Meta-analysis of the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy

The Evolving Surgical Landscape: A Comprehensive Review of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer

Robotic gastrectomy has been gaining ground in the past 20 years. This study aims to (a) provide an updated and all-encompassing comprehensive review including post-operative outcomes, rate of complications, surgical efficiency and costs, pathology, overall survival, mortality and recurrence, and disease-free survival of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy, (b) report research gaps, and (c) identify ongoing or forthcoming clinical trials that could potentially shed light on underreported findings within the existing literature. Regarding the methodology, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses published between January 2012 and October 2023. ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for related clinical trials currently underway or recruiting. Robotic gastrectomy, when compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy, for the treatment of gastric cancer, performs equally well or shows superiority in terms of the length of hospitalization, overall complications rates, rate of conversion to open surgery, surgical complications, anastomotic leakage, pancreatic complications, blood loss, mortality rates, time to first flatus, time to oral intake, distal and proximal resection margins, recurrence rate, reoperation rates, and overall survival. However, it is associated with higher costs and longer operative time. Parameters such as duodenal stump leakage, anastomosis stenosis, intestinal obstruction, ileus, delayed gastric emptying, wound complications, acute pancreatitis, pancreatic fistula, direct costs, time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy, postoperative morbidity, recurrence, and disease-free survival are currently underreported in the literature and necessitate for further research. Lastly, four clinical trials are currently underway or recruiting that could possibly bridge the research gap.

Current standards of surgical management of gastric cancer: an appraisal

PURPOSE

Gastric cancer (GC) is the fifth most common malignancy worldwide and portends a grim prognosis due to a lack of appreciable improvement in 5-year survival. We aimed to analyze the available literature and summarize the current standards of surgical care for curative and palliative intent treatment of GC.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on the PubMed database for studies on the management of GC.

RESULTS

Endoscopic resection is an acceptable treatment option for T1a tumors. The role of optimal resection margin for GC remains unclear. D2 lymph node dissection remains the standard of care with splenectomy needed selectively for splenic hilum involvement. A distal pancreatic resection should be avoided. The advantage of bursectomy and omentectomy in GC surgery is not clear. Multi-visceral resection may be considered for locally advanced GC in carefully selected patients. Minimally invasive approaches are non-inferior to open surgery. Surgery should be abandoned prior even in metastatic GC within the frame of multimodal therapy approach.

CONCLUSION

Various trials have conclusively shown improved patient outcomes when well-established surgical standards are followed.

Treatment burden of robotic gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC): a single western experience

Background

This study compares standard of care (SOC) open and robotic D2-gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) in the Western context of low disease prevalence, reduced surgical volume, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). We hypothesized that robotic gastrectomy (RG) after NAC reduces treatment burden for LAGC across multiple outcome domains vs. SOC.

Methods

Single institution, interrupted time series comparing SOC (2008–2013) for LAGC (T2–4Nany/TanyN+) vs. NAC + RG (2013–2018). Treatment burden was a composite metric of narcotic consumption, oncologic efficacy, cumulative morbidity, and 90-day resource utilization. Predictors were evaluated via multivariate modeling. Learning curve analysis was done using CUSUM.

Results

After exclusions, 87 subjects with equivalent baseline characteristics, aside from male sex, were treated via SOC (n=55) or NAC + RG (n=32). All four domains of treatment burden were significantly reduced in the NAC + RG cohort compared to SOC (P=0.003). The odds ratio for excess treatment burden in the NAC/RG was 0.23 (95% CI: 0.07–0.72, P=0.0117) vs. SOC upon multivariable modeling, whereas the extent of resection (total/subtotal), tumor size, T-stage, sex, and early learning curve had no effect. Differences in treatment burden persisted in subgroup analysis for NAC (n=51).

Conclusions

NAC + RG was associated with decreased treatment burden relative to SOC for LAGC. Frequencies of unfavorable hospitalization, adverse oncological outcomes, major morbidity, and narcotic consumption all decreased in this interrupted time series.

Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes

The use of the robotic platform for gastrointestinal surgery was introduced nearly 20 years ago. However, significant growth and advancement has occurred primarily in the last decade. This is due to several advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery allowing for more complex dissections and reconstructions. Several randomized controlled trials and retrospective reviews have demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery with improved short-term outcomes. Unfortunately, there are currently no universally accepted or implemented training programs for robotic surgery and robotic surgery experience varies greatly. Additionally, several limitations to the robotic platform exist resulting in a distinct learning curve associated with various procedures. Therefore, implementation of robotic surgery requires a multidisciplinary team approach with commitment and investment from clinical faculty, operating room staff and hospital administrators. Additionally, there is a need for wider distribution of educational modules to train more surgeons and reduce the associated learning curve. This article will focus on the implementation of the robotic platform for surgery of the pancreas, stomach, liver, colon and rectum with an emphasis on the associated learning curve, educational platforms to develop proficiency and perioperative outcomes.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

An umbrella review was performed to summarize literature data and to investigate benefits and harm of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared to laparoscopic (LG) approach. To overcome the intrinsic limitations of laparoscopy, the robotic approach is claimed to facilitate lymph-node dissection and complex reconstruction after gastrectomy, to assure oncologic safety also in advanced gastric cancer. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases for all meta-analyses published up to December 2019. The search strategy was previously published in a protocol. We selected fourteen meta-analyses comparing outcomes between LG and RG with curative intent in patients with diagnosis of resectable gastric cancer. We highlight that RG has a longer operation time, inferior blood loss, reduction in hospital stay and a more rapid recovery of bowel function. In meta-analyses with statistical significance the number of nodes removed in RG is higher than LG and the distal margin of resection is higher. There is no difference in terms of total complication rate, mortality, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis, intestinal obstruction and in conversion rate to open technique. The safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy are not clearly supported by strong evidence, suggesting that the outcomes reported for each surgical technique need to be interpreted with caution, in particular for the meta-analyses in which the heterogeneity is large. Certainly, robotic gastrectomy is associated with shorter time to oral intake, lesser intraoperative bleeding and longer operation time with an acceptable level of evidence. On the other hand, the data regarding other outcomes are insufficient as well as non-significant, from an evidence point of view, to draw any robust conclusion.

Single/reduced port surgery vs. conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim is to compare single port surgery (SPS)/reduced port surgery (RPS) versus conventional laparoscopy (CL) for gastrectomy for gastric cancer in terms of intra- and postoperative outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

After a search in Pubmed and Embase, six articles were included. Pooled analysis was used to evaluate the statistically significance for each variable.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-three and 230 patients underwent SPS/RPS and CL, respectively. One hundred and eighty-eight patients and 45 patients underwent subtotal and total gastrectomy, respectively, using the SPS/RPS approach. One hundred and eighty-five patients and 45 patients underwent subtotal and total gastrectomy, respectively, by CL. In 85 patients, an extra trocar was systematically placed at the end of surgery. Statistically significant differences were not observed about preoperative staging. The pooled analysis regarding operative time, blood loss, postoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and postoperative hospital stay showed that the only statistically significant difference between the two approaches is the shorter hospital stay in case of SPS/RPS.

CONCLUSIONS

SPS/RPS total or subtotal gastrectomy shows a lower postoperative hospital stay, with comparable operative time, blood loss, early postoperative complication rate and number of harvested lymph nodes in comparison to CL, provided extensive experience in minimally invasive gastrectomy is present. Abbreviations: AGC: advanced gastric cancer; BMI: body mass index; CI: confidence interval; CL: conventional laparoscopy; LESS: laparoendoscopic single site; MD: mean difference; NOS: Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; OR: odds ratio; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; ROBIN-I: Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions; RPS: reduced port surgery; RR: risk ratio; SILS: single incision laparoscopic surgery; SPS: single port surgery; WMD: weighted mean differences.

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 laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: an overview of systematic reviews with quality assessment of current evidence

Many systematic reviews have been published to evaluate the clinical benefits of robotic surgery for gastric cancer. However, these reviews have investigated various outcomes and differ considerably in quality. In this overview, we summarize the findings and quality of these reviews. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses that compared robotic surgery with laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer. We summarized the results of the meta-analyses and evaluated the quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR-2 tool. The literature search identified 14 eligible reviews. The reviews showed that estimated blood loss was significantly less and time to resumption of oral intake was significantly shorter in patients who underwent robotic surgery than in those who underwent laparoscopic surgery. However, no significant differences in other outcomes were found between the two types of surgery. The quality of the included reviews was judged to be critically low. In conclusion, the available evidence, albeit of critically low quality, suggests that robotic surgery decreases estimated blood loss and shortens the time to resumption of oral intake in patients with gastric cancer. There is currently no high-quality evidence that robotic surgery has clinical benefits for gastric cancer patients.

Minimally invasive gastrectomy for cancer and anastomotic options

In this review article, we explore patient selection criteria for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) gastrectomy, present evidence on the risks and benefits of minimally invasive techniques, describe operative techniques focusing specifically on reconstruction options, and discuss the learning curve associated with these operations.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Importance

This review provides a comprehensive comparison of treatment outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RLS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) based on randomly-controlled trials (RCTs).

Objectives

We employed RCTs to provide a systematic review that will enable the relevant community to weigh the effectiveness and efficacy of surgical robotics in controversial fields on surgical procedures both overall and on each individual surgical procedure.

Evidence review

A search was conducted for RCTs in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from 1981 to 2016. Among a total of 1,517 articles, 27 clinical reports with a mean sample size of 65 patients per report (32.7 patients who underwent RLS and 32.5 who underwent CLS), met the inclusion criteria.

Findings

CLS shows significant advantages in total operative time, net operative time, total complication rate, and operative cost (p < 0.05 in all cases), whereas the estimated blood loss was less in RLS (p < 0.05). As subgroup analyses, conversion rate on colectomy and length of hospital stay on hysterectomy statistically favors RLS (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Despite higher operative cost, RLS does not result in statistically better treatment outcomes, with the exception of lower estimated blood loss. Operative time and total complication rate are significantly more favorable with CLS.

Robotic surgery for the upper gastrointestinal tract: Current status and future perspectives

More than 4000 da Vinci Surgical Systems have been installed worldwide. Robotic surgery using the da Vinci Surgical System has been increasingly performed in the last decade, especially in urology and gynecology. The da Vinci Surgical System has not become standard in surgery of the upper gastrointestinal tract because of a lack of clear benefits in comparison with conventional minimally invasive surgery. We initiated robotic gastrectomy and esophagectomy for patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer in 2009, and we have demonstrated the potential advantages of the da Vinci Surgical System in reducing postoperative local complications after gastrectomy and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy after esophagectomy. However, robotic surgery has the disadvantages of a longer operative time and higher costs than the conventional approach. In this review article, we present the current status of robotic surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, as well as future perspectives on this approach, based on our experience and a review of the literature.

The safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic TME in patients with rectal cancer: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of science, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database up to July 2016 to identify case-controlled studies that compared robotic TME (RTME) with laparoscopic TME (LTME) for rectal cancer. GRADE was used to interpret the primary outcomes of this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We included 17 case-control studies (3601 participants: 1726 underwent RTME and 1875 LTME for rectal cancer) that compared RTME with LTME for rectal cancer. We found no statistically significant differences between techniques for local recurrence [odds ratio (OR) = 0.68, P = .216] and overall survival at 3 years (OR = 0.71, P = 1.140), complications (OR = 1.02, P = .883), positive circumferential resection margin (PCRM) (OR = 0.80, P = .256), the first passing flatus [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.11, P = .130], reoperation (OR = 0.66, P = .080), estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD = -12.45, P = .500), and length of stay in hospital (LOS) (WMD = -0.69, P = .089). Compared with LTME, RTME was associated with lower rate of conversion (OR = 0.35, P < .001), urinary retention (OR = 0.41, P = .025), and longer operative time (WMD = 57.43, P < .001). The overall quality of evidence was poor in all outcomes.

CONCLUSION

RTME in patients with rectal cancer was associated with a lower rate of conversion and less incidence of urinary retention. Generally, operative time in RTME was significantly longer than in LTME. The long-term oncological and function outcomes of RTME seem to be equivalent with LTME. Therefore, analysis of current studies to date did not indicate a major benefit of RTME over LTME.

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.

Status and Prospects of Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Our Experience and a Review of the Literature

Since the first report of robotic gastrectomy, experienced laparoscopic surgeons have used surgical robots to treat gastric cancer and resolve problems associated with laparoscopic gastrectomy. However, compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy, the superiority of robotic procedures has not been clearly proven. There are several advantages to using robotic surgery for gastric cancer, such as reduced estimated blood loss during the operation, a shorter learning curve, and a larger number of examined lymph nodes than conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy. The increased operation time observed with a robotic system is decreasing because surgeons have accumulated experience using this procedure. While there is limited evidence, long-term oncologic outcomes appear to be similar between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy. Robotic procedures have a significantly greater financial cost than laparoscopic gastrectomy, which is a major drawback. Recent clinical studies tried to demonstrate that the benefits of robotic surgery outweighed the cost, but the overall results were disappointing. Ongoing studies are investigating the benefits of robotic gastrectomy in more complicated and challenging cases. Well-designed randomized control trials with large sample sizes are needed to investigate the benefits of robotic gastrectomy compared with laparoscopic surgery.

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.

Robotic surgery for upper gastrointestinal cancer: Current status and future perspectives

Robotic surgery with the da Vinci Surgical System has been increasingly applied in a wide range of surgical specialties, especially in urology and gynecology. However, in the field of upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract, the da Vinci Surgical System has yet to be standard as a result of a lack of clear benefits in comparison with conventional minimally invasive surgery. We have been carrying out robotic gastrectomy and esophagectomy for operable patients with resectable upper GI malignancies since 2009, and have demonstrated the potential advantages of the use of the robot in possibly reducing postoperative local complications including pancreatic fistula following gastrectomy and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy after esophagectomy, even though there have been a couple of problems to be solved including longer duration of operation and higher cost. The present review provides updates on robotic surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer based on our experience and review of the literature.

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.

[Robot-assisted gastrectomy for cancer. German version]

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer is commonly considered a challenging procedure. The technical drawbacks of laparoscopy have been addressed by robotic technology, which can facilitate demanding reconstructions and fine dissection. These features confer potential advantages in the execution of lymphadenectomy.

OBJECTIVES

Here, we illustrate our technique of robotic gastrectomy and discuss advantages and drawbacks by reviewing the current literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We describe our technique for robot-assisted distal and total gastrectomy for cancer and assess the current literature dealing with short-term outcomes, immediate oncologic measures, and long-term oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted gastrectomy, in comparison with conventional laparoscopic and open surgery.

RESULTS

The robotic procedure seems to be as safe and effective as conventional gastrectomy for gastric cancer, with a longer operative time and decreased blood loss in comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy.

CONCLUSION

The technical advantages offered by robotics could help to standardize minimally invasive D2 lymphadenectomy and enable surgeons to perform this procedure routinely. Despite the scarcity of long-termdata on survival, immediate oncological measures (lymph node yield and margin status) are encouraging. Further studies investigating the long-term oncological outcomes are required.