Literature DB >> 23080320

Robot versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer by an experienced surgeon: comparisons of surgery, complications, and surgical stress.

Myung-Han Hyun1, Chung-Ho Lee, Ye-Ji Kwon, Sung-Il Cho, You-Jin Jang, Dong-Hoon Kim, Jong-Han Kim, Seong-Heum Park, Young-Jae Mok, Sung-Soo Park.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: No previous robotic studies present an equivalent surgical quality comparison in an experienced setting for gastric cancer. In addition, a reliable postoperative complication assessment is needed to accurately evaluate surgical outcomes.
METHODS: After 20 cases of robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG), a total of 121 consecutive gastric cancer patients underwent gastrectomy (38 RAG vs 83 laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy [LAG]) from February 2009 to November 2010 at the Department of Surgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Korea. The Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification was used to classify surgical complications. The granulocyte-to-lymphocyte (G:L) ratio was analyzed to evaluate surgical stress.
RESULTS: The baseline characteristics, with the exception of age, were similar. The mean total operation time for RAG (234.4 ± 48.0 min) was not significantly different than that for LAG (220.0 ± 60.6 min; P = 0.198). However, in obese patients, fewer lymph nodes were harvested by RAG (23.4 ± 7.0) than by LAG (32.2 ± 12.5, P = 0.006). Overall C-D complications were more common for RAG (47.3 vs 38.5 %), but the difference was not significant (P = 0.361). The mean hospital stay was similar for the 2 groups. Surgical stress as estimated by the G:L ratio was comparable between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: RAG performed by an experienced surgeon resulted in similar postoperative outcomes and complications to those of LAG. Assessment of operation time, C-D complication grade, and G:L ratio revealed that RAG is a practical and feasible alternative to LAG, with the possible exception of obese patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23080320     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-012-2679-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  61 in total

1.  Late phase II study of robot-assisted gastrectomy with nodal dissection for clinical stage I gastric cancer.

Authors:  Masanori Tokunaga; Rie Makuuchi; Yuiciro Miki; Yutaka Tanizawa; Etsuro Bando; Taiichi Kawamura; Masanori Terashima
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Robot-assisted surgery for gastric cancer.

Authors:  Livia Procopiuc; Ştefan Tudor; Mircea Mănuc; Mircea Diculescu; Cătălin Vasilescu
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2016-01-15

Review 3.  Laparoscopic and robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Current considerations.

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

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

Authors:  Rana M Alhossaini; Abdulaziz A Altamran; Minah Cho; Chul Kyu Roh; Won Jun Seo; Seohee Choi; Taeil Son; Hyoung-Il Kim; Woo Jin Hyung
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-05-28       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Clinical advantages of robotic gastrectomy for clinical stage I/II gastric cancer: a multi-institutional prospective single-arm study.

Authors:  Ichiro Uyama; Koichi Suda; Masaya Nakauchi; Takahiro Kinoshita; Hirokazu Noshiro; Shuji Takiguchi; Kazuhisa Ehara; Kazutaka Obama; Shiro Kuwabara; Hiroshi Okabe; Masanori Terashima
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 7.370

6.  A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Oncological, Cost, and Surgical Stress Analysis.

Authors:  Jun Lu; Hua-Long Zheng; Ping Li; Jian-Wei Xie; Jia-Bin Wang; Jian-Xian Lin; Qi-Yue Chen; Long-Long Cao; Mi Lin; Ru-Hong Tu; Ze-Ning Huang; Chang-Ming Huang; Chao-Hui Zheng
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-05-07       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Short-Term Clinical Outcomes After Laparoscopic and Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: a Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Authors:  Ying Kong; Shougen Cao; Xiaodong Liu; Zequn Li; Liankai Wang; Cunlong Lu; Shuai Shen; Houxin Zhu; Yanbing Zhou
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 8.  Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer.

Authors:  Ali Güner; Woo Jin Hyung
Journal:  Ulus Cerrahi Derg       Date:  2013-03-01

Review 9.  Robotic surgery for gastric cancer.

Authors:  Masanori Terashima; Masanori Tokunaga; Yutaka Tanizawa; Etsuro Bando; Taaichi Kawamura; Yuichiro Miki; Rie Makuuchi; Shinsaku Honda; Taichi Tatsubayashi; Wataru Takagi; Hayato Omori; Fumiko Hirata
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 7.370

10.  Surgical stress response after colorectal resection: a comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery.

Authors:  J Shibata; S Ishihara; N Tada; K Kawai; N H Tsuno; H Yamaguchi; E Sunami; J Kitayama; T Watanabe
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 3.781

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.