Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2016 Feb;30(2):574-580.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4241-7. Epub 2015 Jul 25.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison of short-term surgical outcomes

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison of short-term surgical outcomes

Weisong Shen et al. Surg Endosc. 2016 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) is a new minimally invasive surgical technique for gastric cancer. This study was designed to compare RAG with laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) in short-term surgical outcomes.

Methods: Between October 2011 and August 2014, 423 patients underwent robotic or laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: 93 RAG and 330 LAG. We performed a comparative analysis between RAG group and LAG group for clinicopathological characteristics and short-term surgical outcomes.

Results: RAG was associated with a longer operative time (P < 0.001), lower blood loss (P = 0.001), and more harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.047). Only three patients in LAG group had positive margins, and R0 resection rate for RAG and LAG was similar (P = 0.823). The RAG group had postoperative complications of 9.8 %, comparable with those of the LAG group (P = 0.927). Proximal margin, distal margin, hospital stay, days of first flatus, and days of eating liquid diet for RAG and LAG were similar. In the subgroup of serosa-negative patients, RAG had a longer operation time (P = 0.003), less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.005), and more harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.04). However, in the subgroup of serosa-positive patients, RAG had a longer operation time (P = 0.001), but no less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.139) and no more harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.139). Similarly, in the subgroup of total gastrectomy patients, RAG had a longer operation time (P = 0.018), but no less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.173).

Conclusions: The comparative study demonstrates that RAG is as acceptable as LAG in terms of surgical and oncologic outcomes. With lower estimated blood loss, acceptable complications, and radical resection, RAG is a promising approach for the treatment of gastric cancer. However, the indication of patients for RAG is critical.

Keywords: Gastric neoplasm; Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy; Robot-assisted gastrectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ann Surg. 2009 Jun;249(6):927-32 - PubMed
    1. Nihon Geka Gakkai Zasshi. 2006 Mar;107(2):77-80 - PubMed
    1. Ann Surg. 2004 Jan;239(1):14-21 - PubMed
    1. Surg Endosc. 2005 Sep;19(9):1172-6 - PubMed
    1. Surg Endosc. 2014 Oct;28(10):2795-802 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources