 2.592, 95% CI 0.623–10.785, p = 0.313) and a significantly higher postoperative pain (0.95 vs. 1.24, p = 0.042). Overall survival (p = 0.263) and disease-free survival (p = 0.474) were comparable between groups. Robotic-assisted surgery for oncological gastrectomy in elderly patients is safe and effective showing non-inferiority comparing to the open technique in terms of perioperative outcomes and overall 5-year survival.

Outcomes of Gastric Resection in the Establishment of a Comprehensive Oncologic Robotic Program

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy is increasingly utilized for the treatment of gastric malignancies. However, the benefits of robotic surgery have been questioned. This study describes short-term outcomes in the establishment of a comprehensive robotic program for gastric malignancies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic-assisted gastric resections between 2013 and 2018 were studied. Preoperative measures and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Finally we studied and analyzed robotic and open gastrectomy for the management of gastric adenocarcinoma (GC) at the same institution between 2000 and 2018 for quality benchmarking.

RESULTS

Forty six patients (pts.) underwent robotic-assisted gastric resections. 26 (56.5%) were male, with a median age of 62 y (range: 29-87). Pathology included GC, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, neuroendocrine tumors, metastatic lesions, and benign processes. 19 pts. underwent total gastrectomy, 16 distal gastrectomy, four subtotal gastrectomy, and seven wedge resection. Pts. undergoing distal gastrectomy and wedge resection experienced shorter operative times and length of stay than total gastrectomy (P < 0.01; P < 0.01). Four operations (8.8%) were converted to open and 13 pts (28.3%) had postoperative complications, including an 8.7% readmission rate. Median lymph nodes retrieved during total, subtotal, and distal gastrectomy were 20 (13-46), 12.5 (0-26), and 16.5 (0-34), respectively. All pts. underwent margin negative resection. Median follow-up for GC was 21 mo, and 60% of pts. received adjuvant therapy at a median of 59d (range: 23-106).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic gastrectomy is a feasible alternative to open gastrectomy. Our results will help establish benchmarks to improve perioperative outcomes, especially length of stay and time to initiation of therapy.

Comparative analysis of robotic gastrectomy and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in terms of their long-term oncological outcomes: a meta-analysis of 3410 gastric cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the long-term oncological outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) are limited despite the increased commonality of this method as an alternative for gastric cancer treatment. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes of RG in comparison to that of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

METHODS

The PubMed, ISI Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were comprehensively searched for studies that compared RG and LG in terms of their long-term survival outcomes. The hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and relapse-free survival (RFS) were obtained, while the odds ratio (OR) was recorded for the recurrence rate. A sensitivity analysis was performed. Egger's test and Begg's test were applied to evaluate publication bias.

RESULTS

Eight studies were identified and involved 3410 gastric cancer patients (RG, 1009; LG, 2401). The two groups had no significant differences in OS (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.80-1.20; P = 0.81), DFS (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.33-5.59; P = 0.67), RFS (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.19; P = 0.53), or recurrence rate (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.71-1.19; P = 0.53). Moreover, the two techniques were comparable in length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative complication rate, 30-day mortality rate, and rate of conversion to open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term oncological outcomes, expressed as OS, DFS, RFS, and recurrence rate, were similar between RG and LG. However, more randomized controlled trials with rigorous study designs and patient cohorts are needed to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of RG in patients with gastric cancer.

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a European perspective

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

Advanced gastric cancer: the value of surgery

Gastric cancer is a common disease with high mortality. The definition of advanced gastric cancer is still debated. Radical surgery associated to appropriate systemic and intra-abdominal chemotherapy is the gold standard treatment. In presence of peritoneal carcinosis, reaching a complete cytoreduction is the key to achieve long-term survival. Adequate lymphadenectomy is also fundamental. Conversion therapy could be applied to selected IV stage patients. No definitive evidences exist regarding the oncological and surgical superiority of mini-invasive approaches over the classical open techniques.

Minimally invasive and open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to find the better treatment for gastric cancer by comparing robotic gastrectomy, laparoscopic gastrectomy, and open gastrectomy using Bayesian network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We will search PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for eligible studies published before 1 September 2018. There will be no language restrictions. Randomized clinical trials that compare robotic gastrectomy, laparoscopic gastrectomy, or open gastrectomy for patients with gastric cancer will be included. The risk of bias of included studies will be assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trial. The outcomes of the study include operation time, estimated blood loss, time of ambulation, times to first flatus, time of oral intake, hospitalization, and the occurrence of complication. If sufficient data is collected and adequate clinical homogeneity is established among studies, we will conduct pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses for all related outcome measures.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study does not involve human subjects and does not need ethical approval and patient consent. The results of the network meta-analysis will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

Robotic-assisted surgery for pediatric choledochal cyst: Case report and literature review

Our paper describes the key surgical points of pediatric choledochocystectomy performed completely by Da Vinci robotic system. A choledochocystectomy was safely carried out for a girl at our hospital, and without any complication. Then systematic literature review was done to discuss the methods of intestine surgery and intestinal anastomosis, the use of 3^rd robotic arm, the surgical safety and advantages comparing open and laparoscopic surgery. We systematically reviewed choledochocystectomy for children performed by robotic surgery. We included a total of eight domestic and foreign reports and included a total of 86 patients, whose average age was 6.3 (0.3-15.9) years; the male-to-female ratio was 1:3.5 (19:67). Seven patients experienced conversion to open surgery, and the surgery success rate was 91.9% (79/86). The average total operation time was 426 (180-520) min, the operation time on the machine was 302 (120-418) min, 11 cases used the number 3 arm, and the remaining mainly used the hitch-stitch technique to suspend the stomach wall and liver. Forty-seven patients underwent pull-through intestine and intestinal anastomosis, and 39 patients underwent complete robotic intestine surgery and intestinal anastomosis. The hospitalization time of robotic-assisted choledochocystectomy was 8.8 d. Eight patients had biliary fistula and were all cured by conservative treatment and continuous observation. One patient had anastomotic stenosis, and one patient had wound dehiscence, both cured by surgery. Choledochocystectomy for children performed by completely robotic surgery and Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy is safe and feasible. The initial experience shows that this surgical approach has a clearer field than the traditional endoscopy, and its operation is more flexible, the surgery is more accurate, and the injury is smaller. With the advancement of technology and the accumulation of surgeons’ experience, robotic surgery may become a new trend in this surgical procedure.

Successful Robotic Gastrectomy Does Not Require Extensive Laparoscopic Experience

Purpose

We evaluated the learning curve and short-term surgical outcomes of robot-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) performed by a single surgeon experienced in open, but not laparoscopic, gastrectomy. We aimed to verify the feasibility of performing RADG without extensive laparoscopic experience.

Materials and Methods

Between July 2012 and December 2016, 60 RADG procedures were performed by a single surgeon using the da Vinci^® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical). Patient characteristics, the length of the learning curve, surgical parameters, and short-term postoperative outcomes were analyzed and compared before and after the learning curve had been overcome.

Results

The duration of surgery rapidly decreased from the first to the fourth case; after 25 procedures, the duration of surgery was stabilized, suggesting that the learning curve had been overcome. Cases were divided into 2 groups: 25 cases before the learning curve had been overcome (early cases) and 35 later cases. The mean duration of surgery was 420.8 minutes for the initial cases and 281.7 minutes for the later cases (P<0.001). The console time was significantly shorter during the later cases (168.6 minutes) than during the early cases (247.1 minutes) (P<0.001). Although the volume of blood loss during surgery declined over time, there was no significant difference between the early and later cases. No other postoperative outcomes differed between the 2 groups. Pathology reports revealed the presence of mucosal invasion in 58 patients and submucosal invasion in 2 patients.

Conclusions

RADG can be performed safely with acceptable surgical outcomes by experts in open gastrectomy.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the potential effectiveness of robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) in comparison to open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was carried out to identify studies comparing RAG and OG in gastric cancer. Participants of any age and sex were considered for inclusion in comparative studies of the two techniques independently from type of gastrectomy. A meta-analysis of short-term perioperative outcomes was performed to evaluate whether RAG is equivalent to OG. The primary outcome measures were set for estimated blood loss, operative time, conversion rate, morbidity, and hospital stay. Secondary among postoperative complications, wound infection, bleeding and anastomotic leakage were also analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 6 articles, 5 retrospective and 1 randomized controlled study, involving 6123 patients overall, with 689 (11.3%) cases submitted to RAG and 5434 (88.7%) to OG, satisfied the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. RAG was associated with longer operation time than OG (weighted mean difference 72.20 min; P < 0.001), but with reduction in blood loss and shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference -166.83 mL and -1.97 d respectively; P < 0.001). No differences were found with respect to overall postoperative complications (P = 0.65), wound infection (P = 0.35), bleeding (P = 0.65), and anastomotic leakage (P = 0.06). The postoperative mortality rates were similar between the two groups. With respect to oncological outcomes, no statistical differences among the number of harvested lymph nodes were found (weighted mean difference -1.12; P = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

