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

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.

The comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic radical distal gastrectomy

PURPOSE

The study's objectives were to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic radical distal gastrectomy (RDG) with laparoscopic radical distal gastrectomy (LDG) for patients with gastric cancer and investigate the learning curve of RDG.

METHODS

The cumulative sum (CUSUM) method was used to retrospectively analyze consecutive gastric cancer patients undergoing RDG between January 2019 and October 2021. The duration of surgery, clinical-pathological characteristics, and short-term outcomes were evaluated according to the two phases of the learning curve (learning period versus mastery period). We also compared the clinical-pathological characteristics and short-term outcomes between cases in the mastery period and LDG.

RESULTS

Data from 290 patients were included in this analysis, 135 RDG and 155 LDG cases. The learning period was 20 cases. There were no significant differences in clinical-pathological characteristics between the learning period and mastery period. Compared with the learning period, the mastery period had a significant reduction in total operation time, docking time, pure operation time, and estimated blood loss, and a significant increase in hospital costs (P=0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.003, and 0.026, respectively). Compared with LDG, robotic cases in mastery period had a longer operative time, shorter first postoperative flatus time, and more hospital costs (P=0.000, 0.005, and 0.000, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

RGD may fasten to recover gastrointestinal function faster after the operation, can be mastered easily after a reasonable number of cases, and was associated with safe and satisfactory short-term outcomes before and after the learning curve.

Performing robot-assisted pylorus and vagus nerve-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: A case series of initial experience

BACKGROUND

Pylorus and vagus nerve-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) is a function-preserving surgery for early gastric cancer (GC) that has gained considerable interest in the recent years. The operative technique performed using the Da Vinci Xi robot system is considered ideal for open and laparoscopic surgery.

AIM

To introduce Da Vinci Xi robot-assisted PPG (RAPPG)-based operative procedure and technical points as well as report the initial experience based on the clinical pathology data of eight cases of early GC.

METHODS

Da Vinci Xi robot-assisted pylorus and vagus nerve-preserving gastrectomy (RAPPG) was performed for 11 consecutive patients with middle GC from December 2020 to July 2021. Outcome measures were postoperative morbidity, operative time, blood loss, number of lymph nodes harvested, postoperative hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to diet, and resection margins.

RESULTS

Eight of the 11 patients who were pathologically diagnosed with early GC were enrolled in a retrospective study to assess the feasibility and safety of RAPPG. The mean operative time, mean blood loss, mean number of lymph nodes harvested, length of preserved pylorus canal, distal margin, and proximal margin were 330.63 ± 47.24 min, 57.50 ± 37.70 mL, 18.63 ± 10.57, 3.63 ± 0.88 cm, 3.50 ± 1.31 cm, and 3.63 ± 1.19 cm, respectively. None of the cases required conversion to laparotomy. Postoperative complications occurred in two (25.0%) patients. Postoperative complications were hyperamylasemia and gastric stasis in one case and incision infection in the other. Time to first flatus was 3.75 ± 2.49 d after the operation, and postoperative hospital stay was 10.13 ± 4.55 d.

CONCLUSION

The core technique in the Da Vinci Xi RAPPG is lymph node dissection and the anatomic method of the nerve. Robotic surgical procedures are feasible and safe. With the progress of surgical technology, optimization of medical insurance structure, and emergence of evidence-based medicine, automated surgery systems will have a broad application in clinical treatment.

Clinical efficacy and safety of robotic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) is a new technique that is rapidly gaining popularity and may help overcome the limitations of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG); however, its safety and therapeutic efficacy remain controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RDG.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies that compared RDG and LDG and were published between the time of database inception and May 2021. We assessed the bias risk of the observational studies using ROBIN-I, and a random effect model was always applied.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 22 studies involving 5386 patients. Compared with LDG, RDG was associated with longer operating time (Mean Difference [MD] = 43.88, 95% CI = 35.17-52.60), less intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 24.84, 95% CI = - 41.26 to - 8.43), a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD = 2.41, 95% CI = 0.77-4.05), shorter time to first flatus (MD = - 0.09, 95% CI = - 0.15 to - 0.03), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = - 0.68, 95% CI = - 1.27 to - 0.08), and lower incidence of pancreatic fistula (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.07-0.79). Mean proximal and distal resection margin distances, time to start liquid and soft diets, and other complications were not significantly different between RDG and LDG groups. However, in the propensity-score-matched meta-analysis, the differences in time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups lost significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, RDG appears feasible and safe, shows better surgical and oncological outcomes than LDG and, comparable postoperative recovery and postoperative complication outcomes.

Effectiveness and safety of robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of 12,401 gastric cancer patients

