Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes After Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Radical Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer in Elderly Individuals: A Propensity Score-Matching Study.

BACKGROUND: Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been widely used to treat gastric cancer. However, whether the short-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy are superior to those of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer has not been reported. METHODS: The study enrolled of 594 elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer who underwent robotic or laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. The RG cohort was matched 1:3 with the LG cohort using propensity score-matching (PSM). RESULTS: After PSM, 121 patients were included in the robot group and 363 patients in the laparoscopic group. Excluding the docking and undocking times, the operation time of the two groups was similar (P = 0.617). The RG group had less intraoperative blood loss than the LG group (P < 0.001). The time to ambulation and first liquid food intake was significantly shorter in the RG group than in the LG group (P < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the two groups (P = 0.14). Significantly more lymph nodes were dissected in the RG group than in the LG group (P = 0.001). Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy was started earlier in the RG group than in the LG group (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: For elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer, RG is safe and feasible. Compared with LG, RG is associated with less intraoperative blood loss; a faster postoperative recovery time, allowing a greater number of lymph nodes to be dissected; and earlier adjuvant chemotherapy.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A Western propensity score matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RG) has been shown to be safe and feasible in the treatment of gastric cancer (GC). However, it is unclear whether RG is equivalent to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), especially in the Western world. Our objective was to compare the outcomes of RG and LG in GC patients. METHODS: We reviewed all gastric adenocarcinoma patients who underwent curative gastrectomy by minimally invasive approach in our institution from 2009 to 2022. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to reduce selection bias. DaVinci Si platform was used for RG. RESULTS: A total of 156 patients were eligible for inclusion (48 RG and 108 LG). Total gastrectomy was performed in 21.3% and 25% of cases in LG and RG, respectively. The frequency of stage pTNM II/III was 48.1%, and 54.2% in the LG and RG groups (p = 0.488). After PSM, 48 patients were matched in each group. LG and RG had a similar number of dissected lymph nodes (p = 0.759), operative time (p = 0.421), and hospital stay (p = 0.353). Blood loss was lower in the RG group (p = 0.042). The major postoperative complications rate was 16.7% for LG and 6.2% for RG (p = 0.109). The 30-day mortality rate was 2.1% and 0% for LG and RG, respectively (p = 1.0). There was no significant difference between the LG and RG groups for disease-free survival (79.6% vs. 61.2%, respectively; p = 0.155) and overall survival (75.9% vs. 65.7%, respectively; p = 0.422). CONCLUSION: RG had similar surgical and long-term outcomes compared to LG, with less blood loss observed in RG.

Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology.

Robotic surgery has experienced a dramatic increase in utilization across general surgery over the last two decades, including in surgical oncology. Although urologists and gynecologists were the first to show that this technology could be utilized in cancer surgery, the robot is now a powerful tool in the treatment of gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreatico-biliary, colorectal, endocrine, and soft tissue malignancies. While long-term outcomes are still pending, short-term outcomes have showed promise for this technologic advancement of cancer surgery.

Robotic gastrectomy is more beneficial for advanced than early-stage gastric cancer: a comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy using propensity score matching.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer is the fifth most prevalent malignancy globally and the fourth major contributor to cancer-related mortality. The comparative effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy (RG) versus laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) at different stages of gastric cancer is unclear regarding surgical and survival outcomes. We compared surgical and survival outcomes between RG and LG in early-stage (cStage I) and advanced (cStage II/III) gastric cancers to elucidate the difference in the efficacy of RG across various stages of gastric cancer. METHODS: We identified 299 patients (LG, 170; RG, 129) with cStage II/III disease and 569 (LG, 455; RG, 114) with cStage I disease who underwent either LG or RG. Following propensity score matching for RG and LG, 118 pairs were selected for cStage II/II and 113 pairs for cStage I. Surgical and survival outcomes of LG and RG were separately compared for cStage II/III and cStage I. RESULTS: In cStage II/III, RG showed significantly fewer intra-abdominal complications of Clavien-Dindo (C.D.) Grade ≥ III in the RG group than in the LG group (LG = 8.5 vs. RG = 1.7%, P = 0.033). Multivariate analysis identified LG as an independent risk factor for intra-abdominal complications of C.D. Grade ≥ III (OR 5.69, 95% CI 1.17-27.70, P = 0.031). However, in cStage I, no difference in surgical outcomes between LG and RG was observed. No differences were observed in survival outcomes between LG and RG in both cStage I or cStage II/III. CONCLUSIONS: The real benefit of RG was demonstrated in surgical outcomes, especially for advanced-stage gastric cancer.