RAG seems to be a technically valid alternative to OG for performing radical gastrectomy in gastric cancer resulting in safe complications.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Phase III evidence in the shape of a series of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses has shown that laparoscopic gastrectomy is safe and gives better short-term results with respect to the traditional open technique for early-stage gastric cancer. In fact, in the East laparoscopic gastrectomy has become routine for early-stage gastric cancer. In contrast, the treatment of advanced gastric cancer through a minimally invasive way is still a debated issue, mostly due to worries about its oncological efficacy and the difficulty of carrying out an extended lymphadenectomy and intestinal reconstruction after total gastrectomy laparoscopically. Over the last ten years the introduction of robotic surgery has implied overcoming some intrinsic drawbacks found to be present in the conventional laparoscopic procedure. Robot-assisted gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy has been shown to be safe and feasible for the treatment of gastric cancer patients. But unfortunately, most available studies investigating the robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared to laparoscopic and open technique are so far retrospective and there have not been phase III trials. In the present review we looked at scientific evidence available today regarding the new high-tech surgical robotic approach, and we attempted to bring to light the real advantages of robot-assisted gastrectomy compared to the traditional laparoscopic and open technique for the treatment of gastric cancer.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Current considerations

Radical gastrectomy with an adequate lymphadenectomy is the main procedure which makes it possible to cure patients with resectable gastric cancer (GC). A number of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis provide phase III evidence that laparoscopic gastrectomy is technically safe and that it yields better short-term outcomes than conventional open gastrectomy for early-stage GC. While laparoscopic gastrectomy has become standard therapy for early-stage GC, especially in Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea, the use of minimally invasive techniques is still controversial for the treatment of more advanced tumours, principally due to existing concerns about its oncological adequacy and capacity to carry out an adequately extended lymphadenectomy. Some intrinsic drawbacks of the conventional laparoscopic technique have prevented the worldwide spread of laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer and, despite technological advances in recent year, it remains a technically challenging procedure. The introduction of robotic surgery over the last ten years has implied a notable mutation of certain minimally invasive procedures, making it possible to overcome some limitations of the traditional laparoscopic technique. Robot-assisted gastric resection with D2 lymph node dissection has been shown to be safe and feasible in prospective and retrospective studies. However, to date there are no high quality comparative studies investigating the advantages of a robotic approach to GC over traditional laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. On the basis of the literature review here presented, robot-assisted surgery seems to fulfill oncologic criteria for D2 dissection and has a comparable oncologic outcome to traditional laparoscopic and open procedure. Robot-assisted gastrectomy was associated with the trend toward a shorter hospital stay with a comparable morbidity of conventional laparoscopic and open gastrectomy, but randomized clinical trials and longer follow-ups are needed to evaluate the possible influence of robot gastrectomy on GC patient survival.

Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence

The aim of this meta-analysis was to comprehensively compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and open rectal cancer surgery (ORCS). Electronic database (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library) searches were conducted for all relevant studies that compared the short-term and long-term outcomes between RRCS and ORCS. Odds ratios (ORs), mean differences, and hazard ratios were calculated. Seven studies involving 1074 patients with rectal cancer were identified for this meta-analysis. Compared with ORCS, RRCS is associated with a lower estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD]: −139.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −159.11 to −120.86; P < 0.00001), shorter hospital stay length (MD: −2.10, 95% CI: −3.47 to −0.73; P = 0.003), lower intraoperative transfusion requirements (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.99, P = 0.05), shorter time to flatus passage (MD: −0.97, 95% CI = −1.06 to −0.88, P < 0.00001), and shorter time to resume a normal diet (MD: −1.71.95% CI = −3.31 to −0.12, P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in surgery-related complications, oncologic clearance, disease-free survival, and overall survival between the two groups. However, RRCS was associated with a longer operative time. RRCS is safe and effective.

