SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study was designed to compare robot-assisted gastrectomy with laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy in surgical performance and short-term clinical outcomes for gastric cancer and evaluate the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery.

Methods

A retrospective database of patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer between March 2010 and May 2013 was examined. After screening, 514 patients who underwent gastrectomy for gastric cancer were enrolled in this study: 120 robotic and 394 laparoscopic surgery. Patient demographics, surgical performance, and short-term clinical outcomes were examined.

Results

All operations were performed successfully. The clinicopathologic characteristics were similar between the two groups. Compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group had less intraoperative blood loss (118.3 ± 55.8 vs. 137.6 ± 61.6 ml, P < 0.001), more lymph nodes dissection (34.6 ± 10.9 vs. 32.7 ± 11.2, P = 0.013), and longer operation time (234.8 ± 42.4 vs. 221.3 ± 44.8 min, P = 0.003). The survival rates were 90.2 % at 1 year, 78.1 % at 2 years, and 67.8 % at 3 years in the RAG group compared with 87.3 % at 1 year, 77.1 % at 2 years, and 69.9 % at 3 years in the LAG group. The difference in overall survival rate between the two groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.812). In view of lymph node involvement, the 3-year survival rates for patients with negative nodal metastasis were 84.4 % in the RAG group versus 82.6 % in the LAG group (P = 0.972) and 57.5 % in the RAG group versus 60.3 % in the LADG group (P = 0.653) for those with positive nodal metastasis.

Conclusions

Comparing well with laparoscopic gastrectomy, robot-assisted gastrectomy is a feasible and safe surgical procedure with clear operation field, precise dissection, minimal trauma, and fast recovery. Longer follow-up time and randomized, clinical trials are needed to evaluate the clinical benefits and long-term oncological outcomes of this new technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kim YW, Baik YH, Yun YH, Nam BH, Kim DH, Choi IJ, Bae JM (2008) Improved quality of life outcomes after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 248:721–727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lee JH, Yom CK, Han HS (2009) Comparison of long-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted and open distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 23:1759–1763

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Huscher CG, Mingoli A, Sgarzini G, Sansonetti A, Di Paola M, Recher A, Ponzano C (2005) Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for distal gastric cancer: five-year results of a randomized prospective trial. Ann Surg 241:232–237

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kim HH, Hyung WJ, Cho GS, Kim MC, Han SU, Kim W, Ryu SW, Lee HJ, Song KY (2010) Morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an interim report–a phase III multicenter, prospective, randomized Trial (KLASS Trial). Ann Surg 251:417–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Baik SH, Kwon HY, Kim JS, Hur H, Sohn SK, Cho CH, Kim H (2009) Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study. Ann Surgical Oncol 16:1480–1487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hashizume M, Sugimachi K (2003) Robot-assisted gastric surgery. Surg Clin N Am 83:1429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M, Sbrana F, Cecconi S, Balestracci T, Caravaglios G (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138:777–784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Song J, Oh SJ, Kang WH, Hyung WJ, Choi SH, Noh SH (2009) Robot-assisted gastrectomy with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer lessons learned from an initial 100 consecutive procedures. Ann Surg 249:927–932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Woo Y, Hyung WJ, Pak KH, Inaba K, Obama K, Choi SH, Noh SH (2011) Robotic gastrectomy as an oncologically sound alternative to laparoscopic resections for the treatment of early-stage gastric cancers. Arch Surg 146:1086–1092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hyun MH, Lee CH, Kwon YJ, Cho SI, Jang YJ, Kim DH, Kim JH, Park SH, Mok YJ, Park SS (2013) Robot versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer by an experienced surgeon: comparisons of surgery, complications, and surgical stress. Ann Surg Oncol 20:1258–1265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Edge SBCC (2010) The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Japanese Gastric Cancer A (2011) Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer 14:113–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bo T, Zhihong P, Peiwu Y, Feng Q, Ziqiang W, Yan S, Yongliang Z, Huaxin L (2009) General complications following laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy and analysis of techniques to manage them. Surg Endosc Interv Tech 23:1860–1865

