1
|
Yamana I, Fujikawa T, Kawamura Y, Hasegawa S. Robotic-Assisted Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Using the Right Gastroepiploic Artery: A Case Report. Cureus 2024; 16:e67446. [PMID: 39314567 PMCID: PMC11417419 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.67446] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/21/2024] [Indexed: 09/25/2024] Open
Abstract
The right gastroepiploic artery (RGEA) is frequently used in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for right coronary artery bypass requiring long-term patency. We experienced a case of upper-third advanced gastric cancer after CABG using RGEA. The absence of enlarged lymph nodes (LNs) or distant metastasis was confirmed through computed tomography (CT), and the RGEA graft remained patent according to coronary CT angiography. Based on these findings, the patient underwent robotic total gastrectomy while preserving the RGEA graft without infra-pyloric LN dissection. We suggested that caution should be exercised to avoid injury to the graft during gastrectomy, and robotic surgery could contribute to safely preserving the RGEA. We should consider the decision to dissect the infra-pyloric LN for the patient's safety and curability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ippei Yamana
- Surgery, Kokura Memorial Hospital, Kitakyushu, JPN
| | | | | | - Suguru Hasegawa
- Gastroenterological Surgery, Fukuoka University Hospital, Fukuoka, JPN
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Pattilachan TM, Christodoulou M, Ross S. Diagnosis to dissection: AI's role in early detection and surgical intervention for gastric cancer. J Robot Surg 2024; 18:259. [PMID: 38900376 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-02005-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2024] [Accepted: 06/01/2024] [Indexed: 06/21/2024]
Abstract
Gastric cancer remains a formidable health challenge worldwide; early detection and effective surgical intervention are critical for improving patient outcomes. This comprehensive review explores the evolving landscape of gastric cancer management, emphasizing the significant contributions of artificial intelligence (AI) in revolutionizing both diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Despite advancements in the medical field, the subtle nature of early gastric cancer symptoms often leads to late-stage diagnoses, where survival rates are notably decreased. Historically, the treatment of gastric cancer has transitioned from palliative care to surgical resection, evolving further with the introduction of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques. In the current era, AI has emerged as a transformative force, enhancing the precision of early gastric cancer detection through sophisticated image analysis, and supporting surgical decision-making with predictive modeling and real-time preop-, intraop-, and postoperative guidance. However, the deployment of AI in healthcare raises significant ethical, legal, and practical challenges, including the necessity for ongoing professional education and the development of standardized protocols to ensure patient safety and the effective use of AI technologies. Future directions point toward a synergistic integration of AI with clinical best practices, promising a new era of personalized, efficient, and safer gastric cancer management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tara Menon Pattilachan
- AdventHealth Tampa, Surgery College of Medicine, Digestive Health Institute, University of Central Florida (UCF), 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite #500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA
| | - Maria Christodoulou
- AdventHealth Tampa, Surgery College of Medicine, Digestive Health Institute, University of Central Florida (UCF), 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite #500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA
| | - Sharona Ross
- AdventHealth Tampa, Surgery College of Medicine, Digestive Health Institute, University of Central Florida (UCF), 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite #500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ma S, Li L, Yang C, Liu B, Zhang X, Liao T, Liu S, Jin H, Cai H, Guo T. Advances in the application of robotic surgical systems in gastric cancer: A narrative review. Asian J Surg 2022:S1015-9584(22)01484-1. [PMID: 36334999 DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2022.10.051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2022] [Revised: 09/15/2022] [Accepted: 10/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Gastric cancer is one of the common malignant tumors in the gastrointestinal tract, and surgery is currently an important treatment for progressive gastric cancer. With the development of technology, the simultaneous maturation of artificial intelligence (AI), fifth-generation (5G) telecommunication networks and the internet of things (IOT) has brought significant efficacy and new opportunities for the surgical treatment of gastric malignancies. The combination of 5G network and remote surgical robotic system is the future trend of radical gastric cancer surgery, and the "unmanned" treatment mode of fully automated robotic gastric cancer radical surgery will be realized soon.