Advanced minimally invasive techniques, such as robotic surgeries, are applied increasingly frequently around the world and are primarily used to improve the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Against that background, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy (RG). Studies comparing surgical outcomes between LG and RG patients were retrieved from medical databases, including RCTs and non-RCTs. The primary outcome of this study was overall survival, which was obtained by evaluating the 3-year survival rate and the 5-year survival rate. In addition, postoperative complications, mortality, length of hospital stay, and harvested lymph nodes were also assessed. We also conducted subgroup analyses stratified by resection type, body mass index, age, depth of invasion and tumour size. Ultimately, 31 articles met the criterion for our study through an attentive check of each text, including 1 RCT and 30 non-RCTs. A total of 12,401 patients were included in the analysis, with 8127 (65.5%) undergoing LG and 4274 (34.5%) undergoing RG. Compared with LG, RG was associated with fewer postoperative complications (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.71-0.93; P = 0.002), especially pancreas-related complications (OR 0.376; 95% CI 0.156-0.911; P = 0.030), increased harvested lymph nodes (WMD 2.03; 95% CI 0.95-3.10; P < 0.001), earlier time to first flatus (WMD - 0.105 days; 95% CI - 0.207 to - 0.003; P = 0.044), longer operation time (WMD 40.192 min, 95% CI 32.07-48.31; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD - 20.09 ml; 95% CI - 26.86 to - 13.32; P < 0.001), and higher expense (WMD 19,141.68 RMB; 95% CI 11,856.07-26,427.29; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding 3-year overall survival (OR 1.030; 95% CI 0.784-1.353; P = 0.832), 5-year overall survival (OR 0.862; 95% CI 0.721-1.031; P = 0.105), conversion rate (OR 0.857; 95% CI 0.443-1.661; P = 0.648), postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.368 days; 95% CI - 0.75-0.013; P = 0.059), mortality (OR 1.248; 95% CI 0.514-3.209; P = 0.592), and reoperation (OR 0.855; 95% CI 0.479-1.525; P = 0.595). Our study revealed that postoperative complications, especially pancreas-related complications, occurred less often with RG than with LG. However, long-term outcomes between the two surgical techniques need to be further examined, particularly regarding the oncological adequacy of robotic gastric cancer resections.

Treatment Strategies of Gastric Cancer-Molecular Targets for Anti-angiogenic Therapy: a State-of-the-art Review

Purpose

Recent studies have suggested that molecular targets for the anti-angiogenic therapy might constitute a basis for additional therapy in gastric cancer treatment. A vast number of molecules, receptors, pathways, specific interactions, and thus strategies that target gastric cancer angiogenesis specifically have been reported in numerous research articles and clinical trials.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature review of molecularly targeted treatment strategies in gastric cancer on the following databases—PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus—on September 20, 2020. Multiple articles and evaluations were searched for studies reporting newly found and promising molecular anti-angiogenic therapy pathways. Eventually, 39 articles regarding the anti-angiogenic therapy in gastric cancer were included in the final analysis.

Results

As a consequence of the release of the pro-angiogenic molecules from the tumour cells, gastric cancer presents high angiogenic capability. Therefore, potential schemes for future treatment strategies include the decrease of the process ligands as well as the expression of their receptors. Moreover, the increase in the angiogenic inhibitor levels and direct aim for the inner walls of the endothelial cells appear as a promising therapeutic strategy. Beyond that, angiogenesis process inhibition seems to indirectly exaggerate the effects of chemotherapy in the considered patients.

Conclusions

The anti-angiogenic treatment in gastric cancer patients evaluates its significance especially in the early stages of the malignancy. The studies conducted so far show that most of the meaningful angiogenic factors and receptors with the potential molecular pathways should be further evaluated since they could potentially play a substantial role in future therapies.

Current status of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy

Robotic systems were developed to overcome limitations of laparoscopic surgery with its mechanical advantages. Along with the technical advances, robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer is increasing. However, the evidence regarding safety and efficacy for robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer is not mature yet. Although studies are limited, it is evident that robotic gastrectomy has a longer operation and less blood loss compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy. Studies revealed long-term oncological outcomes after robotic gastrectomy was comparable to those after laparoscopic gastrectomy. Taken together, robotic gastrectomy with systemic lymph node dissection is suggested as a safe procedure with equivalent short- and long-term oncologic outcomes to either laparoscopic or open gastrectomy for the surgical treatment of gastric cancer. However, high cost is the most significant barrier to justify robotic surgery as a routine and standard treatment for patients with gastric cancer. In the meanwhile, robotic surgery will be expansively used as long as technologic developments continue.

Surgical treatment of gastric cancer: Current status and future directions

Surgery is the most important and effective method for the treatment of gastric cancer. Since the first gastrectomy in the early 19th century, surgical treatment of gastric cancer has undergone more than 100 years of development. With the increasing understanding of gastric cancer and the promotion of a series of clinical trials, the concept of gastric cancer surgery has evolved from the initial "bigger is better" to today's "standardized surgery" and is developing towards individualized surgery focusing on accurate resection and quality of life. This trend has had a tremendous impact on the development of surgical treatments, such as minimally invasive surgeries, function-preserving surgeries, and the optimal extent of lymph node dissection. Understanding the development and current status of gastric cancer surgery and exploring the remaining academic controversies are goals that every gastric surgeon should constantly pursue. However, how should gastric cancer surgery develop in the future? What opportunities and challenges will we encounter? In this review, we elaborate on the development and current status of gastric cancer surgery based on a series of clinical studies and discuss the controversy in the development of gastric cancer surgery.

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic radical gastrectomy and laparoscopic-assisted radical gastrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastrectomy is the optimal treatment for gastric cancer. Laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) has been extensively employed, while hand-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy (HALG), which is similar to LAG, remains controversial. Although HALG is popular in China, some surgeons do not accept it as a minimal-access technique. 

AIM

To assess the safety and practicability of HALG by comparing the short-term outcomes of HALG and LAG.

METHODS

The electronic databases of EMBASE, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Cochrane Library were thoroughly searched, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HALG and LAG were included. The study results, including surgery time, blood loss, retrieved lymphatic nodes, incision length, time to first flatus, hospitalization duration, and all postsurgical complications, were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Five RCTs, which included 302 cases with HALG and 298 cases with LAG, were considered eligible for inclusion. Meta-analysis showed that HALG significantly reduced surgery time (P < 0.01), hospital duration (P < 0.01), and overall postsurgical complications (P < 0.01). Additionally, HALG significantly increased the number of retrieved lymphatic nodes (P = 0.01) and incision length (P < 0.01) compared with LAG. The blood loss and time to first flatus were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with LAG, HALG is a simpler and safer technique. Additionally, HALG should be used as a minimal-access technique, especially in technologically undeveloped areas.