Safety and efficacy of carbon nanoparticle suspension injection and indocyanine green tracer-guided lymph node dissection during robotic distal gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of comparative analyses on the use of carbon nanoparticle suspension injection (CNSI) and indocyanine green (ICG) tracer technology for lymph node detection and their perioperative safety in robotic radical gastrectomy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent robotic distal gastrectomy between November 2019 and November 2020. Patients were assigned to the CNSI group, the ICG group, or the control group. The number of lymph nodes detected, number of lymph nodes detected at each station, number of micro lymph nodes detected, rate of lymph node metastasis, and inoperative and postoperative recovery were compared. RESULTS: Of the 93 patients analyzed, 34 were in the CNSI group, 27 were in the ICG group, and 32 were in the control group. The mean number of lymph nodes retrieved in the CNSI group (48.44) was higher than that in the ICG (39.19) and control (35.28) groups (P = 0.004; P < 0.001), and there was no difference between the ICG and control groups (P = 0.102). The mean number of micro lymph nodes retrieved in the CNSI group (13.24) was higher than that in the ICG (5.74) and control (5.66) groups (P < 0.001). The lymph node metastasis rates in the CNSI, ICG, and control groups were 5.03, 4.63, and 5.93%, respectively (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The effect of CNSI on lymph node dissection and sorting was better than that of ICG, and CNSI improved the surgical quality and reduced lymph node staging deviation to a greater extent. CNSI was better than ICG in terms of improving the number of micro lymph nodes detected.

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.

Surgical and oncological outcomes of robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score­matched analysis of 1164 patients.

BACKGROUND: Studies on surgical outcomes after robotic surgery are increasing; however, long-term oncological results of studies comparing robotic-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) are still limited. This study aimed to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of RADG and LADG for the treatment of AGC. METHODS: A total of 1164 consecutive AGC patients undergoing RADG or LADG were enrolled between January 2015 and October 2021. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. The perioperative and oncological outcomes between the two groups were compared. RESULTS: Patient's characteristics were comparable between the two groups after PSM. RADG group represented a longer operative time (205.2 ± 43.1 vs 185.3 ± 42.8 min, P < 0.001), less operative blood loss (139.3 ± 97.8 vs 167.3 ± 134.2 ml, P < 0.001), greater retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) number (31.4 ± 12.1 vs 29.4 ± 12.3, P = 0.015), more retrieved LNs in the supra-pancreatic areas (13.4 ± 5.0 vs 11.4 ± 5.1, P < 0.001), and higher medical costs (13,608 ± 4326 vs 10,925 ± US $3925, P < 0.001) than LADG group. The overall complication rate was 13.7% in the RADG group and 16.6% in the LADG group, respectively; the difference was not significantly different (P = 0.242). In the subgroup analysis, the benefits of RADG were more evident in high BMI patients. Moreover, the 3-year overall survival (75.5% vs 73.1%, P = 0.471) and 3-year disease-free survival (72.9% vs 71.4%, P = 0.763) were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: RADG appears to be a safe and feasible procedure and could serve as an alternative treatment for AGC in experienced centers.

Impact of the indocyanine green fluorescence method for anastomotic blood flow in robotic distal gastrectomy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the blood flow at the site of delta-shaped anastomosis during robotic distal gastrectomy and determine surgical outcomes and risk factors for ischemia at the anastomotic site from the perspective of clinical characteristics, surgical outcomes and perigastric vascular anatomy. METHODS: We included 55 patients who underwent robotic distal gastrectomy with a blood flow evaluation in the duodenal walls using intravenous indocyanine green injection with the da Vinci Xi-equipped Firefly system. Additional resection was performed in patients with a poor blood flow. Clinical characteristics, surgical outcomes and perigastric vascular anatomy were compared between the 45 patients with sufficient blood flow (group S) and the 10 patients with insufficient blood flow (group I). Vascular anatomy was assessed by preoperative contrast-enhanced computed tomography according to Hiatt's classification. RESULTS: The patient characteristics and surgical outcomes were not significantly different. No patient developed anastomotic complications requiring intervention; more patients in group I had aberrant branching of the left hepatic artery than those in group S (p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: An indocyanine green-based blood flow evaluation might be an effective method of preventing anastomotic complications of delta-shaped anastomosis. Anatomical branching variations of the left hepatic artery might be a risk factor for impaired vascular perfusion of the anastomotic site.

Perioperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies and randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Da Vinci robotic surgery system, a novel type of surgery, was widespread in surgical field. However, the perioperative outcomes of robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) are still controversy, despite several observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT) had been reported. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched (PSM) and RCT studies to evaluated the perioperative feasibility and safety of RDG. METHODS: Studies were systematically searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase database, and screened according to the defined limitations. The quality of PSM studies and RCT studies were respectively assessed by ROBINS-I and Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Extracted data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.4. RESULTS: 7 PSM studies and 1 RCT with a total of 2763 patients were included in this analysis. The longer operative time (MD = 31.42, 95% CI [22.88, 39.96], p < 0.00001), less blood loss (MD = - 25.89, 95% CI [- 36.18, - 15.6], p < 0.00001), more retrieved lymph nodes (MD = 3.46, 95% CI [2.94, 3.98], p < 0.00001), shorter time to first flatus (MD = - 0.08, 95% CI [- 0.13, - 0.02], p = 0.006) and liquid intake (MD = - 0.13, 95% CI [- 0.22, - 0.05], p = 0.002) were observed in RDG group compared with LDG group. There are no statistically significant in time to start soft diet, postoperative hospital stays, overall complications, complications Grade I-II, complications Grade ≥ III, anastomotic leakage, bleeding, intra-abdominal bleeding, intraluminal bleeding, ileus, abdominal infection, delayed gastric emptying and wound complications. CONCLUSIONS: RDG showed less blood loss and more retrieved lymph nodes, revealed less time to first flatus and liquid intake after operation. But the operative time was longer in RDG group than in LDG. The incidence rate of postoperative complications was comparable between RDG and LDG.

Robotic real-time vessel navigation using indocyanine green fluorescence for lymph node dissection along the left gastroepiploic vessels during robotic distal gastrectomy - First experience.

Splenic infarction (SI) following gastrectomy is common; severe complications related to SI, such as splenic haemorrhage, abscess formation or rupture, can be fatal. To overcome these problems, we performed real-time vessel navigation using indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence during robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG). The aim of study is to report the efficacy of robotic real-time vessel navigation for lymph node dissection (LND) along left gastroepiploic vessels (LGEVs). We treated seven patients with gastric cancer who underwent LND along the LGEVs using robotic real-time vessel navigation during RDG at our institution from January 2021 to July 2021. There were no complications (Clavien-Dindo classification II). There were no cases of post-operative SI or spleen-related complications. Robotic real-time vessel navigation using ICG for LND along LGEVs during RDG could help to reduce post-operative spleen-related complications associated with RDG.

Morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a large cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of gastric cancer in recent year. However, whether RDG could reduce the morbidity when compared to laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes of RDG and LDG for gastric cancer and identify the related risk factors. METHODS: Between March 2010 and August 2019, consecutive patients undergoing RDG or LDG (519 and 957 patients, respectively) at our institution were included in this study. Postoperative complications were stratified according to the Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification. We performed one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, and evaluated postoperative morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes in PSM 1032 patients undergoing RDG or LDG. RESULTS: After PSM, the two groups were well-balanced. The mean blood loss of the RDG group was about 27 mL less than that of the LDG group (112.1 vs 139.0 mL, P < 0.001). The RDG group had more retrieved lymph nodes than that in the LDG group (32.7 v 30.2, P < 0.001). The RDG group showed a similar overall (9.9% vs 10.7%, P = 0.682), severe (2.7% vs 3.7%, P = 0.376), local (5.6% vs 5.2%, P = 0.783), and systemic complication rates (5.4% vs 6.0%, P = 0.688). There were no significant differences in mortality between the two groups (RDG 0% vs LDG 0.2%, P = 1.000). Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in most stratified parameters. Age > 65 years and ASA III were identified as two major risk factors for complications. CONCLUSION: RDG could be a safe and feasible in treating gastric cancer compared to LDG. However, we did not observe significant reduction in postoperative complications of RDG compared with LDG, although the use of robotic system is assumed to provide a technically superior operative environment.

Totally Robotic Distal Gastrectomy: A Safe and Feasible Minimally Invasive Technique for Gastric Cancer Patients Who Undergo Distal Gastrectomy.

PURPOSES: To explore the safety and feasibility of totally robotic distal gastrectomy (TRDG) for gastric cancer patients who undergo distal gastrectomy. METHODS: Consecutive patients with gastric cancer who underwent TRDG (TRDG group) and robotic-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) (RADG group) were systematically reviewed at the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University from October 2015 to August 2018. Data were collected and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 161 consecutive patients were included in this study: 84 cases in the TRDG group and 77 in the RADG group. Clinical characteristics and pathological results were mostly similar in both groups. The TRDG group had a significantly longer anastomotic time (20.6 ± 3.3 vs. 17.5 ± 4.0 min, p ˂ 0.001) but showed no difference in total operating time (167.0 ± 18.0 vs. 162.9 ± 17.6 min, p = 0.159). The postoperative hospitalization in the TRDG group was shorter than that in the RADG group (6.7 ± 1.2 vs. 7.2 ± 1.7 days, p = 0.019). Conversion rate, estimated blood loss, and postoperative complications were similar in both groups. There were no statistical differences in the estimated 2-year disease-free survival and overall survival rate between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although our current results need to be verified in further studies, TRDG represents a safe and feasible approach to distal gastrectomy and embodies the theory of minimally invasive surgery.

What are the reasons for a longer operation time in robotic gastrectomy than in laparoscopic gastrectomy for stomach cancer?

BACKGROUND: Many studies have shown that robotic gastrectomy requires a longer operation time than laparoscopic gastrectomy. However, no study has analyzed the exact reason for this difference in detail. We therefore investigated the reasons why more time is needed in robotic gastrectomy. METHODS: Ten consecutive cases of robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) performed in our institution were selected to measure the operation time in detail. Ten cases of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) performed during the same period were chosen for comparison. The operation videos and electronic medical records of these 20 patients were retrospectively reviewed. The overall operation time, operation time in each step, and time required for instrument changes were measured. The number of intraoperative instrument changes and camera cleanings were also counted. RESULTS: The overall operation time (including effective time and junk time) was 56.8 min longer for RDG than LDG (273.7 vs. 216.9 min, respectively; p = 0.000). The effective time was only 15.3 min longer for RDG than LDG (145.9 vs. 130.6 min, respectively; p = 0.094). The time needed for the six technical steps was also not significantly different between the two groups. However, the junk time (instrument setup and docking or positioning of surgical arms) was 41.5 min longer for RDG than LDG (127.8 vs. 86.2 min, respectively; p = 0.001). The number of instrument changes was not different between RDG and LDG (p = 0.277), but the time required for each was longer for RDG than LDG (p = 0.000). The number of camera cleanings was lower for RDG than LDG (10.7 vs. 15.5 times, respectively; p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: To reduce the operation time in RDG, a smarter and simpler system for setup should be developed to reduce the junk time. Additionally, a system for swifter instrument changes and more sophisticated energy devices are warranted to reduce the effective time.

Evaluating surgical expertise with AI-based automated instrument recognition for robotic distal gastrectomy.

Introduction: Complexities of robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) give reason to assess physician's surgical skill. Varying levels in surgical skill affect patient outcomes. We aim to investigate how a novel artificial intelligence (AI) model can be used to evaluate surgical skill in RDG by recognizing surgical instruments. Methods: Fifty-five consecutive robotic surgical videos of RDG for gastric cancer were analyzed. We used Deeplab, a multi-stage temporal convolutional network, and it trained on 1234 manually annotated images. The model was then tested on 149 annotated images for accuracy. Deep learning metrics such as Intersection over Union (IoU) and accuracy were assessed, and the comparison between experienced and non-experienced surgeons based on usage of instruments during infrapyloric lymph node dissection was performed. Results: We annotated 540 Cadiere forceps, 898 Fenestrated bipolars, 359 Suction tubes, 307 Maryland bipolars, 688 Harmonic scalpels, 400 Staplers, and 59 Large clips. The average IoU and accuracy were 0.82 ± 0.12 and 87.2 ± 11.9% respectively. Moreover, the percentage of each instrument's usage to overall infrapyloric lymphadenectomy duration predicted by AI were compared. The use of Stapler and Large clip were significantly shorter in the experienced group compared to the non-experienced group. Conclusions: This study is the first to report that surgical skill can be successfully and accurately determined by an AI model for RDG. Our AI gives us a way to recognize and automatically generate instance segmentation of the surgical instruments present in this procedure. Use of this technology allows unbiased, more accessible RDG surgical skill.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Distal gastrectomy (DG) with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer is routinely performed. In this meta-analysis, we present an updated overview of the perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic DG (LDG) and robotic DG (RDG) to compare their safety and overall outcomes in patients undergoing DG. An extensive search was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the establishment of the database to June 2023 for randomized clinical trials comparing RDG and LDG. The primary outcome was operative results, postoperative recovery, complications, adequacy of resection, and long-term survival. We identified twenty studies, evaluating 5,447 patients (1,968 and 3,479 patients treated with RDG and LDG, respectively). We observed no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the proximal resection margin, number of dissected lymph nodes, major complications, anastomosis site leakage, time to first flatus, and length of hospital stay. The RDG group had a longer operative time (P < 0.00001), lesser bleeding (P = 0.0001), longer distal resection margin (P = 0.02), earlier time to oral intake (P = 0.02), fewer overall complications (P = 0.004), and higher costs (P < 0.0001) than the LDG group. RDG is a promising approach for improving LDG owing to acceptable complications and the possibility of radical resection. Longer operative times and higher costs should not prevent researchers from exploring new applications of robotic surgery.

Short-Term Outcomes Analysis Comparing Open, Laparoscopic, Laparoscopic-Assisted, and Robotic Distal Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Trials Network Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is debated. The aim of this study was to execute a comprehensive assessment of principal surgical treatments for resectable distal gastric cancer. METHODS: Systematic review and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) network meta-analysis. Open (Op-DG), laparoscopic-assisted (LapAs-DG), totally laparoscopic (Lap-DG), and robotic distal gastrectomy (Rob-DG) were compared. Pooled effect-size measures were the risk ratio (RR), the weighted mean difference (WMD), and the 95% credible intervals (CrIs). RESULTS: Ten RCTs (3823 patients) were included. Overall, 1012 (26.5%) underwent Lap-DG, 902 (23.6%) LapAs-DG, 1768 (46.2%) Op-DG, and 141 (3.7%) Rob-DG. Anastomotic leak, severe complications (Clavien-Dindo > 3), and in-hospital mortality were comparable. No differences were observed for reoperation rate, pulmonary complications, postoperative bleeding requiring transfusion, surgical-site infection, cardiovascular complications, number of harvested lymph nodes, and tumor-free resection margins. Compared to Op-DG, Lap-DG and LapAs-DG showed a significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss with a trend toward shorter time to first flatus and reduced length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: LapAs-DG, Lap-DG, and Rob-DG performed in referral centers by dedicated surgeons have comparable short-term outcomes to Op-DG for locally AGC.

Robotic distal gastrectomy using a novel pre-emptive supra-pancreatic approach without duodenal transection in the dissection of D2 lymph nodes for gastric cancer.

Background: Robot-assisted surgery has shown remarkable progress as a minimally invasive procedure for gastric cancer. This study aimed to compare the pre-emptive suprapancreatic approach without duodenal transection and the conventional approach in terms of perioperative feasibility and short-term surgical outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent robotic distal gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection using the da Vinci Xi robotic system between December 2021 and April 2023 and categorized them into two groups for comparison. Patients treated using the pre-emptive suprapancreatic approach (observation group) were compared with those who received the conventional approach (control group). Employing one-to-one propensity score matching, we evaluated the postoperative morbidity and short-term outcomes in these two distinct groups to assess the efficacy and safety of the novel surgical technique. Results: This study enrolled 131 patients: 70 in the observation group and 61 in the control group. After propensity score matching, the operative times were significantly longer in the control group than in the observation group (229.10 ± 33.96 vs. 174.84 ± 18.37, p <0.001). The mean blood loss was lower in the observation group than in the control group (25.20 ± 11.18 vs. 85.00 ± 38.78, p <0.001). Additionally, the observation group exhibited a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes, including suprapyloric, perigastric, and superior pancreatic lymph nodes (28.69 ± 5.48 vs. 19.21 ± 2.89, p <0.001; 4.98 ± 1.27 vs. 4.29 ± 1.21, p = 0.012; 10.52 ± 2.39 vs. 5.50 ± 1.62, p <0.001; 6.26 ± 2.64 vs. 5.00 ± 1.72, p = 0.029). Drain amylase levels in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group (30.08 ± 33.74 vs. 69.14 ± 66.81, p <0.001). Conclusion: This study revealed that using the pre-emptive suprapancreatic approach without duodenal transection in the dissection of D2 lymph nodes for gastric cancer is a safe and feasible procedure in terms of surgical outcomes.

Trans-Umbilical Lymphadenectomy Using an Articulating Bipolar Vessel-Sealing Device (TULAB) during Robotic Surgery for Gastric Cancer: Enhancing the Surgeon's Eye for Reduced-Port Robotic Gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Docking the scope and instruments through a multi-channel trocar has enabled reduced-port robotic distal gastrectomy (RRDG) for gastric cancer. To facilitate lymphadenectomy over the anatomical hindrances during RRDG, we recently introduced the Vessel Sealer Extend® (VSE) (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), a bipolar vessel-sealing device (BVSD) with an articulating jaw. METHODS: From May 2020 to August 2023, we performed RRDG to treat T1 gastric cancer. One endoscope arm and three instrument arms of the da Vinci® Xi Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical) were used. During the lymphadenectomy, the endoscope and VSE (Intuitive Surgical) were docked through a multi-channel trocar established on a trans-umbilical incision. Two Cardiere forceps were docked through cannulas established on each flank. A trans-umbilical lymphadenectomy using an articulating BVSD (TULAB) was then performed. RESULTS: A total of 42 patients underwent planned RRDG with the TULAB technique. The number of retrieved lymph nodes did not differ between the patients who underwent RRDG and those who underwent conventional laparoscopic distal gastrectomies (CLDG) (p = 0.362). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative complications between the RRDG and CLDG group (p = 0.189). The mean time to first semi-fluid diet was shorter in the patients who underwent RRDG than CLDG (p = 0.030), and the incidence of postoperative ileus was lower in the RRDG group than the CLDG group (0% and 9.9%, respectively, p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Despite use of fewer ports, RRDG with TULAB had similar outcomes to CLDG in terms of the incidence of postoperative morbidity and the number of harvested lymph nodes. Furthermore, by reducing the number of incisions, the incidence of the intra-abdominal adhesions can potentially be lowered when RRDG is used.

Anatomy and assessment of a modified technique during totally robotic distal gastrectomy: A retrospective cohort study.

Background: Robotic surgery has potential benefits in the management of gastric cancer patients. This study compares the outcomes between totally robotic distal gastrectomy (TRDG) with modified port placement and arm positioning technique and conventional totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (CTLDG). Materials and methods: Fifty-two patients were enrolled into the study following a retrospective review of an in-patient database between January 2019 and June 2021. Patients who underwent gastric resection with the modified robotic technique were recruited into the study. Patients who did not receive treatment using the modified technique were excluded from the study. Data on demographic, clinical data and surgical outcomes were collected, analyzed, and presented. All statistical analyses were done using IBM SPSS statistical software. Results: Nineteen patients were in the TRDG group, and their mean age was 60.42 ± 11.53 years. There were no differences in demographic characteristics (all p > 0.05); nonetheless, laparoscopic patients had a significantly higher preoperative albumin level (p = 0.000). The operative time was longer in the TRDG group (223min), but the difference was insignificant. The reconstruction time was significantly shorter for the laparoscopic group (p = 0.000). Except for a significantly higher value of postoperative albumin level (p-value = 0.005) in the robotic group, there were no significant differences in all other surgical outcomes between the two groups. One (5.3%) patient had a severe complication in the robotic group compared to four (12.1%) in the laparoscopic group. Nevertheless, the differences in complications were statistically insignificant. Conclusion: The modified approach is a safe and feasible in totally robotic distal gastrectomy for the treatment of gastric cancer patients.

Billroth-I Reconstruction with Overlap Anastomosis Using an EndoWrist Linear Stapler After Robotic Distal Gastrectomy.

Introduction: Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) is now thought to be less invasive than conventional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) for gastric cancer. Although the delta-shaped anastomosis is an established, widely performed procedure for intracorporeal Billroth-I (B-I) gastroduodenostomy after LDG, it has some difficulties and is performed in the ischemic region of the duodenum. We therefore developed a novel overlap B-I gastroduodenostomy after RDG. Materials and Methods: We started using the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) for RDG in May 2017. The robotic overlap B-I reconstruction was performed via side-to-side anastomosis, as follows: Two small incisions were made, one on the greater curvature of the remnant stomach, 5 cm from the edge of the remnant gastric stump, and one on the superior edge of the anterior wall of the duodenal stump. A 45-mm EndoWrist linear stapler device (EWLS) loaded with a blue cartridge was inserted through the incision. After the remnant stomach and duodenum were attached to the V-shaped form by the EWLS, the incisions were closed by the EWLS. Results: Seven patients underwent RDG followed by a robotic overlap B-I procedure up to March 2019. Short-term outcomes were determined from medical records and operative videos. No intraoperative complications or conversions to open or conventional laparoscopic surgery occurred. The mean time for the anastomosis was 37 (range 29-45 minutes) minutes. No postoperative complications occurred following the robotic overlap B-I procedure. Discussion: RDG followed by an overlap B-I gastroduodenostomy might be feasible and safe. However, long-term follow-up is required to identify additional benefits.

Does Robotic Distal Gastrectomy Facilitate Minimally Invasive Surgery for Gastric Cancer?

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgical systems have advantages over laparoscopic surgery. The object of this study was to assess patients' postoperative outcomes after robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) compared to laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 21 and 119 patients who underwent RDG and LDG, respectively, for stage I gastric cancer. Short-term outcomes were compared including drain amylase levels and quality of life using a post-gastrectomy syndrome questionnaire. RESULTS: No patients experienced pancreatic fistula or anastomosis-related complications following RDG. The rate of overall complications tended to be lower in patients undergoing RDG. In addition to drain amylase level, inflammatory findings were lower after RDG than LDG. Patients undergoing RDG experienced a better quality of life and less dissatisfaction in daily life. CONCLUSION: RDG is feasible and produced highly-satisfactory results for early gastric cancer. We believe that the effective use of robotic surgery will increase safety and precision in minimally invasive surgery.