Robotic gastrectomy was reliable option for overweight patients with gastric cancer: a propensity score matching study.

BACKGROUND: The role of minimally invasive surgery using robotics versus laparoscopy in resectable gastric cancer patients with a high body mass index (BMI) remains controversial. METHODS: A total of 482 gastric adenocarcinoma patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 who underwent minimally invasive radical gastrectomy between August 2016 and December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed, including 109 cases in the robotic gastrectomy (RG) group and 321 cases in the laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) group. Propensity score matching (PSM) with a 1:1 ratio was performed, and the perioperative outcomes, lymph node dissection, and 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were compared. RESULTS: After PSM, 109 patients were included in each of the RG and LG groups, with balanced baseline characteristics. Compared with the LG group, the RG group had similar intraoperative estimated blood loss [median (IQR) 30 (20-50) vs. 35 (30-59) mL, median difference (95%CI) - 5 (- 10 to 0)], postoperative complications [13.8% vs. 18.3%, OR (95%CI) 0.71 (0.342 to 1.473)], postoperative recovery, total harvested lymph nodes [(34.25 ± 13.43 vs. 35.44 ± 14.12, mean difference (95%CI) - 1.19 (- 4.871 to 2.485)] and textbook outcomes [(81.7% vs. 76.1%, OR (95%CI) 1.39 (0.724 to 2.684)]. Among pathological stage II-III patients receiving chemotherapy, the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy in the RG group was similar to that in the LG group [median (IQR): 28 (25.5-32.5) vs. 32 (27-38.5) days, median difference (95%CI) - 3 (- 6 to 0)]. The 3-year OS (RG vs. LG: 80.7% vs. 81.7%, HR = 1.048, 95%CI 0.591 to 1.857) and DFS (78% vs. 76.1%, HR = 0.996, 95%CI 0.584 to 1.698) were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSION: RG conferred comparable lymph node dissection, postoperative recovery, and oncologic outcomes in a selected cohort of patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2.

Comparison of totally robotic and totally laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: With the improvements in laparoscopic or robotic surgical techniques and instruments, a growing number of surgeons have attempted to complete all digestive tract reconstruction intracorporeally; these procedures include totally robotic gastrectomy (TRG) and totally laparoscopic gastrectomy (TLG). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the TRG and compare the short-term outcomes of the TRG and TLG in patients with gastric cancer. METHODS: Between January 2018 and June 2023, 346 consecutive patients who underwent TRG or TLG at a high-volume academic gastric cancer specialty center were included. 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce confounding bias. The surgical outcomes, postoperative morbidity, and surgical burden were compared in PSM cohort. RESULTS: After PSM, a well-balanced cohort of 194 patients (97 in each group) was included in the analysis. The total operation time of the TRG group was significantly longer than that of the TLG group (244.9 vs. 213.0 min, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the effective operation time between the 2 groups (217.8 vs. 207.2 min, P = 0.059). The digestive tract reconstruction time of the TRG group was significantly shorter than that of the TLG group (39.4 vs. 46.7 min, P < 0.001). The mean blood loss in the TRG group was less than that in the TLG group (101.1 vs. 126.8 mL, P = 0.014). The TRG group had more retrieved lymph nodes in the suprapancreatic area than that in the TLG group (16.6 vs 14.2, P = 0.002). The TRG group had a lower surgery task load index (38.9 vs. 43.1, P < 0.001) than the TLG group. No significant difference was found in terms of postoperative morbidity between the 2 groups (14.4% vs. 16.5%, P = 0.691). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that TRG is a safe and feasible procedure, and is preferable to TLG in terms of invasion and ergonomics. The TRG may maximize the superiority of robotic surgical systems and embodies the theory of minimally invasive surgery.

Comparison of short­term outcomes and 3-year overall survival between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing use of robotic gastrectomy (RG) as an alternative to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in treating gastric cancer, controversy remains over the advantages of RG compared to LG and there is a paucity of studies comparing the two techniques regarding patient survival. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, 675 patients undergoing minimally invasive gastrectomy were recruited from January 2016 to January 2018 (LG: n = 567; RG: n = 108). A one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was applied to minimize the selection bias due to confounding factors, yielding 104 patients in each of the RG and LG groups. After matching, the short-term outcomes and 3-year overall survival were compared in the two groups. RESULTS: The PSM cohort analysis showed a similar 3-year overall survival between RG and LG groups (p = .249). Concerning the short-term outcomes, the RG compared to LG resulted in lower blood loss (p = .01), lower postoperative complications (p = .001), lower postoperative pain (p = .016), earlier initiation of soft diet (p = .011), shorter hospital stay |(p = .012), but higher hospitalization expenses (p = .001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that RG may offer advantages in terms of blood loss, surgical complications, recovery time, and pain management compared to LG while maintaining similar overall survival rates. However, RG is associated with higher hospital costs, potentially limiting its wider adoption. Further research, including large, multi-center randomized controlled trials with longer patient follow-up, particularly for advanced gastric cancer, is needed to confirm these findings.

Five-year long-term comparison of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a large single-center cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been reported to be technically feasible and safe for patients with gastric cancer. However, 5-year long-term survival and recurrence outcomes for advanced gastric cancer have rarely been reported. This study aimed to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes between RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer. METHODS: The general clinicopathological data of 1905 consecutive patients who underwent RG and LG were retrospectively collected at the Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital between November 2011 and October 2017. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match groups. The primary endpoints were 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: After PSM, a well-balanced cohort of 283 patients in the RG group and 701 patients in the LG group were included in the analysis. The 5-year cumulative DFS rates were 67.28% in the robotic group and 70.41% in the laparoscopic group. The 5-year OS rate was 69.01% in the robotic group and 69.58% in the laparoscopic group. No significant differences in Kaplan-Meier survival curves for DFS (HR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.83-1.39, Log-rank P = 0.557) and OS (HR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.78-1.34, Log-rank P = 0.850) were observed between the 2 groups. In the subgroup analyses for potential confounding variables, there were no significant differences in 5-year DFS and 5-year OS survival between the 2 groups (P > 0.05), except for patients with pathological stage III and pathological stage N3 (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: For patients with early gastric cancer, robotic and laparoscopic approaches have similar long-term survival. For patients with advanced gastric cancer, further studies need to be conducted to assess the long-term survival outcomes of RG.

Pancreatic thickness as a predictor of postoperative pancreatic fistula after laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Despite technical advances in minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer, an increased incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) has been reported. POPF can cause infectious and bleeding complications, which could lead to surgery-related death; therefore, reduction of the post-gastrectomy POPF risk is crucial. This study aimed to investigate the importance of pancreatic anatomy as a predictor of POPF in patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy. METHODS: Data were collected from 331 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The thickness of the pancreas anterior to the most ventral level of the splenic artery (TPS) was measured. The correlation between TPS and POPF incidence was investigated using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The cutoff value of TPS was 11.8 mm, which predicted a high drain amylase concentration on postoperative day 1, and patients were categorized into thin (Tn group) and thick TPS groups (Tk group). There was no significant difference in the background characteristics between the two groups, except for sex (P = 0.009) and body mass index (P < 0.001). The incidences of POPF grade B or higher (2% vs. 16%, P < 0.001), all postoperative complications of grade II or higher (12% vs. 28%, P = 0.004), and postoperative intra-abdominal infections of grade II or higher (4% vs. 17%, P = 0.001) were significantly higher in the Tk group. Multivariable analysis identified that high TPS was the only independent risk factor for grade B or higher POPF and grade II or higher postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications. CONCLUSIONS: The TPS is a specific predictive factor for POPF and postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy. Careful pancreatic manipulation during suprapancreatic lymphadenectomy is necessary for patients with increased TPS (> 11.8 mm) to avoid postoperative complications.

