Literature DB >> 34655427

Effectiveness and safety of robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of 12,401 gastric cancer patients.

Tao Jin1,2, Han-Dong Liu3, Kun Yang4,5,6, Ze-Hua Chen1,2, Yue-Xin Zhang1,2, Jian-Kun Hu1,2.   

Abstract

Advanced minimally invasive techniques, such as robotic surgeries, are applied increasingly frequently around the world and are primarily used to improve the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Against that background, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy (RG). Studies comparing surgical outcomes between LG and RG patients were retrieved from medical databases, including RCTs and non-RCTs. The primary outcome of this study was overall survival, which was obtained by evaluating the 3-year survival rate and the 5-year survival rate. In addition, postoperative complications, mortality, length of hospital stay, and harvested lymph nodes were also assessed. We also conducted subgroup analyses stratified by resection type, body mass index, age, depth of invasion and tumour size. Ultimately, 31 articles met the criterion for our study through an attentive check of each text, including 1 RCT and 30 non-RCTs. A total of 12,401 patients were included in the analysis, with 8127 (65.5%) undergoing LG and 4274 (34.5%) undergoing RG. Compared with LG, RG was associated with fewer postoperative complications (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.71-0.93; P = 0.002), especially pancreas-related complications (OR 0.376; 95% CI 0.156-0.911; P = 0.030), increased harvested lymph nodes (WMD 2.03; 95% CI 0.95-3.10; P < 0.001), earlier time to first flatus (WMD - 0.105 days; 95% CI - 0.207 to - 0.003; P = 0.044), longer operation time (WMD 40.192 min, 95% CI 32.07-48.31; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD - 20.09 ml; 95% CI - 26.86 to - 13.32; P < 0.001), and higher expense (WMD 19,141.68 RMB; 95% CI 11,856.07-26,427.29; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding 3-year overall survival (OR 1.030; 95% CI 0.784-1.353; P = 0.832), 5-year overall survival (OR 0.862; 95% CI 0.721-1.031; P = 0.105), conversion rate (OR 0.857; 95% CI 0.443-1.661; P = 0.648), postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.368 days; 95% CI - 0.75-0.013; P = 0.059), mortality (OR 1.248; 95% CI 0.514-3.209; P = 0.592), and reoperation (OR 0.855; 95% CI 0.479-1.525; P = 0.595). Our study revealed that postoperative complications, especially pancreas-related complications, occurred less often with RG than with LG. However, long-term outcomes between the two surgical techniques need to be further examined, particularly regarding the oncological adequacy of robotic gastric cancer resections.
© 2021. Italian Society of Surgery (SIC).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laparoscopic gastrectomy; Meta-analysis; Overall morbidity; Pancreas-related complications; Robotic gastrectomy; Stomach neoplasms

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34655427     DOI: 10.1007/s13304-021-01176-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Updates Surg        ISSN: 2038-131X


  45 in total

1.  Robot-assisted gastric surgery.

Authors:  Makoto Hashizume; Keizo Sugimachi
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 2.741

Review 2.  Robot-assisted abdominal surgery.

Authors:  C N Gutt; T Oniu; A Mehrabi; A Kashfi; P Schemmer; M W Büchler
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 3.  Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Authors:  Taeil Son; Woo Jin Hyung
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-05-29       Impact factor: 3.454

Review 4.  Current status of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Authors:  Kazutaka Obama; Yoshiharu Sakai
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 2.549

5.  Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital.

Authors:  Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti; Andrea Coratti; Marta Angelini; Fabio Sbrana; Simone Cecconi; Tommaso Balestracci; Giuseppe Caravaglios
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2003-07

Review 6.  Reevaluation of laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer in Asia: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Chun-Dong Zhang; Hiroharu Yamashita; Shun Zhang; Yasuyuki Seto
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 6.071

7.  Robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of prospective observational studies.

Authors:  Zheng Bobo; Wang Xin; Li Jiang; Wang Quan; Bi Liang; Deng Xiangbing; Wang Ziqiang
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Robotic versus Laparoscopic versus Open Gastrectomy: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Alessandra Marano; Yoon Young Choi; Woo Jin Hyung; Yoo Min Kim; Jieun Kim; Sung Hoon Noh
Journal:  J Gastric Cancer       Date:  2013-09-30       Impact factor: 3.720

Review 9.  Robotic versus laparoscopic Gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ke Chen; Yu Pan; Bin Zhang; Hendi Maher; Xian-Fa Wang; Xiu-Jun Cai
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2017-08-24       Impact factor: 2.102

Review 10.  Robotic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a European perspective.

Authors:  Gijsbert I van Boxel; Jelle P Ruurda; Richard van Hillegersberg
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2019-07-04       Impact factor: 7.701

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Robotic versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review.

Authors:  Maurizio Zizzo; Magda Zanelli; Francesca Sanguedolce; Federica Torricelli; Andrea Morini; David Tumiati; Federica Mereu; Antonia Lavinia Zuliani; Andrea Palicelli; Stefano Ascani; Alessandro Giunta
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2022-06-20       Impact factor: 2.948

2.  Quo Vadis Anesthesiologist? The Value Proposition of Future Anesthesiologists Lies in Preserving or Restoring Presurgical Health after Surgical Insult.

Authors:  Krzysztof Laudanski
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-02-21       Impact factor: 4.241

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.