BACKGROUND: Laparoscopically assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) is technically difficult. Robot surgery has theoretical advantages such as increased degrees of freedom of instruments and a three-dimensional view. The current study aimed to determine whether a robot-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) has a real benefit over LATG in terms of surgical and oncologic outcomes. METHODS: A single-center case-control study was conducted. The study included 36 patients who underwent RATG and 65 patients who underwent LATG at the National Cancer Center in Korea between February 2009 and May 2011. No patients were excluded from the analysis within the study period. Clinicopathologic data, operative data, postoperative morbidity, and pathologic data were analyzed by Student's t-tests and Chi-square tests, as indicated. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 53.9 ± 11.7 years in the RATG group and 56.9 ± 12.3 years in the LATG group (P = 0.236). The mean BMI was 23.2 ± 2.5 kg/m(2) in the RATG group and 23.6 ± 3.4 kg/m(2) in the LATG group (P = 0.494). The mean postoperative hospital stay was 8.8 ± 3.3 days in the RATG group and 10.3 ± 10.8 days in the LATG group (P = 0.416). The mean operative time was 305.8 ± 115.8 min in the RATG group and 210.2 ± 57.7 min in the LATG group (P < 0.001). The mean number of dissected lymph nodes was 42.8 ± 12.7 in the RATG group and 39.4 ± 13.4 in the LATG group (P = 0.209). Postoperative complications were experienced by 6 patients (16.7%) in the RATG group and 10 patients (15.4%) in the LATG group (P = 0.866). CONCLUSION: Despite early experiences, RATG was shown to be comparable with LATG in terms of surgical and oncologic outcomes. However, no apparent benefit is associated with RATG to date.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopically assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) is technically difficult. Robot surgery has theoretical advantages such as increased degrees of freedom of instruments and a three-dimensional view. The current study aimed to determine whether a robot-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) has a real benefit over LATG in terms of surgical and oncologic outcomes. METHODS: A single-center case-control study was conducted. The study included 36 patients who underwent RATG and 65 patients who underwent LATG at the National Cancer Center in Korea between February 2009 and May 2011. No patients were excluded from the analysis within the study period. Clinicopathologic data, operative data, postoperative morbidity, and pathologic data were analyzed by Student's t-tests and Chi-square tests, as indicated. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 53.9 ± 11.7 years in the RATG group and 56.9 ± 12.3 years in the LATG group (P = 0.236). The mean BMI was 23.2 ± 2.5 kg/m(2) in the RATG group and 23.6 ± 3.4 kg/m(2) in the LATG group (P = 0.494). The mean postoperative hospital stay was 8.8 ± 3.3 days in the RATG group and 10.3 ± 10.8 days in the LATG group (P = 0.416). The mean operative time was 305.8 ± 115.8 min in the RATG group and 210.2 ± 57.7 min in the LATG group (P < 0.001). The mean number of dissected lymph nodes was 42.8 ± 12.7 in the RATG group and 39.4 ± 13.4 in the LATG group (P = 0.209). Postoperative complications were experienced by 6 patients (16.7%) in the RATG group and 10 patients (15.4%) in the LATG group (P = 0.866). CONCLUSION: Despite early experiences, RATG was shown to be comparable with LATG in terms of surgical and oncologic outcomes. However, no apparent benefit is associated with RATG to date.
Authors: Shiva Jayaraman; Douglas Quan; Ibrahim Al-Ghamdi; Firas El-Deen; Christopher M Schlachta Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-07-25 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Dimitrios Stefanidis; Fikre Wang; James R Korndorffer; J Bruce Dunne; Daniel J Scott Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-06-18 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: G B Cadière; J Himpens; O Germay; R Izizaw; M Degueldre; J Vandromme; E Capelluto; J Bruyns Journal: World J Surg Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Sang Eok Lee; Keun Won Ryu; Byung Ho Nam; Jun Ho Lee; Young-Woo Kim; Jun Sik Yu; Soo Jeong Cho; Jong Yeul Lee; Chan Gyoo Kim; Il Ju Choi; Myeong Cherl Kook; Sook Ryun Park; Min Ju Kim; Jong Seok Lee Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Young-Woo Kim; Yong Hae Baik; Young Ho Yun; Byung Ho Nam; Dae Hyun Kim; Il Ju Choi; Jae-Moon Bae Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Juan C Rodríguez-Sanjuán; Marcos Gómez-Ruiz; Soledad Trugeda-Carrera; Carlos Manuel-Palazuelos; Antonio López-Useros; Manuel Gómez-Fleitas Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-02-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Stefano Caruso; Alberto Patriti; Franco Roviello; Lorenzo De Franco; Franco Franceschini; Andrea Coratti; Graziano Ceccarelli Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Ismael Diez Del Val; Cándido Martinez Blazquez; Carlos Loureiro Gonzalez; Jose Maria Vitores Lopez; Valentin Sierra Esteban; Julen Barrenetxea Asua; Izaskun Del Hoyo Aretxabala; Patricia Perez de Villarreal; Jose Esteban Bilbao Axpe; Jaime Jesus Mendez Martin Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2013-09-14