Laparoscopic-assisted robotic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer by Billroth II reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: There are several reconstructions in distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer, and there is no clear definition regarding the method selection. The optimal reconstruction is likely to vary according to the surgical setting, and the optimal reconstruction for robotic distal gastrectomy is urgently needed. In addition, as robotic gastrectomy is getting popular, cost and operative time are pressing issues of robotic gastrectomy. METHODS: Gastrojejunostomy was planned with Billroth II reconstruction using a linear stapler arranged specifically for a robotic approach. After firing the stapler, the common insertion orifice of the stapler was closed using a 30 cm long non-absorbable barbed suture, and continuously, the afferent loop of the jejunum was lifted to the stomach with the same barbed suture. In addition, we introduced laparoscopic-assisted robotic gastrectomy, using extracorporeally inserted laparoscopic devices from the assistant port. Scissors, clips, and linear staplers were all laparoscopic tools inserted extracorporeally. RESULTS: Twenty-one gastric cancer patients underwent laparoscopic-assisted robotic distal gastrectomy by Billroth II reconstruction with our modifications. There were no anastomosis-related complications such as leakage, stenosis, or bleeding. There were 2 cases of aspiration pneumonia (Clavien-Dindo grade 2), 1 case of pancreatic juice leakage (grade 3a), and 1 case of delayed gastric emptying (grade 1). CONCLUSION: We successfully arranged Billroth II reconstruction for robotic distal gastrectomy with fewer operative and postoperative complications. Laparoscopic-assisted robotic gastrectomy using extracorporeally inserted devices, and continuous suturing using a barbed suture will reduce the time and cost of robotic gastrectomy.

Open vs robotic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis on 1469 patients from the IMIGASTRIC prospective database.

BACKGROUND: Comparative data on D2-robotic gastrectomy (RG) vs D2-open gastrectomy (OG) are lacking in the Literature. Aim of this paper is to compare RG to OG with a focus on D2-lymphadenectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Data of patients undergoing D2-OG or RG for gastric cancer were retrieved from the international IMIGASTRIC prospective database and compared. RESULTS: A total of 1469 patients were selected for inclusion in the study. After 1:1 propensity score matching, a total of 580 patients were matched and included in the final analysis, 290 in each group, RG vs OG. RG had longer operation time (210 vs 330 min, p < 0.0001), reduced intraoperative blood loss (155 vs 119.7 ml, p < 0.0001), time to liquid diet (4.4 vs 3 days, p < 0.0001) and to peristalsis (2.4 vs 2 days, p < 0.0001), and length of postoperative stay (11 vs 8 days, p < 0.0001). Morbidity rate was higher in OG (24.1% vs 16.2%, p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: RG significantly expedites recovery and reduces the risk of complications compared to OG. However, long-term survival is similar.

Trans-pacific multicenter collaborative study of minimally invasive proximal versus total gastrectomy for proximal gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancers.

BACKGROUND: The current standard operation for proximal gastric and gastroesophageal junction (P/GEJ) cancers with limited esophageal extension is total gastrectomy (TG). TG is associated with impaired appetite and weight loss due to the loss of gastric functions such as production of ghrelin and with anemia due to intrinsic factor loss and vitamin B12 malabsorption. Theoretically, proximal gastrectomy (PG) can mitigate these problems by preserving gastric function. However, PG with direct esophagogastric reconstruction is associated with severe postoperative reflux, delayed gastric emptying, and poor quality of life (QoL). Minimally invasive PG (MIPG) with antireflux techniques has been increasingly performed by experts but is technically demanding owing to its complexity. Moreover, the actual advantages of MIPG over minimally invasive TG (MITG) with regards to postoperative QoL are unknown. Our overall objective of this study is to determine the short-term QoL benefits of MIPG. Our central hypotheses are that MIPG is safe and that patients have improved appetite after MIPG with effective antireflux techniques, which leads to an overall QoL improvement when compared with MITG. METHODS: Enrollment of a total of 60 patients in this prospective survey-collection study is expected. Procedures (MITG versus MIPG, antireflux techniques for MIPG [double-tract reconstruction versus the double-flap technique]) will be chosen based on surgeon and/or patient preference. Randomization is not considered feasible because patients often have strong preferences regarding MITG and MIPG. The primary outcome is appetite level (reported on a 0-10 scale) at 3 months after surgery. With an expected 30 patients per cohort (MITG versus MIPG), this study will have 80% power to detect a one-point difference in appetite level. Patient-reported outcomes will be longitudinally collected (including questions about appetite and reflux), and specific QoL items, body weight, body mass index and ghrelin, albumin, and hemoglobin levels will be compared. DISCUSSION: Surgeons from the US, Japan, and South Korea formed this collaboration with the agreement that the surgical approach to P/GEJ cancers is an internationally important but controversial topic that requires immediate action. At the completion of the proposed research, our expected outcome is the establishment of the benefit and safety of MIPG. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with Clinical Trials Reporting Program Registration under the registration number NCI-2022-00267 on January 11, 2022, as well as with ClinicalTrials.gov under the registration number NCT05205343 on January 11, 2022.