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Bellochi R, Bartoli A, Spaziani A, Di Zitti L, Casciola L (2008) Robot-assisted laparoscopic total and partial gastric resection with D2 lymph node dissection for adenocarcinoma. Surg Endosc 22:2753–2760

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Eom BW, Yoon HM, Ryu KW, Lee JH, Cho SJ, Lee JY, Kim CG, Choi IJ, Lee JS, Kook MC, Rhee JY, Park SR, Kim YW (2012) Comparison of surgical performance and short-term clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic surgery in distal gastric cancer. Ejso-Eur J Surg Oncol 38:57–63

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhao Y, Yu P, Hao Y, Qian F, Tang B, Shi Y, Luo H, Zhang Y (2011) Comparison of outcomes for laparoscopically assisted and open radical distal gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 25:2960–2966

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bo T, Peiwu Y, Feng Q, Yongliang Z, Yan S, Yingxue H, Huaxing L (2013) Laparoscopy-assisted versus open total gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: long-term outcomes and technical aspects of a case-control study. J Gastrointest Surg 17:1202–1208

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Japanese Gastric Cancer A (2011) Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 3rd English edn. Gastric Cancer 14:101–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim MG, Kim HS, Kim BS, Kwon SJ (2013) The impact of old age on surgical outcomes of totally laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 27:3990–3997

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gutt CN, Oniu T, Mehrabi A, Kashfi A, Schemmer P, Buchler MW (2004) Robot-assisted abdominal surgery. Br J Surg 91:1390–1397

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC (2004) Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg 239:14–21

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim MC, Heo GU, Jung GJ (2010) Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: surgical techniques and clinical merits. Surg Endosc 24:610–615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Park JS, Choi GS, Lim KH, Jang YS, Jun SH (2010) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer: case-matched analysis of short-term outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 17:3195–3202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Liu CG, Lu Y, Jun Z, Zhang RS, Yao F, Lu P, ** F, Li H, Xu HM, Wang SB, Chen JQ (2009) Impact of total retrieved lymph nodes on staging and survival of patients with gastric cancer invading the subserosa. Surg Oncol 18:379–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Siewert JR, Bottcher K, Stein HJ, Roder JD (1998) Relevant prognostic factors in gastric cancer: ten-year results of the German Gastric Cancer Study. Ann Surg 228:449–461

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kunisaki C, Shimada H, Nomura M, Matsuda G, Otsuka Y, Ono H, Akiyama H (2005) Clinical impact of metastatic lymph node ratio in advanced gastric cancer. Anticancer Res 25:1369–1375

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kwon SJ, Kim GS (1996) Prognostic significance of lymph node metastasis in advanced carcinoma of the stomach. Br J Surg 83:1600–1603

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Shimoyama S, Kaminishi M, Joujima Y, Oohara T, Hamada C, Teshigawara W (1994) Lymph node involvement correlation with survival in advanced gastric carcinoma: univariate and multivariate analyses. J Surg Oncol 57:164–170

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yokota T, Ishiyama S, Saito T, Teshima S, Narushima Y, Murata K, Iwamoto K, Yashima R, Yamauchi H, Kikuchi S (2004) Lymph node metastasis as a significant prognostic factor in gastric cancer: a multiple logistic regression analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol 39:380–384

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Wan Yingjie for collecting data and information of the patients for us. This study was supported by Chongqing Scientific Research Plan (cstc2012gg-yyjs10029).

Disclosures

Zhou Junfeng, Shi Yan, Tang Bo, Hao Yingxue, Zeng Dongzhu, Zhao Yongliang, Qian Feng, and Yu Peiwu have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery and Center of Minimal Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Gaotanyan Street 30, Sha**ba District, Chongqing, 400038, China

    Zhou Junfeng, Shi Yan, Tang Bo, Hao Yingxue, Zeng Dongzhu, Zhao Yongliang, Qian Feng & Yu Peiwu

Authors
  1. Zhou Junfeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shi Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tang Bo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hao Yingxue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zeng Dongzhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zhao Yongliang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Qian Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yu Peiwu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu Peiwu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Junfeng, Z., Yan, S., Bo, T. et al. Robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison of surgical performance and short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 28, 1779–1787 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3385-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3385-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation