Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this multicentre cohort study was to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for patients with gastric cancer. METHODS: Patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy by robotic or laparoscopic approaches from 1 March 2010 to 31 December 2018 at 10 high-volume centres in China were selected from institutional databases. Patients receiving RG were matched 1 : 1 by propensity score with patients undergoing LG. The primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes were overall survival and disease recurrence. RESULTS: Some 2055 patients who underwent RG and 4309 patients who had LG were included. The propensity score-matched cohort comprised 2026 RGs and 2026 LGs. Median follow-up was 41 (i.q.r. 39-58) months for the RG group and 39 (38-56) months for the LG group. The 3-year disease-free survival rates were 80.8% in the RG group and 79.5% in the LG group (log rank P = 0.240; HR 0.92, 95% c.i. 0.80 to 1.06; P = 0.242). Three-year OS rates were 83.9 and 81.8% respectively (log rank P = 0.068; HR 0.87, 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.068) and the cumulative incidence of recurrence over 3 years was 19.3% versus 20.8% (HR 0.95, 0.88 to 1.03; P = 0.219), with no difference between groups. CONCLUSION: RG and LG in patients with gastric cancer are associated with comparable disease-free and overall survival.

Robotic Gastrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Cohort Study of 5402 Patients in China.

OBJECTIVE: A large-scale multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: RG is being increasingly used worldwide, but data from large-scale multicenter studies on the short- and long-term oncologic outcomes of RG versus LG are limited. The potential benefits of RG compared with LG for gastric cancer remain controversial. METHODS: Data from eligible patients who underwent RG or LG for gastric cancer of 11 experienced surgeons from 7 centers in China between March 2010 and October 2019 were collected. The RG group was matched 1:1 with the LG group by using propensity score matching. The primary outcome was postoperative complications. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, a well-balanced cohort of 3552 patients was included for further analysis. The occurrence of overall complications (12.6% vs 15.2%, P = 0.023) was lower in the RG group than in the LG group. RG was associated with less blood loss (126.8 vs 142.5 mL, P < 0.001) and more retrieved lymph nodes in total (32.5 vs 30.7, P < 0.001) and in suprapancreatic areas (13.3 vs 11.6, P < 0.001).The long-term oncological outcomes were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this multicenter study demonstrate that RG is a safe and effective treatment for gastric cancer when performed by experienced surgeons, although longer operation time and higher costs are still concerns about RG. This study provides evidence suggesting that RG may represent an alternative surgical treatment to LG.

Robotic- vs laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer based on propensity score matching: Short-term outcomes at a colorectal center in China.

BACKGROUND: Reports in the field of robotic surgery for rectal cancer are increasing year by year. However, most of these studies enroll patients at a relatively early stage and have small sample sizes. In fact, studies only on patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and with relatively large sample sizes are lacking. AIM: To investigate whether the short-term outcomes differed between robotic-assisted proctectomy (RAP) and laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy (LAP) for LARC. METHODS: The clinicopathological data of patients with LARC who underwent robotic- or laparoscopic-assisted radical surgery between January 2015 and October 2019 were collected retrospectively. To reduce patient selection bias, we used the clinical baseline characteristics of the two groups of patients as covariates for propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis. Short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The clinical features were well matched in the PSM cohort. Compared with the LAP group, the RAP group had less intraoperative blood loss, lower volume of pelvic cavity drainage, less time to remove the pelvic drainage tube and urinary catheter, longer distal resection margin and lower rates of conversion (P < 0.05). However, the time to recover bowel function, the harvested lymph nodes, the postoperative length of hospital stay, and the rate of unplanned readmission within 30 days postoperatively showed no difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The rates of total complications and all individual complications were similar between the RAP and LAP groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study indicated that RAP is a safe and feasible method for LARC with better short-term outcomes than LAP, but we have to admit that the clinically significant of part of indicators are relatively small in the practical situation.