Wen-Jie Wang1,2, Hong-Tao Li1,2, Jian-Ping Yu1,2, Lin Su2, Chang-An Guo1,2, Peng Chen2, Long Yan2, Kun Li2, You-Wei Ma2, Ling Wang1, Wei Hu1, Yu-Min Li3, Hong-Bin Liu4,5. 1. Second Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, No. 82 Chuiying Gate, Chengguan District, Lanzhou, 730030, Gansu, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of General Surgery, Lanzhou General Hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army, No. 333 Binhe South Road, Qilihe District, Lanzhou, 730050, Gansu, People's Republic of China. 3. Second Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, No. 82 Chuiying Gate, Chengguan District, Lanzhou, 730030, Gansu, People's Republic of China. liym@lzu.edu.cn. 4. Second Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, No. 82 Chuiying Gate, Chengguan District, Lanzhou, 730030, Gansu, People's Republic of China. liuhongbin999@163.com. 5. Department of General Surgery, Lanzhou General Hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army, No. 333 Binhe South Road, Qilihe District, Lanzhou, 730050, Gansu, People's Republic of China. liuhongbin999@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC), and many advantages over laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) have been reported. However, its postgastrectomy complications still under investigation and the results remain controversial. This study aimed to objectively assess the incidence and severity of complications following RAG vs. LAG using Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification and to identify risk factors related to complications. METHODS: Five hundred and twenty-seven patients with AGC who underwent RAG or LAG between January 2016 and May 2018 were enrolled in this study. Complications were categorized according to the C-D classification. The complications following RAG and LAG were compared using one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis and subgroup analyses. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors related to complications. RESULTS: RAG was performed in 251 patients (47.6%) and LAG in 276 patients (52.4%). Before PSM, the RAG group had a smaller tumour size (P = 0.004) and less patients with previous abdominal operation (P = 0.013). After PSM, a well-balanced cohort of 446 patients (223 in each group) was further analyzed. Of interest, the incidence of overall and severe complications (C-D grade ≥ IIIa) following the RAG group were significantly fewer than the LAG group (overall, 24.5% vs. 18.8%, P < 0.001; severe, 8.9% vs. 17.5%, P = 0.002). Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant difference were also observed in most stratified parameters. Multivariable analysis identified age ≥ 65 years, total gastrectomy, stage T3-T4a, stage II-III, and operation time ≥ 250 min as independent predictors of overall complications. Additionally, age ≥ 65 years, stage II-III, and operation time ≥ 250 min were confirmed as independent risk factors for severe complications. CONCLUSIONS: RAG with D2 lymphadenectomy is feasible and safe for the treatment of AGC in terms of the lower incidence and severity of complications.
BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC), and many advantages over laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) have been reported. However, its postgastrectomy complications still under investigation and the results remain controversial. This study aimed to objectively assess the incidence and severity of complications following RAG vs. LAG using Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification and to identify risk factors related to complications. METHODS: Five hundred and twenty-seven patients with AGC who underwent RAG or LAG between January 2016 and May 2018 were enrolled in this study. Complications were categorized according to the C-D classification. The complications following RAG and LAG were compared using one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis and subgroup analyses. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors related to complications. RESULTS: RAG was performed in 251 patients (47.6%) and LAG in 276 patients (52.4%). Before PSM, the RAG group had a smaller tumour size (P = 0.004) and less patients with previous abdominal operation (P = 0.013). After PSM, a well-balanced cohort of 446 patients (223 in each group) was further analyzed. Of interest, the incidence of overall and severe complications (C-D grade ≥ IIIa) following the RAG group were significantly fewer than the LAG group (overall, 24.5% vs. 18.8%, P < 0.001; severe, 8.9% vs. 17.5%, P = 0.002). Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant difference were also observed in most stratified parameters. Multivariable analysis identified age ≥ 65 years, total gastrectomy, stage T3-T4a, stage II-III, and operation time ≥ 250 min as independent predictors of overall complications. Additionally, age ≥ 65 years, stage II-III, and operation time ≥ 250 min were confirmed as independent risk factors for severe complications. CONCLUSIONS: RAG with D2 lymphadenectomy is feasible and safe for the treatment of AGC in terms of the lower incidence and severity of complications.