Collapse
|
4
|
Sibio S, La Rovere F, Di Carlo S. Benefits of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2022; 28:4227-4230. [PMID: 36157117 PMCID: PMC9403424 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i30.4227] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2021] [Revised: 01/08/2022] [Accepted: 07/22/2022] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
We read with great interest the article that retrospectively analyzed 814 patients with primary gastric cancer, who underwent minimally invasive R0 gastrectomy between 2009 and 2014 by grouping them in laparoscopic vs robotic procedures. The results of the study highlighted that age, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, gastrectomy type and pathological T and N status were the main prognostic factors of minimally invasive gastrectomy and showed how the robotic approach may improve long-term outcomes of advanced gastric cancer. According to most of the current literature, robotic surgery is associated with a statistically longer operating time when compared to open and laparoscopic surgery; however, looking at the adequacy of resection, defined by negative surgical margins and number of lymph nodes removed, it seems that robotic surgery gives better results in terms of the 5-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival. The robotic approach to gastric cancer surgery aims to overcome the difficulties and technical limitations of laparoscopy in major surgery. The three-dimensional vision, articulation of the instruments and good ergonomics for the surgeon allow for accurate and precise movements which facilitate the complex steps of surgery such as lymph node dissection, esophagus-jejunal anastomosis packaging and reproducing the technical accuracy of open surgery. If the literature, as well as the analyzed study, offers us countless data regarding the short-term oncological results of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, satisfactory data on long-term follow-up are lacking, so future studies are necessary.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simone Sibio
- Department of Surgery P. Valdoni, Unit of Oncologic and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Sapienza University of Rome, Umberto I University Hospital, Rome 00161, Italy
| | - Francesca La Rovere
- Department of Surgery P. Valdoni, Unit of Oncologic and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Sapienza University of Rome, Umberto I University Hospital, Rome 00161, Italy
| | - Sara Di Carlo
- Minimally Invasive Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Tor Vergata University, Rome 00133, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Zizzo M, Zanelli M, Sanguedolce F, Torricelli F, Morini A, Tumiati D, Mereu F, Zuliani AL, Palicelli A, Ascani S, Giunta A. Robotic versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review. MEDICINA (KAUNAS, LITHUANIA) 2022; 58:medicina58060834. [PMID: 35744096 PMCID: PMC9231199 DOI: 10.3390/medicina58060834] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2022] [Revised: 06/08/2022] [Accepted: 06/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard surgical treatment with curative intent for patients with gastric cancer (GC). Over the last three decades, surgeons have been increasingly adopting laparoscopic surgery for GC, due to its better short-term outcomes. In particular, laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been routinely used for early gastric cancer (EGC) treatment. However, LG suffers from technical limitations and drawbacks, such as a two-dimensional surgical field of view, limited movement of laparoscopic tools, unavoidable physiological tremors and discomfort for operating surgeon. Therefore, robotic surgery has been developed to address such limitations. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines in order to investigate the benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared to the LG. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Re-views, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL) and Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index) databases were used to search all related literature. Results: The 7 included meta-analyses covered an approximately 20 years-study period (2000-2020). Almost all studies included in the meta-analyses were retrospective ones and originated from Asian countries (China and Korea, in particular). Examined overall population ranged from 3176 to 17,712 patients. If compared to LG, RG showed both operative advantages (operative time, estimated blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes) and perioperative ones (time to first flatus, time to restart oral intake, length of hospitalization, overall complications, Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ III complications, pancreatic complications), in the absence of clear differences of oncological outcomes. However, costs of robotic approach appear significant. Conclusions: It is impossible to make strong recommendations, due to the statistical weakness of the included studies. Further randomized, possibly multicenter trials are strongly recommended, if we want to have our results confirmed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maurizio Zizzo
- Surgical Oncology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy; (A.M.); (D.T.); (F.M.); (A.L.Z.); (A.G.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +39-0522-296372; Fax: +39-0522-295779
| | - Magda Zanelli
- Pathology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy; (M.Z.); (A.P.)
| | - Francesca Sanguedolce
- Pathology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Ospedali Riuniti di Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy;
| | - Federica Torricelli
- Laboratory of Translational Research, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy;
| | - Andrea Morini
- Surgical Oncology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy; (A.M.); (D.T.); (F.M.); (A.L.Z.); (A.G.)
| | - David Tumiati
- Surgical Oncology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy; (A.M.); (D.T.); (F.M.); (A.L.Z.); (A.G.)
| | - Federica Mereu
- Surgical Oncology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy; (A.M.); (D.T.); (F.M.); (A.L.Z.); (A.G.)
| | - Antonia Lavinia Zuliani
- Surgical Oncology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy; (A.M.); (D.T.); (F.M.); (A.L.Z.); (A.G.)
| | - Andrea Palicelli
- Pathology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy; (M.Z.); (A.P.)
| | - Stefano Ascani
- Hematology Unit, CREO, Azienda Ospedaliera di Perugia, University of Perugia, 06129 Perugia, Italy;
- Pathology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera S. Maria di Terni, University of Perugia, 05100 Terni, Italy
| | - Alessandro Giunta
- Surgical Oncology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy; (A.M.); (D.T.); (F.M.); (A.L.Z.); (A.G.)
| |
Collapse
|