Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery

ArticleAçık Erişim

Özet

AIM To investigate the role of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer and determine surgical, clinical, and oncological outcomes. METHODS This is a propensity score-matched case-control study, comparing three treatment arms: robotic gastrectomy (RG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), open gastrectomy (OG). Data collection started after sharing a specific study protocol. Data were recorded through a tailored and protected web-based system. Primary outcomes: harvested lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, complications rate. Among the secondary outcomes, there are: operative time, R0 resections, POD of mobilization, POD of starting liquid diet and soft solid diet. The analysis includes the evaluation of type and grade of postoperative complications. Detailed information of anastomotic leakages is also provided. RESULTS The present analysis was carried out of 1026 gastrectomies. To guarantee homogenous distribution of cases, patients in the RG, LG and OG groups were 1:1:2 matched using a propensity score analysis with a caliper = 0.2. The successful matching resulted in a total sample of 604 patients (RG = 151; LG = 151; OG = 302). The three groups showed no differences in all baseline patients characteristics, type of surgery (P = 0.42) and stage of the disease (P = 0.16). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the LG (95.93 ± 119.22) and RG (117.91 ± 68.11) groups compared to the OG (127.26 ± 79.50, P = 0.002). The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was similar between the RG (27.78 ± 11.45), LG (24.58 ± 13.56) and OG (25.82 ± 12.07) approach. A benefit in favor of the minimally invasive approaches was found in the length of hospital stay (P < 0.0001). A similar complications rate was found (P = 0.13). The leakage rate was not different (P = 0.78) between groups. CONCLUSION Laparoscopic and robotic surgery can be safely performed and proposed as possible alternative to open surgery. The main highlighted benefit is a faster postoperative functional recovery. © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.

Anahtar Kelimeler

RDL Kalıcı Bağlantı (PID)
https://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/14828Resmi atıflarda kullanılan kalıcı adres
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i13.2376Yayıncı resmi DOI adresi
Tam Kayıt
AlanDeğerDil
dc.contributor.authorParisi, Amilcare
dc.contributor.authorReim, Daniel
dc.contributor.authorBorghi, Felice
dc.contributor.authorNguyen, Ninh T.
dc.contributor.authorQi, Feng
dc.contributor.authorCoratti, Andrea
dc.contributor.authorCianchi, Fabio
dc.contributor.authorCesari, Maurizio
dc.contributor.authorBazzocchi, Francesca
dc.contributor.authorAlimoglu, Orhan
dc.contributor.authorGagnière, Johan
dc.contributor.authorPernazza, Graziano
dc.contributor.authorD'Imporzano, Simone
dc.contributor.authorZhou, Yan-Bing
dc.contributor.authorAzagra, Juan-Santiago
dc.contributor.authorFacy, Olivier
dc.contributor.authorBrower, Steven T.
dc.contributor.authorJiang, Zhi-Wei
dc.contributor.authorLu, Zang
dc.contributor.authorIsik, Arda
dc.contributor.authorGemini, Alessandro
dc.contributor.authorTrastulli, Stefano
dc.contributor.authorNovotny, Alexander
dc.contributor.authorMarano, Alessandra
dc.contributor.authorLiu, Tong
dc.contributor.authorAnnecchiarico, Mario
dc.contributor.authorBadii, Benedetta
dc.contributor.authorArcuri, Giacomo
dc.contributor.authorAvanzolini, Andrea
dc.contributor.authorLeblebici, Metin
dc.contributor.authorPezet, Denis
dc.contributor.authorCao, Shou-Gen
dc.contributor.authorGoergen, Martine
dc.contributor.authorShu, Zhang
dc.contributor.authorPalazzini, Giorgio
dc.contributor.authorD'Andrea, Vito
dc.contributor.authorDesiderio, Jacopo
dc.date.accessioned2026-10-18T20:29:37.682260706Z
dc.date.available2026-10-18T20:29:37.682260706Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.description.abstractAIM To investigate the role of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer and determine surgical, clinical, and oncological outcomes. METHODS This is a propensity score-matched case-control study, comparing three treatment arms: robotic gastrectomy (RG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), open gastrectomy (OG). Data collection started after sharing a specific study protocol. Data were recorded through a tailored and protected web-based system. Primary outcomes: harvested lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, complications rate. Among the secondary outcomes, there are: operative time, R0 resections, POD of mobilization, POD of starting liquid diet and soft solid diet. The analysis includes the evaluation of type and grade of postoperative complications. Detailed information of anastomotic leakages is also provided. RESULTS The present analysis was carried out of 1026 gastrectomies. To guarantee homogenous distribution of cases, patients in the RG, LG and OG groups were 1:1:2 matched using a propensity score analysis with a caliper = 0.2. The successful matching resulted in a total sample of 604 patients (RG = 151; LG = 151; OG = 302). The three groups showed no differences in all baseline patients characteristics, type of surgery (P = 0.42) and stage of the disease (P = 0.16). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the LG (95.93 ± 119.22) and RG (117.91 ± 68.11) groups compared to the OG (127.26 ± 79.50, P = 0.002). The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was similar between the RG (27.78 ± 11.45), LG (24.58 ± 13.56) and OG (25.82 ± 12.07) approach. A benefit in favor of the minimally invasive approaches was found in the length of hospital stay (P < 0.0001). A similar complications rate was found (P = 0.13). The leakage rate was not different (P = 0.78) between groups. CONCLUSION Laparoscopic and robotic surgery can be safely performed and proposed as possible alternative to open surgery. The main highlighted benefit is a faster postoperative functional recovery. © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
dc.identifier.doi10.3748/wjg.v23.i13.2376
dc.identifier.endpage2384
dc.identifier.issn1007-9327
dc.identifier.issue13
dc.identifier.pmid28428717
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85017184956
dc.identifier.startpage2376
dc.identifier.urihttps://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/14828
dc.identifier.volume23
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherBaishideng Publishing Group Co
dc.relation.ispartofWorld Journal of Gastroenterology
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectGastrectomy
dc.subjectGastric cancer
dc.subjectLaparoscopy
dc.subjectMinimally invasive surgery
dc.subjectRobot-assisted
dc.subjectRobotic
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectAged, 80 and over
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectItaly
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectPostoperative Complications
dc.subjectRetrospective Studies
dc.subjectRobotic Surgical Procedures
dc.subjectStomach Neoplasms
dc.subjectanalgesic agent
dc.subjectantibiotic agent
dc.subjectanastomosis leakage
dc.subjectArticle
dc.subjectcancer patient
dc.subjectcancer staging
dc.subjectcancer surgery
dc.subjectcase control study
dc.subjectclinical outcome
dc.subjectcomparative study
dc.subjectcontrolled study
dc.subjectdietary intake
dc.subjectdisease classification
dc.titleMinimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
rdl.citation.scopus92
rdl.oa.statusgold
rdl.source.indexSCOPUS