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

Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To undertake a review of systematic reviews on the clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery across a mix of intracavity procedures, using evidence mapping to inform the decision makers on the best utilisation of robotic-assisted surgery.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included systematic reviews with randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials describing any clinical outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library from 2017 to 2023.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We first presented the number of systematic reviews distributed in different specialties. We then mapped the body of evidence across selected procedures and synthesised major findings of clinical outcomes. We used a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews. The overlap of primary studies was managed by the corrected covered area method.

RESULTS

Our search identified 165 systematic reviews published addressing clinical evidence of robotic-assisted surgery. We found that for all outcomes except operative time, the evidence was largely positive or neutral for robotic-assisted surgery versus both open and laparoscopic alternatives. Evidence was more positive versus open. The evidence for the operative time was mostly negative. We found that most systematic reviews were of low quality due to a failure to deal with the inherent bias in observational evidence.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery has a strong clinical effectiveness evidence base to support the expanded use of robotic-assisted surgery in six common intracavity procedures, which may provide an opportunity to increase the proportion of minimally invasive surgeries. Given the high incremental cost of robotic-assisted surgery and longer operative time, future economic studies are required to determine the optimal use of robotic-assisted surgery capacity.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in overweight and obese gastric cancer patients: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The technical challenges and safety concerns of single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy for overweight and obese gastric cancer patients remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (SIDG) compared to multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) in overweight and obese gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed overweight and obese patients (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2) and pathologic stage T1 primary gastric adenocarcinoma treated with either SIDG or MLDG. The SIDG and MLDG groups were propensity score matched at a 1:2 ratio using age, sex, height, body weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, year of surgery, pathologic N stage, and anastomosis method as covariates.

RESULTS

After 1:2 matching, the study included patients who underwent SIDG (n = 179) and MLDG (n = 358). No significant difference in the number of retrieved lymph nodes was found between the SIDG and MLDG groups (52.8 ± 19.3 vs. 53.9 ± 21.0, P = 0.56). Operation times were significantly shorter in the SIDG group (170.8 ± 60.0 min vs. 186.1 ± 52.6 min, P = 0.004). The postoperative hospital length of stay was comparable between the 2 groups (SIDG: 5.9 ± 3.4 days vs. MLDG: 6.3 ± 5.1 days, P = 0.23), as was postoperative complication rate (SIDG: 13.4% vs. MLDG: 12.8%, P = 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

SIDG was shown to be as safe and feasible as MLDG for overweight and obese gastric cancer patients, with comparable early postoperative complication rates without compromising operation time compared to MLDG.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes: robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer patients with visceral obesity

The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the comparative efficacy of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery in treating gastric cancer among patients characterized by a high visceral fat area (VFA). In April 2024, we conducted a comprehensive literature review using major international databases, such as PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. We restricted our selection to articles written in English, excluding reviews, protocols without published data, conference abstracts, and irrelevant content. Our analysis focused on continuous data using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and standard mean differences (SMDs), while dichotomous data were assessed with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. We set the threshold for statistical significance at P < 0.05. Data extraction included baseline characteristics, primary outcomes (such as operative time, major complications, lymph node yield, and anastomotic leakage), and secondary outcomes. The meta-analysis included three cohort studies totaling 970 patients. The robotic-assisted group demonstrated a significantly longer operative time compared to the laparoscopic group, with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of - 55.76 min (95% CI - 74.03 to - 37.50; P < 0.00001). This group also showed a reduction in major complications, with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.48 (95% CI 1.09-5.66; P = 0.03) and fewer occurrences of abdominal infections (OR 3.17, 95% CI 1.41-7.14; P = 0.005), abdominal abscesses (OR 3.83, 95% CI 1.53-9.57; P = 0.004), anastomotic leaks (OR 4.09, 95% CI 1.73-9.65; P = 0.001), and pancreatic leaks (OR 8.93, 95% CI 2.33-34.13; P = 0.001). However, no significant differences were observed between the groups regarding length of hospital stay, overall complications, estimated blood loss, or lymph node yield. Based on our findings, robot-assisted gastric cancer surgery in obese patients with visceral fat appears to be correlated with fewer major complications compared to laparoscopic surgery, while maintaining similar outcomes in other surgical aspects. However, it is important to note that robot-assisted procedures do tend to have longer operative times.

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.