Safety and efficacy of indocyanine green near-infrared fluorescent imaging-guided lymph node dissection during robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In Asia, particularly, robotic gastrectomy has grown in popularity as a treatment for stomach cancer. Indocyanine green (ICG) and near-infrared (NIR) fluorescent imaging technology has been reported for robotic gastrectomy. However, the clinical value still should be further evaluated. In this meta-analysis, we investigated the safety and efficacy of ICG near-infrared fluorescent imaging-guided lymph node (LN) dissection during robotic gastrectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Through July 2022, systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were conducted to find studies comparing ICG fluorescence imaging with conventional treatment in patients with gastric cancer. The current meta-analysis was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis guidelines. A pooled analysis was performed for the available data regarding the number of lymph node dissections, other operative outcomes and postoperative complications. R studio software 4.2.2 was used for this meta-analysis. RESULTS: This analysis includes five studies with a total of 312 gastric cancer patients (128 in the ICG group and 184 in the non-ICG group). In this meta-analysis, the number of retrieved LNs in the ICG group was significantly higher (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 8.80, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 4.37-13.22, p < 0.05) than that in the non-ICG group with moderate heterogeneity (p < 0.0001, I2=53.3%). Intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complications were all comparable and without significant heterogeneity. Additionally, ICG near-infrared fluorescent imaging was associated with a reduced operative time (WMD= -11.85, 95% CI: -22.40 to -1.30, p < 0.05) with low heterogeneity (p = 0.027, I2= 2.1%). CONCLUSIONS: ICG near-infrared fluorescent imaging-guided lymphadenectomy was considered to be safe and effective in robotic gastrectomy. ICG was used to increase the number of LNs harvested while reducing operative time without increasing intraoperative blood loss or postoperative complications.

Risk Factors of Postoperative Intra-Abdominal Infectious Complications after Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic surgery is regarded as an evolved type of laparoscopic surgery. Few studies have undertaken detailed analysis of complications following robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective study of 149 consecutive patients with gastric cancer who underwent robotic gastrectomy. It examines in detail the postoperative complications in robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer, focusing on intra-abdominal infectious complications including anastomotic leakage, pancreatic fistula, and intra-abdominal abscess. We also aim to identify the related risk factors. RESULTS: The median operation time was 299 min and the median bleeding was 25 mL. The incidence of overall complications higher than grade II was 8.7%. Clinically serious complications higher than grade IIIa occurred in 6.7% of cases. The incidence of intra-abdominal infectious complications that were higher than grade II was 4.0%. Mortality in our consecutive series was zero. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications were significantly associated with history of abdominal surgery (p = 0.043), with odds ratios of 17.890 (95% confidence interval 1.092-293.150) and with non-curative resection (p = 0.025), with odds ratios of 58.629 (95% confidence interval 1.687-2,037.450). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Robotic gastrectomy was shown to be a safe and effective treatment for gastric cancer when performed by experienced surgeons. Attention should be paid to the risk of developing postoperative complications when performing robotic gastrectomy in gastric cancer patients with a history of abdominal surgery and in patients with advanced gastric cancer in whom there is expected to be difficulty in curative resection.

