Li Zheng-Yan1, Zhao Yong-Liang2, Qian Feng1, Shi Yan1, Yu Pei-Wu3. 1. Department of General Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, No. 30 Gao Tan Yan Road, Chongqing, 400038, China. 2. Department of General Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, No. 30 Gao Tan Yan Road, Chongqing, 400038, China. yongliang1666@126.com. 3. Department of General Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, No. 30 Gao Tan Yan Road, Chongqing, 400038, China. yupeiwu01@sina.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of gastric cancer in recent year. However, whether RDG could reduce the morbidity when compared to laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes of RDG and LDG for gastric cancer and identify the related risk factors. METHODS: Between March 2010 and August 2019, consecutive patients undergoing RDG or LDG (519 and 957 patients, respectively) at our institution were included in this study. Postoperative complications were stratified according to the Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification. We performed one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, and evaluated postoperative morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes in PSM 1032 patients undergoing RDG or LDG. RESULTS: After PSM, the two groups were well-balanced. The mean blood loss of the RDG group was about 27 mL less than that of the LDG group (112.1 vs 139.0 mL, P < 0.001). The RDG group had more retrieved lymph nodes than that in the LDG group (32.7 v 30.2, P < 0.001). The RDG group showed a similar overall (9.9% vs 10.7%, P = 0.682), severe (2.7% vs 3.7%, P = 0.376), local (5.6% vs 5.2%, P = 0.783), and systemic complication rates (5.4% vs 6.0%, P = 0.688). There were no significant differences in mortality between the two groups (RDG 0% vs LDG 0.2%, P = 1.000). Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in most stratified parameters. Age > 65 years and ASA III were identified as two major risk factors for complications. CONCLUSION: RDG could be a safe and feasible in treating gastric cancer compared to LDG. However, we did not observe significant reduction in postoperative complications of RDG compared with LDG, although the use of robotic system is assumed to provide a technically superior operative environment.
BACKGROUND: Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of gastric cancer in recent year. However, whether RDG could reduce the morbidity when compared to laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes of RDG and LDG for gastric cancer and identify the related risk factors. METHODS: Between March 2010 and August 2019, consecutive patients undergoing RDG or LDG (519 and 957 patients, respectively) at our institution were included in this study. Postoperative complications were stratified according to the Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification. We performed one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, and evaluated postoperative morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes in PSM 1032 patients undergoing RDG or LDG. RESULTS: After PSM, the two groups were well-balanced. The mean blood loss of the RDG group was about 27 mL less than that of the LDG group (112.1 vs 139.0 mL, P < 0.001). The RDG group had more retrieved lymph nodes than that in the LDG group (32.7 v 30.2, P < 0.001). The RDG group showed a similar overall (9.9% vs 10.7%, P = 0.682), severe (2.7% vs 3.7%, P = 0.376), local (5.6% vs 5.2%, P = 0.783), and systemic complication rates (5.4% vs 6.0%, P = 0.688). There were no significant differences in mortality between the two groups (RDG 0% vs LDG 0.2%, P = 1.000). Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in most stratified parameters. Age > 65 years and ASA III were identified as two major risk factors for complications. CONCLUSION:RDG could be a safe and feasible in treating gastric cancer compared to LDG. However, we did not observe significant reduction in postoperative complications of RDG compared with LDG, although the use of robotic system is assumed to provide a technically superior operative environment.
Authors: Young Kyu Park; Hong Man Yoon; Young-Woo Kim; Ji Yeon Park; Keun Won Ryu; Young-Joon Lee; Oh Jeong; Ki Young Yoon; Jun Ho Lee; Sang Eok Lee; Wansik Yu; Sang-Ho Jeong; Taebong Kim; Sohee Kim; Byoung-Ho Nam Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-04 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