Literature DB >> 34510380

Short-term outcomes of robotic distal gastrectomy with the "preemptive retropancreatic approach": a propensity score matching analysis.

Yuma Ebihara1,2, Yo Kurashima3, Soichi Murakami3, Toshiaki Shichinohe3, Satoshi Hirano3.   

Abstract

We report the usefulness of the preemptive retropancreatic approach (PRA) in robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) using multi-jointed forceps. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of RDG with PRA and conventional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy using the propensity score matching method. A total of 126 patients [RDG = 55; laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) = 71] were retrospectively enrolled. Patients were matched using the following propensity score covariates: age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, the extent of lymph node dissection, and Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma stage. Surgical results and postoperative outcomes were compared. We identified 28 propensity score-matched pairs. The median operative time and blood loss were comparable (P = 0.272 and P = 0.933, respectively). Regarding postoperative outcomes, the incidence of postoperative complications [Clavien-Dindo classification II (CD ≥ II)] was lower in the RDG group than in the LDG group (P = 0.020). No significant differences in the peak C-reactive protein value and length of hospital stay were observed between the two groups (P = 0.391 and P = 0.057, respectively). In addition, no patients had postoperative pancreas-related complications (≥ CD II) in the RDG group. RDG using PRA seems to be a safe and feasible procedure for gastric cancer because of short-term outcomes and reduction of postoperative complications (especially postoperative pancreas-related complications) as compared to conventional LDG.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gastric cancer; Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy; Postoperative complications; Preemptive retropancreatic approach

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34510380     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-021-01306-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  20 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience.

Authors:  Pierre A Clavien; Jeffrey Barkun; Michelle L de Oliveira; Jean Nicolas Vauthey; Daniel Dindo; Richard D Schulick; Eduardo de Santibañes; Juan Pekolj; Ksenija Slankamenac; Claudio Bassi; Rolf Graf; René Vonlanthen; Robert Padbury; John L Cameron; Masatoshi Makuuchi
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Safety and feasibility of reduced-port robotic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a phase I/II clinical trial.

Authors:  Seungho Lee; Jin Kyong Kim; Youn Nam Kim; Dong-Su Jang; Yoo Min Kim; Taeil Son; Woo Jin Hyung; Hyoung-Il Kim
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-02-15       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Hong-Bin Liu; Wen-Jie Wang; Hong-Tao Li; Xiao-Peng Han; Lin Su; Deng-Wen Wei; Ting-Bao Cao; Jian-Ping Yu; Zuo-Yi Jiao
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 6.071

6.  Potential advantages of robotic radical gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in comparison with conventional laparoscopic approach: a single institutional retrospective comparative cohort study.

Authors:  Koichi Suda; Mariko Man-I; Yoshinori Ishida; Yuichiro Kawamura; Seiji Satoh; Ichiro Uyama
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-07-17       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  A Multicenter Retrospective Study Comparing Surgical Outcomes Between the Overlap Method and Functional Method for Esophagojejunostomy in Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy: Analysis Using Propensity Score Matching.

Authors:  Yuma Ebihara; Yo Kurashima; Kimitaka Tanaka; Yoshitsugu Nakanishi; Toshimichi Asano; Takehiro Noji; Toru Nakamura; Soichi Murakami; Takahiro Tsuchikawa; Keisuke Okamura; Yoshihiro Murakami; Katsuhiko Murakawa; Fumitaka Nakamura; Takayuki Morita; Shunichi Okushiba; Toshiaki Shichinohe; Satoshi Hirano
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2021-09-20       Impact factor: 1.719

8.  Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries.

Authors:  Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 508.702

9.  Robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Authors:  Taro Isobe; Naotaka Murakami; Taizan Minami; Yuya Tanaka; Hideaki Kaku; Yuki Umetani; Junya Kizaki; Keishiro Aoyagi; Fumihiko Fujita; Yoshito Akagi
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.

Authors:  Daniel Dindo; Nicolas Demartines; Pierre-Alain Clavien
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 12.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.