Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Severity and incidence of complications assessed by the Clavien–Dindo classification following robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a retrospective and propensity score-matched study

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC), and many advantages over laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) have been reported. However, its postgastrectomy complications still under investigation and the results remain controversial. This study aimed to objectively assess the incidence and severity of complications following RAG vs. LAG using Clavien–Dindo (C–D) classification and to identify risk factors related to complications.

Methods

Five hundred and twenty-seven patients with AGC who underwent RAG or LAG between January 2016 and May 2018 were enrolled in this study. Complications were categorized according to the C–D classification. The complications following RAG and LAG were compared using one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis and subgroup analyses. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors related to complications.

Results

RAG was performed in 251 patients (47.6%) and LAG in 276 patients (52.4%). Before PSM, the RAG group had a smaller tumour size (P = 0.004) and less patients with previous abdominal operation (P = 0.013). After PSM, a well-balanced cohort of 446 patients (223 in each group) was further analyzed. Of interest, the incidence of overall and severe complications (C–D grade ≥ IIIa) following the RAG group were significantly fewer than the LAG group (overall, 24.5% vs. 18.8%, P < 0.001; severe, 8.9% vs. 17.5%, P = 0.002). Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant difference were also observed in most stratified parameters. Multivariable analysis identified age ≥ 65 years, total gastrectomy, stage T3–T4a, stage II–III, and operation time ≥ 250 min as independent predictors of overall complications. Additionally, age ≥ 65 years, stage II–III, and operation time ≥ 250 min were confirmed as independent risk factors for severe complications.

Conclusions

RAG with D2 lymphadenectomy is feasible and safe for the treatment of AGC in terms of the lower incidence and severity of complications.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136:E359–E386

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65:87–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Japanese Gastric Cancer A (2017) Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2014 (ver. 4). Gastric Cancer 20:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Obama K, Kim YM, Kang DR, Son T, Kim HI, Noh SH, Hyung WJ (2018) Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy. Gastric Cancer 21:285–295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Yang SY, Roh KH, Kim YN, Cho M, Lim SH, Son T, Hyung WJ, Kim HI (2017) Surgical outcomes after open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 24:1770–1777

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hagen ME, Jung MK, Fakhro J, Buchs NC, Buehler L, Mendoza JM, Morel P (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic stapling during robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery: a case-matched analysis of costs and clinical outcomes. Surg Endosc 32:472–477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim YW, Reim D, Park JY, Eom BW, Kook MC, Ryu KW, Yoon HM (2016) Role of robot-assisted distal gastrectomy compared to laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy in suprapancreatic nodal dissection for gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 30:1547–1552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM (1992) Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 111:518–526

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibanes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C, Graf R, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron JL, Makuuchi M (2009) The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Duraes LC, Stocchi L, Steele SR, Kalady MF, Church JM, Gorgun E, Liska D, Kessler H, Lavryk OA, Delaney CP (2018) The relationship between Clavien–Dindo morbidity classification and oncologic outcomes after colorectal cancer resection. Ann Surg Oncol 25:188–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim TH, Suh YS, Huh YJ, Son YG, Park JH, Yang JY, Kong SH, Ahn HS, Lee HJ, Slankamenac K, Clavien PA, Yang HK (2018) The comprehensive complication index (CCI) is a more sensitive complication index than the conventional Clavien–Dindo classification in radical gastric cancer surgery. Gastric Cancer 21:171–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Winter R, Haug I, Lebo P, Grohmann M, Reischies FMJ, Cambiaso-Daniel J, Tuca A, Rienmuller T, Friedl H, Spendel S, Forbes AA, Wurzer P, Kamolz LP (2017) Standardizing the complication rate after breast reduction using the Clavien–Dindo classification. Surgery 161:1430–1435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rac G, Greiman A, Rabley A, Tipton TJ, Chiles LR, Freilich DA, Rames R, Cox L, Koski M, Rovner ES (2017) Analysis of complications of pelvic mesh excision surgery using the Clavien–Dindo classification system. J Urol 198:638–643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nakauchi M, Suda K, Nakamura K, Shibasaki S, Kikuchi K, Nakamura T, Kadoya S, Ishida Y, Inaba K, Taniguchi K, Uyama I (2017) Laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: technical aspects and surgical, nutritional and oncological outcomes. Surg Endosc 31:4631–4640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hu Y, Huang C, Sun Y, Su X, Cao H, Hu J, Xue Y, Suo J, Tao K, He X, Wei H, Ying M, Hu W, Du X, Chen P, Liu H, Zheng C, Liu F, Yu J, Li Z, Zhao G, Chen X, Wang K, Li P, Xing J, Li G (2016) Morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic versus open D2 distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 34:1350–1357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Li Z, Ji G, Bai B, Yu D, Liu Y, Lian B, Zhao Q (2018) Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy versus laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for middle-third advanced gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 32:2255–2262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Li Z, Bai B, Zhao Y, Yu D, Lian B, Liu Y, Zhao Q (2018) Severity of complications and long-term survival after laparoscopic total gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched, case-control study. Int J Surg 54:62–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kumagai K, Hiki N, Nunobe S, Kamiya S, Tsujiura M, Ida S, Ohashi M, Yamaguchi T, Sano T (2018) Impact of anatomical position of the pancreas on postoperative complications and drain amylase concentrations after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 32:3846–3854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. In H, Solsky I, Palis B, Langdon-Embry M, Ajani J, Sano T (2017) Validation of the 8th edition of the AJCC TNM staging system for gastric cancer using the National Cancer Database. Ann Surg Oncol 24:3683–3691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lu J, Zheng CH, Cao LL, Li P, Xie JW, Wang JB, Lin JX, Chen QY, Lin M, Huang CM (2017) The effectiveness of the 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM classification in the prognosis evaluation of gastric cancer patients: a comparative study between the 7th and 8th editions. Eur J Surg Oncol 43:2349–2356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Agha RA, Borrelli MR, Vella-Baldacchino M, Thavayogan R, Orgill DP, Group S (2017) The STROCSS statement: strengthening the reporting of cohort studies in surgery. Int J Surg 46:198–202