Gastric cancer: Current status of lymph node dissection

D2 procedure has been accepted in Far East as the standard treatment for both early (EGC) and advanced gastric cancer (AGC) for many decades. Recently EGC has been successfully treated with endoscopy by endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection, when restricted or extended Gotoda's criteria can be applied and D1+ surgery is offered only to patients not fitted for less invasive treatment. Furthermore, two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been demonstrating the non inferiority of minimally invasive technique as compared to standard open surgery for the treatment of early cases and recently the feasibility of adequate D1+ dissection has been demonstrated also for the robot assisted technique. In case of AGC the debate on the extent of nodal dissection has been open for many decades. While D2 gastrectomy was performed as the standard procedure in eastern countries, mostly based on observational and retrospective studies, in the west the Medical Research Council (MRC), Dutch and Italian RCTs have been conducted to show a survival benefit of D2 over D1 with evidence based medicine. Unfortunately both the MRC and the Dutch trials failed to show a survival benefit after the D2 procedure, mostly due to the significant increase of postoperative morbidity and mortality, which was referred to splenopancreatectomy. Only 15 years after the conclusion of its accrual, the Dutch trial could report a significant decrease of recurrence after D2 procedure. Recently the long term survival analysis of the Italian RCT could demonstrate a benefit for patients with positive nodes treated with D2 gastrectomy without splenopancreatectomy. As nowadays also in western countries D2 procedure can be done safely with pancreas preserving technique and without preventive splenectomy, it has been suggested in several national guidelines as the recommended procedure for patients with AGC.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: Present and future directions

Laparoscopic surgery is applied today worldwide to most digestive procedures. In some of them, such as cholecystectomy, Nissen's fundoplication or obesity surgery, laparoscopy has become the standard in practice. In others, such as colon or gastric resection, the laparoscopic approach is frequently used and its usefulness is unquestionable. More complex procedures, such as esophageal, liver or pancreatic resections are, however, more infrequently performed, due to the high grade of skill necessary. As a result, there is less clinical evidence to support its implementation. In the recent years, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has been increasingly applied, again with little evidence for comparison with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This review will focus on the complex digestive procedures as well as those whose use in standard practice could be more controversial. Also novel robot-assisted procedures will be updated.

Advanced gastric cancer: What we know and what we still have to learn

Gastric cancer is a common neoplastic disease and, more precisely, is the third leading cause of cancer death in the world, with differences amongst geographic areas. The definition of advanced gastric cancer is still debated. Different stadiating systems lead to slightly different stadiation of the disease, thus leading to variations between the single countries in the treatment and outcomes. In the present review all the possibilities of treatment for advanced gastric cancer have been analyzed. Surgery, the cornerstone of treatment for advanced gastric cancer, is analyzed first, followed by an investigation of the different forms and drugs of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. New frontiers in treatment suggest the growing consideration for intraperitoneal administration of chemotherapeutics and combination of traditional drugs with new ones. Moreover, the necessity to prevent the relapse of the disease leads to the consideration of administering intraperitoneal chemotherapy earlier in the therapeutical algorithm.

Laparoscopy Versus Robotic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center Initial Experience

Background Minimally invasive approach has gained interest in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. The purpose of this study is to analyze the differences between laparoscopy and robotics for colorectal cancer in terms of oncologic and clinical outcomes in an initial experience of a single center. Materials and Methods Clinico-pathological data of 100 patients surgically treated for colorectal cancer from March 2008 to April 2014 with laparoscopy and robotics were analyzed. The procedures were right colonic, left colonic, and rectal resections. A comparison between the laparoscopic and robotic resections was made and an analysis of the first and the last procedures in the 2 groups was performed. Results Forty-two patients underwent robotic resection and 58 underwent laparoscopic resection. The postoperative mortality was 1%. The number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in robotics. The conversion rate was 7.1% for robotics and 3.4% for laparoscopy. The operative time was lower in laparoscopy for all the procedures. No differences were found between the first and the last procedures in the 2 groups. Conclusions This initial experience has shown that robotic surgery for the treatment of colorectal adenocarcinoma is a feasible and safe procedure in terms of oncologic and clinical outcomes, although an appropriate learning curve is necessary. Further investigation is needed to demonstrate real advantages of robotics over laparoscopy.

Robotic gastrectomy with transvaginal specimen extraction for female gastric cancer patients

AIM: To describe the application of complete robotic gastrectomy with transvaginal specimen extraction (TVSE) for gastric cancer patients.

METHODS: Between July and November 2014, eight female patients who were diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma underwent a TVSE following a full robot-sewn gastrectomy. According to the tumor location, the patients were allocated to two different groups; two patients received robotic total gastrectomy with TVSE and the other six received robotic distal gastrectomy with TVSE.

RESULTS: Surgical procedures were successfully performed in all eight cases without conversion. The mean age was 55.3 (range, 42-69) years, and the mean body mass index was 23.2 (range, 21.6-26.0) kg/m². The mean total operative time and blood loss were 224 (range, 200-298) min and 62.5 (range, 50-150) mL, respectively. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 3.6 (range, 3-5) d. The mean number of lymph nodes resected was 23.6 (range, 17-27). None was readmitted within 30 d of postoperation. During the follow-up, no stricture developed nor was any anastomotic leakage detected.

CONCLUSION: It is possible to perform a TVSE following a full robot-sewn gastrectomy with standard D2 lymph node resection for female gastric cancer patients.

Overexpression of STAT3/pSTAT3 was associated with poor prognosis in gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

Signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) and phospho-STAT3 (pSTAT3) play important roles in the development of gastric cancer. STAT3 is often associated with cell survival, proliferation, and transformation. The prognostic value of STAT3/pSTAT3 in patients with gastric cancer remains controversial in numerous published studies. The aim of this study was to summarize recent findings relevant to the prognostic role of STAT3 and pSTAT3 in patients with gastric cancer. A meta-analysis was performed by searching Web of Knowledge, EMBASE, and PubMed to identify studies on the prognostic impact of STAT3/pSTAT3 in gastric cancers in August 2014. In all, 10 studies were included in the analysis. Data were collected for comparing survival rates in patients with high STAT3 levels compared to those with low levels. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Sensitivity analysis was conducted, and publication bias was evaluated. Eventually, 1667 cases of gastric cancer were subjected to the final analysis. Among patients with gastric cancer, poor survival was predicted by higher expressions of STAT3 (HR=2.30; 95% CI=1.13-4.68; P=0.02) and pSTAT3 (HR=1.75; 95% CI=1.17-2.61; P=0.006). Moreover, overexpression of STAT3 was associated with poor tumor stage. Additionally, our analysis did not show any statistically significant effect of publication bias regarding STAT3 or pSTAT3. The results of this meta-analysis demonstrated that overexpression of STAT3 and pSTAT3 was associated with poor prognosis in gastric cancer.

Robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery for gastric cancer compared on surgical, clinical and oncological outcomes: a multi-institutional chart review. A study protocol of the International study group on Minimally Invasive surgery for GASTRIc Cancer-IMIGASTRIC

INTRODUCTION

Gastric cancer represents a great challenge for healthcare providers and requires a multidisciplinary treatment approach in which surgery plays a major role. Minimally invasive surgery has been progressively developed, first with the advent of laparoscopy and recently with the spread of robotic surgery, but a number of issues are currently being debated, including the limitations in performing an effective extended lymph node dissection, the real advantages of robotic systems, the role of laparoscopy for Advanced Gastric Cancer, the reproducibility of a total intracorporeal technique and the oncological results achievable during long-term follow-up.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A multi-institutional international database will be established to evaluate the role of robotic, laparoscopic and open approaches in gastric cancer, comprising of information regarding surgical, clinical and oncological features. A chart review will be conducted to enter data of participants with gastric cancer, previously treated at the participating institutions. The database is the first of its kind, through an international electronic submission system and a HIPPA protected real time data repository from high volume gastric cancer centres.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is conducted in compliance with ethical principles originating from the Helsinki Declaration, within the guidelines of Good Clinical Practice and relevant laws/regulations. A multicentre study with a large number of patients will permit further investigation of the safety and efficacy as well as the long-term outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and open approaches for the management of gastric cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02325453; Pre-results.

Surgical interventions for gastric cancer: a review of systematic reviews

AIM

To evaluate methodological quality and the extent of concordance among meta-analysis and/or systematic reviews on surgical interventions for gastric cancer (GC).

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane library and the DARE database was conducted to identify the reviews comparing different surgical interventions for GC prior to April 2014. After applying included criteria, available data were summarized and appraised by the Oxman and Guyatt scale.

RESULTS

Fifty six reviews were included. Forty five reviews (80.4%) were well conducted, with scores of adapted Oxman and Guyatt scale ≥ 14. The reviews differed in criteria for avoiding bias and assessing the validity of the primary studies. Many primary studies displayed major methodological flaws, such as randomization, allocation concealment, and dropouts and withdrawals. According to the concordance assessment, laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) was superior to open gastrectomy, and laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy was superior to open distal gastrectomy in short-term outcomes. However, the concordance regarding other surgical interventions, such as D1 vs. D2 lymphadenectomy, and robotic gastrectomy vs. LAG were absent.

CONCLUSION

Systematic reviews on surgical interventions for GC displayed relatively high methodological quality. The improvement of methodological quality and reporting was necessary for primary studies. The superiority of laparoscopic over open surgery was demonstrated. But concordance on other surgical interventions was rare, which needed more well-designed RCTs and systematic reviews.

Robotic surgery for gastric cancer

Laparoscopic gastrectomy is a widely used minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer. However, skillful techniques are required to perform lymph node dissection using straight shaped forceps, particularly for D2 dissection. Robotic surgery using the da Vinci surgical system is anticipated to be a powerful tool for performing difficult techniques using high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) images and the EndoWrist equipped with seven degrees of freedom. Attempts are being made to apply robotic surgery in gastrectomy procedures mainly in Japan, South Korea, and Europe. Although definite superiority to laparoscopic gastrectomy is yet to be proven, robotic surgery has been reported to have a shorter learning curve and offer more precise dissection for total gastrectomy. Hence, its oncological efficacy needs to be verified in a clinical trial.

Current status of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Although over 3000 da Vinci Surgical System (DVSS) devices have been installed worldwide, robotic surgery for gastric cancer has not yet become widely spread and is only available in several advanced institutions. This is because, at least in part, the advantages of robotic surgery for gastric cancer remain unclear. The safety and feasibility of robotic gastrectomy have been demonstrated in several retrospective studies. However, no sound evidence has been reported to support the superiority of a robotic approach for gastric cancer treatment. In addition, the long-term clinical outcomes following robotic gastrectomy have yet to be clarified. Nevertheless, a robotic approach can potentially overcome the disadvantages of conventional laparoscopic surgery if the advantageous functions of this technique are optimized, such as the use of wristed instruments, tremor filtering and high-resolution 3-D images. The potential advantages of robotic gastrectomy have been discussed in several retrospective studies, including the ability to achieve sufficient lymphadenectomy in the area of the splenic hilum, reductions in local complication rates and a shorter learning curve for the robotic approach compared to conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy. In this review, we present the current status and discuss issues regarding robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Robotic general surgery: current practice, evidence, and perspective

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology commenced to be adopted for the field of general surgery in the 1990s. Since then, the da Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical Inc, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has remained by far the most commonly used system in this domain. The da Vinci surgical system is a master-slave machine that offers three-dimensional vision, articulated instruments with seven degrees of freedom, and additional software features such as motion scaling and tremor filtration. The specific design allows hand-eye alignment with intuitive control of the minimally invasive instruments. As such, robotic surgery appears technologically superior when compared with laparoscopy by overcoming some of the technical limitations that are imposed on the surgeon by the conventional approach.

PURPOSE

This article reviews the current literature and the perspective of robotic general surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

While robotics has been applied to a wide range of general surgery procedures, its precise role in this field remains a subject of further research. Until now, only limited clinical evidence that could establish the use of robotics as the gold standard for procedures of general surgery has been created. While surgical robotics is still in its infancy with multiple novel systems currently under development and clinical trials in progress, the opportunities for this technology appear endless, and robotics should have a lasting impact to the field of general surgery.

Is early oral feeding after gastric cancer surgery feasible? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Aim

To assess the feasibility and safety of early oral feeding (EOF) after gastrectomy for gastric cancer through a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.

Methods

A literature search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane library databases was performed for eligible studies published between January 1995 and March 2014. Systematic review was carried out to identify randomized controlled trials comparing EOF and traditional postoperative oral feeding after gastric cancer surgery. Meta-analyses were performed by either a fixed effects model or a random effects model according to the heterogeneity using RevMan 5.2 software.

Results

Six studies remained for final analysis. Included studies were published between 2005 and 2013 reporting on a total of 454 patients. No significant differences were observed for postoperative complication (RR = 0.95; 95%CI, 0.70 to 1.29; P = 0.75), the tolerability of oral feeding (RR = 0.98; 95%CI, 0.91 to 1.06; P = 0.61), readmission rate (RR = 1; 95%CI, 0.30 to 3.31; P = 1.00) and incidence of anastomotic leakage (RR = 0.31; 95%CI, 0.01 to 7.30; P = 0.47) between two groups. EOF after gastrectomy for gastric cancer was associated with significant shorter duration of the hospital stay (WMD = −2.36; 95%CI, −3.37 to −1.34; P<0.0001) and time to first flatus (WMD = −19.94; 95%CI, −32.03 to −7.84; P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in postoperative complication, tolerability of oral feeding, readmission rates, duration of hospital stay and time to first flatus among subgroups stratified by the time to start EOF or by partial and total gastrectomy or by laparoscopic and open surgery.

Conclusions

The result of this meta-analysis showed that EOF after gastric cancer surgery seems feasible and safe, even started at the day of surgery irrespective of the extent of the gastric resection and the type of surgery. However, more prospective, well-designed multicenter RCTs with more clinical outcomes are needed for further validation.

Comparison of the operative outcomes and learning curves between laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Background

Minimally invasive surgery, including laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy, has become more popular in the treatment of gastric cancer. However, few studies have compared the learning curves between laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Methods

Data were prospectively collected between July 2008 and Aug 2014. A total of 145 patients underwent minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer by a single surgeon, including 73 laparoscopic and 72 robotic gastrectomies. The clinicopathologic characteristics, operative outcomes and learning curves were compared between the two groups.

Results

Compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group was associated with less blood loss and longer operative time. After the surgeon learning curves were overcome for each technique, the operative outcomes became similar between the two groups except longer operative time in the robotic group. After accumulating more cases of robotic gastrectomy, the operative time in the laparoscopic group decreased dramatically.

Conclusions

After overcoming the learning curves, the operative outcomes became similar between laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy. The experience of robotic gastrectomy could affect the learning process of laparoscopic gastrectomy.

Robotic vs. Standard Laparoscopic Technique - What is Better?

Introduction: Laparoscopic surgery is subject to certain limitations that can be a problem when performing complex minimally invasive operations. Robotic surgery was developed precisely to overcome such technical limitations. The question therefore arises whether robotic surgery leads to significantly better results compared with standard laparoscopic surgery.

Methods: Based on comparative systematic reviews and meta-analyses, this paper examines whether the robotic technique when used for abdominal and visceral surgery procedures confers advantages on the patient compared with the standard laparoscopic technique.

Results: Even for demanding visceral surgery procedures, the perioperative complication rate for robotic surgery is not higher than for open or laparoscopic surgical procedures. In cancer cases, the oncological accuracy of robotic resection for gastric, pancreatic, and rectal resection is seen to be adequate. Only the operating time is generally longer than for standard laparoscopic and open procedures. But, on the other hand, in some procedures blood loss is less, conversion rates are lower and hospital stay shorter.

Conclusion: To evaluate the future role of the robotic technique for visceral surgery, high-quality prospective randomized trials are urgently needed.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials

Background

Robotic-assisted laparoscopy is popularly performed for colorectal disease. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RCS) and laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) for colorectal disease based on randomized controlled trial studies.

Methods

Literature searches of electronic databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were performed to identify randomized controlled trial studies that compared the clinical or oncologic outcomes of RCS and LCS. This meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager (RevMan) software (version 5.2) that is provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. The data used were mean differences and odds ratios for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Fixed-effects or random-effects models were adopted according to heterogeneity.

Results

Four randomized controlled trial studies were identified for this meta-analysis. In total, 110 patients underwent RCS, and 116 patients underwent LCS. The results revealed that estimated blood losses (EBLs), conversion rates and times to the recovery of bowel function were significantly reduced following RCS compared with LCS. There were no significant differences in complication rates, lengths of hospital stays, proximal margins, distal margins or harvested lymph nodes between the two techniques.

Conclusions

RCS is a promising technique and is a safe and effective alternative to LCS for colorectal surgery. The advantages of RCS include reduced EBLs, lower conversion rates and shorter times to the recovery of bowel function. Further studies are required to define the financial effects of RCS and the effects of RCS on long-term oncologic outcomes.