Lower rate of conversion using robotic-assisted surgery compared to laparoscopy in completion total gastrectomy for remnant gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Completion total gastrectomy with radical lymphadenectomy for remnant gastric cancer is a technically demanding procedure. No previous studies have compared laparoscopic to robotic-assisted completion gastrectomy, whereas a few small case series have reported benefits of minimally invasive surgery over open surgery. The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of robotic-assisted compared with laparoscopic completion gastrectomy for the treatment of remnant gastric cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data from 55 patients who underwent minimally invasive completion gastrectomy for remnant gastric cancer at the Severance Hospital of Yonsei University Health System from April 2005 to July 2017. Of the 55 patients, 30 patients underwent laparoscopic and 25 underwent robotic-assisted completion total gastrectomy. We compared the patients' demographics, operative outcomes, and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Operation time was longer in the robotic-assisted surgery group (225 vs 292 min, P < 0.001), but both groups had similar estimated blood loss. The laparoscopic surgery group had a 13.3% (four patients) rate of conversion to open surgery because of severe adhesions, whereas no patients in the robotic group underwent conversion to laparoscopic or open surgery (P = 0.058). Mean hospital stay, postoperative complications, and recovery were similar in both groups. Pathology results, including the number of retrieved lymph nodes, did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic and robotic approaches are both feasible and safe for remnant gastric cancer, with comparable short-term outcomes. However, the robotic approach demonstrated a lower conversion rate than laparoscopy, although the statistical difference was marginal.

Similar Operative Outcomes between the da Vinci Xi® and da Vinci Si® Systems in Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer.

PURPOSE: The robotic system for surgery was introduced to gastric cancer surgery in the early 2000s to overcome the shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery. The more recently introduced da Vinci Xi® system offers benefits allowing four-quadrant access, greater range of motion, and easier docking through an overhead boom rotation with laser targeting. We aimed to identify whether the Xi® system provides actual advantages over the Si® system in gastrectomy for gastric cancer by comparing the operative outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy as treatment for gastric cancer from March 2016 to March 2017. Patients' demographic data, perioperative information, and operative and pathological outcomes were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients were included in the Xi® group and 179 in the Si® group. Demographic characteristics were similar in both groups. The mean operative time was 229.9 minutes in the Xi® group and 223.7 minutes in the Si® group. The mean estimated blood loss was 72.7 mL in the Xi® group and 62.1 mL in the Si® group. No patient in the Xi® group was converted to open or laparoscopy, while 3 patients in the Si® group were converted, 2 to open surgery and 1 to laparoscopy, this difference was not statistically significant. Bowel function was resumed 3 days after surgery, while soft diet was initiated 4 days after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in surgical outcomes after robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer between the da Vinci Xi® and da Vinci Si® procedures.

Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Current evidence.

The robotic system has gained wide acceptance in specialties such as urological and gynecological surgery. It has also been applied in the field of upper gastrointestinal surgery. Since the first implementation of the robotic system for the treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma, the procedure has been found to be safe and feasible. Although robotic gastrectomy does not meet our expectations and yield better results than laparoscopic gastrectomy, this procedure seems to provide several advantages over laparoscopy such as reduced blood loss, shorter learning curves and increased number of retrieved lymph nodes. However, as many case series, including a recent multicenter study, have revealed, higher cost and longer operation time are the major limitations of robotic gastrectomy. Furthermore, there are no results from well-designed randomized clinical trials comparing the two procedures. New procedures in much more technically demanding cases will test the genuine benefits of robotic gastrectomy.