Safety assessment of robotic gastrectomy and analysis of surgical learning process: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The safety of robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer in daily clinical settings and the process by which surgeons are introduced and taught RG remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of RG in daily clinical practice and assess the learning process in surgeons introduced to RG. METHODS: Patients who underwent RG for gastric cancer at Kyoto University and 12 affiliated hospitals across Japan from January 2017 to October 2019 were included. Any morbidity with a Clavien-Dindo classification grade of II or higher was evaluated. Moreover, the influence of the surgeon's accumulated RG experience on surgical outcomes and surgeon-reported postoperative fatigue were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 336 patients were included in this study. No conversion to open or laparoscopic surgery and no in-hospital mortality were observed. Overall, 50 (14.9%) patients developed morbidity. During the study period, 14 surgeons were introduced to robotic procedures. The initial five cases had surprisingly lower incidence of morbidity compared to the following cases (odds ratio 0.29), although their operative time was longer (+ 74.2 min) and surgeon's fatigue scores were higher (+ 18.4 out of 100 in visual analog scale). CONCLUSIONS: RG was safely performed in actual clinical settings. Although the initial case series had longer operative time and promoted greater levels of surgeon fatigue compared to subsequent cases, our results suggested that RG had been introduced safely.

Trends in clinical outcomes and long-term survival after robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a single high-volume center experience of consecutive 2000 patients.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery is now a standard treatment for gastric cancer. Many retrospective studies have reported that robotic gastrectomy is safe and feasible, with similar short- and long-term outcomes as laparoscopic gastrectomy. However, no studies have reported the details of surgical and survival outcomes for robotic gastrectomy. This study aimed to evaluate the surgical trends and techniques of robotic gastrectomy and analyze the surgical outcomes of 2000 consecutive patients with gastric cancer who underwent robotic gastrectomy over 14 years. METHODS: Between July 2005 and January 2019, 2000 consecutive robotic gastrectomies were performed. We evaluated short- and long-term outcomes as well as surgical trends after robotic gastrectomy. RESULTS: There were 1,560 subtotal gastrectomies (78%), 324 total gastrectomies (16.2%), 83 proximal gastrectomies (4.2%), and 33 completion total gastrectomies (1.7%). The rates of major complications and mortality were 3.1% and 0.3%, respectively. In a subgroup analysis, there were no significant differences in the rate of complications over time (P = 0.696). Five-year overall survival rates were 97.6% for stage I, 91.9% for stage II, and 69.2% for stage III, with a total recurrence rate of 5.3%. Since its adoption in 2005, the proportion of robotic gastrectomies, as well as technically demanding procedures have increased over time. CONCLUSIONS: Our 14 years' experience of 2000 robotic gastrectomies has shown the proportion, as well as the number of robotic gastrectomies, have tended to increase and trends toward to technically demanding procedures. Outcomes of robotic gastrectomy appear safe and feasible with acceptable short- and long-term outcomes.

Advantages of a robotic approach compared with laparoscopy gastrectomy for patients with high visceral fat area.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer surgery for obese patients is regarded as a technically challenging procedure. The morbidity after gastrectomy has been reported to be significantly higher in patients with high visceral fat area (VFA). Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is expected to be advantageous for complicated operations. However, whether RG is superior to conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for patients with visceral fat obesity remains unclear. The present study aimed to clarify the impact of RG on the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with high VFAs. METHODS: This study included 1306 patients with clinical stage I/II gastric cancer who underwent minimally invasive gastrectomy between January 2012 and December 2020. The patients were subclassified according to VFA. The short- and long-term outcomes of RG were compared with those of LG in two VFA categories. RESULTS: This study included 394 (high-VFA, 151; low-VFA, 243) and 882 patients (high-VFA, 366; low-VFA, 516) in the RG and LG groups, respectively. RG was associated with a significantly longer operative time than LG (high-VFA, P < 0.001; low-VFA, P < 0.001). The incidence rates of overall and intra-abdominal infectious complications in the high-VFA patients were lower in the RG group than in the LG group (P = 0.019 and P = 0.048, respectively) but not significantly different from those in the low-VFA patients. In the multivariate analysis, LG was identified as the only independent risk factor of overall (odds ratio [OR] 3.281; P = 0.012) and intra-abdominal infectious complications (OR 3.462; P = 0.021) in the high-VFA patients. The overall survival of high-VFA patients was significantly better in the RG group than in the LG group (P = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with visceral fat obesity, RG appears to be advantageous to LG in terms of reducing the risk of complications and better long-term survival.

Comparison of robotic gastrectomy and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of robotic gastrectomy (RG) over laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) remain controversial. This single-center, propensity score-matched study aimed to compare the outcomes of RG with those of LG for treating gastric cancer. METHODS: We searched the prospective gastric cancer database of our institute for patients with gastric cancer who underwent RG or LG between January 2014 and December 2019, excluding patients with remnant stomach cancer and those who underwent concurrent surgery for comorbid malignancies. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to reduce bias from confounding patient-related variables, and short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the groups. RESULTS: We identified 1189 patients who underwent LG (n = 979) or RG (n = 210). After propensity score matching, we selected 210 pairs of patients who underwent LG (distal gastrectomy, 138; total or proximal gastrectomy, 72) or RG (distal gastrectomy, 143; total or proximal gastrectomy, 67). RG was associated with a significantly shorter operative time (RG = 201 min vs. LG = 231 min, p = 0.0051), less blood loss (RG = 13 mL vs. LG = 42 mL, p < 0.0001), lower postoperative morbidity (RG = 1.0% vs. LG = 4.8%, p = 0.0066), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.0002) than LG. Drain amylase levels on postoperative Days 1 and 3 in the RG group were significantly lower than those in the LG group (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: RG is a safe and feasible treatment for gastric cancer, with a shorter operative time, less blood loss, and lower postoperative morbidity than LG. The application of robotics in minimally invasive gastric cancer surgery may offer an alternative to conventional surgery. Multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trials comparing RG with conventional LG are needed to establish the feasibility and efficacy of minimally invasive gastric cancer surgery.

Short- and long-term comparison of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer by the same surgical team: a propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: Research on short-term outcomes and oncology results after robotic gastrectomy (RG) is still limited, especially from a single surgical team. The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). METHODS: Between October 2014 and September 2019, 1686 consecutive patients who underwent MIS gastrectomy were enrolled. The patients were divided into RG and LG groups according to surgical type. Groups were matched at a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores based on the following variables: age, sex, ASA score, primary tumor location, histologic type, pathological stage, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The primary outcomes were 3-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). The secondary outcomes were postoperative short-term outcomes. RESULTS: Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups after matching. Compared to the LG group, the RG group had a significantly higher retrieved lymph node (LN) number (32.15 vs 30.82, P = 0.040), more retrieved supra-pancreatic LNs (12.45 vs 11.61, P = 0.028), lower estimated blood loss (73.67 vs 98.08 ml, P < 0.001), but longer operation time (205.18 vs 185.27 min, P < 0.001) and higher hospitalization costs ($13,607 vs $10,928, P < 0.001) in the matched cohort. In the subgroup analysis, we observed that compared with LG, patients with advanced gastric cancer benefitted more from RG surgery. The matched cohort analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences for 3-year OS or RFS (log-rank, P = 0.648 and P = 0.951, respectively): 80.3% and 77.0% in LG vs. 81.2% and 76.6% in RG, respectively. CONCLUSION: RG has certain technical advantages over LG, especially in patients with advanced gastric cancer. However, RG does not improve long-term oncology outcomes.

Incidence and risk factors of postoperative complications after robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an analysis of 817 cases based on 10-year experience in a large-scale center.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we investigated the incidence and risk factors for postoperative complications after robotic gastrectomy (RG) in patients with gastric cancer. METHODS: A total of 817 patients who underwent RG for gastric cancer between March 2010 and August 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Postoperative complications were categorized according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, and possible risk factors were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 817 patients who underwent RG, overall, severe, local and systemic complication rates were 13.8, 4.2, 7.0 and 6.9%, respectively. Multivariable analysis revealed that an age of 70 years or older (P < 0.001) and multiorgan resection (P = 0.031) were independent risk factors for the occurrence of overall complications. Multivariable analysis showed that an age of 70 years or older (P = 0.005) and surgeons' experience ≤ 25 cases (P = 0.004) were independent risk factors for severe complications. Regarding local complications, an age of 70 years or older (P < 0.001), multiorgan resection (P = 0.010) and surgeons' experience ≤ 25 cases (P = 0.005) were identified as independent risk factors. An age of 70 years or older (P < 0.001), a BMI of 25 or higher (P = 0.045) and the presence of comorbidity (P = 0.029) were identified as independent risk factors for systemic complications. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated that RG is a safe and feasible procedure for the treatment of gastric cancer, and it has an acceptable postoperative morbidity. Elderly patients and insufficient surgeon experience were two major risk factors for the occurrence of complications following RG. We suggest that surgeons choose patients in good condition during their RG learning phase to reduce learning-associated morbidity.