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
Review
. 2022 Jun 28:9:895976.
doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.895976. eCollection 2022.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Mega Meta-Analysis

Shantanu Baral  1   2   3 , Mubeen Hussein Arawker  1   3 , Qiannan Sun  2   3   4 , Mingrui Jiang  1   2   3 , Liuhua Wang  2   3   4 , Yong Wang  2   3   4 , Muhammad Ali  1   2   3 , Daorong Wang  1   2   3   4
Affiliations
Review

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Mega Meta-Analysis

Shantanu Baral et al. Front Surg. .

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic gastrectomy and robotic gastrectomy are the most widely adopted treatment of choice for gastric cancer. To systematically assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis on short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy.

Methods: In order to find relevant studies on the efficacy and safety of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in the treatment of gastric cancer, numerous medical databases including PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, and China Journal Full-text Database (CNKI) were consulted, and Chinese and English studies on the efficacy and safety of RG and LG in the treatment of gastric cancer published from 2012 to 2022 were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.

Results: The meta-analysis inlcuded 48 literatures, with 20,151 gastric cancer patients, including 6,175 in the RG group and 13,976 in the LG group, respectively. Results of our meta-analysis showed that RG group had prololonged operative time (WMD = 35.72, 95% CI = 28.59-42.86, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 258.69 min ± 32.98; LG: mean ± SD = 221.85 min ± 31.18), reduced blood loss (WMD = -21.93, 95% CI = -28.94 to -14.91, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 105.22 ml ± 62.79; LG: mean ± SD = 127.34 ml ± 79.62), higher number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.99-3.63, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 35.88 ± 4.14; LG: mean ± SD = 32.73 ± 4.67), time to first postoperative food intake shortened (WMD = -0.20, 95% CI = -0.29 to -0.10, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 4.5 d ± 1.94; LG: mean ± SD = 4.7 d ± 1.54), and lower length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD = -0.54, 95% CI = -0.83 to -0.24, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 8.91 d ± 6.13; LG: mean ± SD = 9.61 d ± 7.74) in comparison to the LG group. While the other variables, for example, time to first postoperative flatus, postoperative complications, proximal and distal mar gin, R 0 resection rate, mortality rate, conversion rate, and 3-year overall survival rate were all found to be statistically similar at P > 0.05.

Conclusions: In the treatment of gastric cancer, robotic gastrectomy is a safe and effective procedure that has both short- and long-term effects. To properly evaluate the advantages of robotic surgery in gastric cancer, more randomised controlled studies with rigorous research methodologies are needed.

Keywords: gastrectomy; gastric cancer; laparoscopic; meta-analysis; robotic.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Comparison of operation time between RG and LG group.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of intraoperative blood loss between RG and LG group.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of the number of resected lymph nodes between RG and LG group.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Comparison of time to first postoperative flatus between RG and LG group.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Comparison of time to first postoperative food intake between RG and LG group.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Comparison of length of postoperative hospital stay between RG and LG group.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Comparison of postoperative complications between RG and LG group.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Comparison of reoperation rate between RG and LG group.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Comparison of 3-year survival rate between RG and LG group.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. (2015) 65(2):87–108. 10.3322/caac.21262 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chen K, Wu D, Pan Y, Cai JQ, Yan JF, Chen DW, et al. Totally laparoscopic gastrectomy using intracorporeally stapler or hand-sewn anastomosis for gastric cancer: a single-center experience of 478 consecutive cases and outcomes. World J Surg Oncol. (2016) 14:115. 10.1186/s12957-016-0868-7 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Junfeng Z, Yan S, Bo T, Yingxue H, Dongzhu Z, Yongliang Z, et al. Robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison of surgical performance and short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc. (2014) 28(6):1779–87. 10.1007/s00464-013-3385-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Eom BW, Yoon HM, Ryu KW, Lee JH, Cho SJ, Lee JY, et al. Comparison of surgical performance and short-term clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic surgery in distal gastric cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. (2012) 38(1):57–63. 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.09.006 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kang BH, Xuan Y, Hur H, Ahn CW, Cho YK, Han SU. Comparison of surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: the learning curve of robotic surgery. J Gastric Cancer. (2012) 12(3):156–63. 10.5230/jgc.2012.12.3.156 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources