Short-term outcomes of robotic distal gastrectomy with the "preemptive retropancreatic approach": a propensity score matching analysis
- PMID: 34510380
- DOI: 10.1007/s11701-021-01306-4
Short-term outcomes of robotic distal gastrectomy with the "preemptive retropancreatic approach": a propensity score matching analysis
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.
Keywords: Gastric cancer; Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy; Postoperative complications; Preemptive retropancreatic approach.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
References
-
- Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68:394–424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Suda K, Man-I M, Ishida Y, Kawamura Y, Satoh S, Uyama I (2015) Potential advantages of robotic radical gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in comparison with conventional laparoscopic approach: a single institutional retrospective comparative cohort study. Surg Endosc 29:673–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3718-0 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Uyama I, Suda K, Nakauchi M, Kinoshita T, Noshiro H, Takiguchi S, Ehara K, Obama K, Kuwabara S, Okabe H, Terashima M (2019) Clinical advantages of robotic gastrectomy for clinical stage I/II gastric cancer: a multi-institutional prospective single-arm study. Gastric Cancer 22:377–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-018-00906-8 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Lee S, Kim JK, Kim YN, Jang DS, Kim YM, Son T, Hyung WJ, Kim HI (2017) Safety and feasibility of reduced-port robotic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a phase I/II clinical trial. Surg Endosc 31:4002–4009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5435-y - DOI - PubMed
-
- Liu HB, Wang WJ, Li HT, Han XP, Su L, Wei DW, Cao TB, Yu JP, Jiao ZY (2018) Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg 55:15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.05.015 - DOI - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
