Ying Kong1,2,3, Shougen Cao1, Xiaodong Liu1, Zequn Li1, Liankai Wang1, Cunlong Lu1, Shuai Shen1, Houxin Zhu1, Yanbing Zhou4. 1. Department of General Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, 16# Jiangsu Road, Qingdao, 266000, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Jining No. 1 People's Hospital, No. 6 Jiankang Road, Central District, Jining City, 272013, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China. 3. Affiliated Jining No. 1 People's Hospital of Jining Medical University, Jining Medical University, 16# Hehua Road, Beihu New District, Jining City, 272067, Shandong, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of General Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, 16# Jiangsu Road, Qingdao, 266000, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China. zhouyanbing999@aliyun.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The different advantages of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and robotic gastrectomy (RG), two new minimally invasive surgical techniques for gastric cancer, remain controversial. PURPOSE: To compare the short-term clinical outcomes of LG and RG. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center comparative study of 1044 patients (LG = 750, RG = 294) was conducted. Patients undergoing LG and RG were matched (2:1 ratio) according to sex, age, BMI, extent of gastric resection, and pathologic stage. The primary outcomes were morbidity and mortality and perioperative recovery parameters; major types of complications were also analyzed. RESULTS: After matching, 798 patients (LG = 532, RG = 266) were included. Both the LG and RG groups showed similar overall complication rates (LG = 12.8% vs RG = 12.4%) and operative mortality (LG = 0.4% vs RG = 0.4%). Compared to those who underwent LG, patients undergoing RG had significantly longer operative times (236.92 ± 57.28 vs 217.77 ± 65.00 min, p < 0.001), higher total costs (US$16,241.42 vs US$12,497, p < 0.001), less operative blood loss (77.07 ± 64.37 vs 103.68 ± 86.92 ml, p < 0.001), higher numbers of retrieved lymph nodes (32.0 vs 29.9, p < 0.001), and higher rates of retrieving more than 16 lymph nodes (94.0 vs 85.5%; p < 0.001). No significant differences between groups were noted in terms of the rate of reoperation, time until a soft diet was consumed, or length of hospital stay. The major complication and readmission rates were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: RG and LG produced similar short-term clinical outcomes, indicating that RG is a safe and beneficial surgical procedure.
BACKGROUND: The different advantages of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and robotic gastrectomy (RG), two new minimally invasive surgical techniques for gastric cancer, remain controversial. PURPOSE: To compare the short-term clinical outcomes of LG and RG. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center comparative study of 1044 patients (LG = 750, RG = 294) was conducted. Patients undergoing LG and RG were matched (2:1 ratio) according to sex, age, BMI, extent of gastric resection, and pathologic stage. The primary outcomes were morbidity and mortality and perioperative recovery parameters; major types of complications were also analyzed. RESULTS: After matching, 798 patients (LG = 532, RG = 266) were included. Both the LG and RG groups showed similar overall complication rates (LG = 12.8% vs RG = 12.4%) and operative mortality (LG = 0.4% vs RG = 0.4%). Compared to those who underwent LG, patients undergoing RG had significantly longer operative times (236.92 ± 57.28 vs 217.77 ± 65.00 min, p < 0.001), higher total costs (US$16,241.42 vs US$12,497, p < 0.001), less operative blood loss (77.07 ± 64.37 vs 103.68 ± 86.92 ml, p < 0.001), higher numbers of retrieved lymph nodes (32.0 vs 29.9, p < 0.001), and higher rates of retrieving more than 16 lymph nodes (94.0 vs 85.5%; p < 0.001). No significant differences between groups were noted in terms of the rate of reoperation, time until a soft diet was consumed, or length of hospital stay. The major complication and readmission rates were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: RG and LG produced similar short-term clinical outcomes, indicating that RG is a safe and beneficial surgical procedure.
Authors: Chantal C J Alleblas; Anne Marie de Man; Lukas van den Haak; Mark E Vierhout; Frank Willem Jansen; Theodoor E Nieboer Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Qingbo Feng; Hexing Ma; Jie Qiu; Yan Du; Guodong Zhang; Ping Li; Kunming Wen; Ming Xie Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Marco Milone; Michele Manigrasso; Pietro Anoldo; Anna D'Amore; Ugo Elmore; Mariano Cesare Giglio; Gianluca Rompianesi; Sara Vertaldi; Roberto Ivan Troisi; Nader K Francis; Giovanni Domenico De Palma Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-02-18