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Li HT, Han XP, Su L, Zhu WK, Xu W, Li K, Zhao QC, Yang H, Liu HB (2014) Short-term efficacy of laparoscopy-assisted vs open radical gastrectomy in gastric cancer. World J Gastrointest Surg 6:59–64

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Goitein D, Raziel A, Szold A, Sakran N (2016) Assessment of perioperative complications following primary bariatric surgery according to the Clavien–Dindo classification: comparison of sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc 30:273–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Elze MC, Gregson J, Baber U, Williamson E, Sartori S, Mehran R, Nichols M, Stone GW, Pocock SJ (2017) Comparison of propensity score methods and covariate adjustment: evaluation in 4 cardiovascular studies. J Am Coll Cardiol 69:345–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Austin PC, Jembere N, Chiu M (2018) Propensity score matching and complex surveys. Stat Methods Med Res 27:1240–1257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Benedetto U, Head SJ, Angelini GD, Blackstone EH (2018) Statistical primer: propensity score matching and its alternatives. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 53:1112–1117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Austin PC (2011) Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat 10:150–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Austin PC (2018) Assessing the performance of the generalized propensity score for estimating the effect of quantitative or continuous exposures on binary outcomes. Stat Med 37:1874–1894

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Nagata T, Nakase Y, Nakamura K, Sougawa A, Mochiduki S, Kitai S, Inaba S (2017) Impact of nutritional status on outcomes in laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy. J Surg Res 219:78–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kurata K, Chino Y, Shinagawa A, Kurokawa T, Yoshida Y (2017) Surgical apgar score predicts 30-day morbidity in elderly patients who undergo non-laparoscopic gynecologic surgery: a retrospective analysis. Int J Surg 48:215–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Downs-Canner S, Shuai Y, Ramalingam L, Pingpank JF, Holtzman MP, Zeh HJ, Bartlett DL, Choudry HA (2017) Safety and efficacy of combined resection of colorectal peritoneal and liver metastases. J Surg Res 219:194–201

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Kim HI, Han SU, Yang HK, Kim YW, Lee HJ, Ryu KW, Park JM, An JY, Kim MC, Park S, Song KY, Oh SJ, Kong SH, Suh BJ, Yang DH, Ha TK, Kim YN, Hyung WJ (2016) Multicenter prospective comparative study of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg 263:103–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Nakauchi M, Suda K, Susumu S, Kadoya S, Inaba K, Ishida Y, Uyama I (2016) Comparison of the long-term outcomes of robotic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer and conventional laparoscopic approach: a single institutional retrospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 30:5444–5452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Seo HS, Shim JH, Jeon HM, Park CH, Song KY (2015) Postoperative pancreatic fistula after robot distal gastrectomy. J Surg Res 194:361–366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhou J, Yu P, Shi Y, Tang B, Hao Y, Zhao Y, Qian F (2015) Evaluation of Clavien–Dindo classification in patients undergoing total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Med Oncol 32:120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lee KG, Lee HJ, Yang JY, Oh SY, Bard S, Suh YS, Kong SH, Yang HK (2014) Risk factors associated with complication following gastrectomy for gastric cancer: retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data based on the Clavien–Dindo system. J Gastrointest Surg 18:1269–1277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kim MC, Kim W, Kim HH, Ryu SW, Ryu SY, Song KY, Lee HJ, Cho GS, Han SU, Hyung WJ, Korean Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery Study G (2008) Risk factors associated with complication following laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a large-scale korean multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol 15:2692–2700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lee JH, Park DJ, Kim HH, Lee HJ, Yang HK (2012) Comparison of complications after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy and open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer using the Clavien–Dindo classification. Surg Endosc 26:1287–1295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ji X, Yan Y, Bu ZD, Li ZY, Wu AW, Zhang LH, Wu XJ, Zong XL, Li SX, Shan F, Jia ZY, Ji JF (2017) The optimal extent of gastrectomy for middle-third gastric cancer: distal subtotal gastrectomy is superior to total gastrectomy in short-term effect without sacrificing long-term survival. BMC Cancer 17:345

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Tu RH, Lin JX, Zheng CH, Li P, Xie JW, Wang JB, Lu J, Chen QY, Cao LL, Lin M, Huang CM (2017) Complications and failure to rescue following laparoscopic or open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity-matched analysis. Surg Endosc 31:2325–2337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Nevo Y, Goldes Y, Barda L, Nadler R, Gutman M, Nevler A (2018) Risk factors for complications of total/subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: prospectively collected, based on the Clavien–Dindo classification system. Isr Med Assoc J 5:277–280

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kim DJ, Seo SH, Kim KH, Park YH, An MS, Bae KB, Choi CS, Oh SH (2016) Comparisons of clinicopathologic factors and survival rates between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy in gastric cancer. Int J Surg 34:161–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Watanabe M, Kinoshita T, Tokunaga M, Kaito A, Sugita S (2018) Complications and their correlation with prognosis in patients undergoing total gastrectomy with splenectomy for treatment of proximal advanced gastric cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 44:1181–1185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lin JX, Huang CM, Zheng CH, Li P, Xie JW, Wang JB, Jun L, Chen QY, Lin M, Tu R (2016) Evaluation of laparoscopic total gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: results of a comparison with laparoscopic distal gastrectomy. Surg Endosc 30:1988–1998

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to medical staff of Department of General Surgery, Lanzhou General Hospital of Chinese People’s Liberation Army for their management of database.

Funding

This study was supported by Cuiying Graduate Supervisor Applicant Training Program of Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Huimin plan of Ministry of Science and Technology of China (2012GS620101), Major Projects of Science and Technology of Gansu Province (2011GS04390), Natural Science Foundation of Gansu Province (1506RJZA309), and Postdoctoral Research Foundation of China (2015M572710).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Wen-Jie Wang, Hong-Tao Li, and Jian-Ping Yu have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Second Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, No. 82 Chuiying Gate, Chengguan District, Lanzhou, 730030, Gansu, People’s Republic of China

    Wen-Jie Wang, Hong-Tao Li, Jian-Ping Yu, Chang-An Guo, Ling Wang, Wei Hu, Yu-Min Li & Hong-Bin Liu

  2. Department of General Surgery, Lanzhou General Hospital of Chinese People’s Liberation Army, No. 333 Binhe South Road, Qilihe District, Lanzhou, 730050, Gansu, People’s Republic of China

    Wen-Jie Wang, Hong-Tao Li, Jian-Ping Yu, Lin Su, Chang-An Guo, Peng Chen, Long Yan, Kun Li, You-Wei Ma & Hong-Bin Liu

Authors
  1. Wen-Jie Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hong-Tao Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jian-Ping Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lin Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chang-An Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peng Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Long Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kun Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. You-Wei Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ling Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Wei Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Yu-Min Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Hong-Bin Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The original study design was undertaken by HBL, WJW, and HTL. Data collection was undertaken by JPY, LS, PC, LW, CAG, and WH. The Clavien–Dindo grade for each patient was assessed by LY, KL, and YWM, and any divergences on grade were solved by discussion. Data were analysed by WJW, and appraised by HTL, JPY, and HBL. The draft manuscript was written by WJW, and was reviewed and edited by HTL, JPY, LS, PC, YML, and HBL. All authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yu-Min Li or Hong-Bin Liu.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Drs. Wen-Jie Wang, Hong-Tao Li, Jian-Ping Yu, Lin Su, Chang-An Guo, Peng Chen, Long Yan, Kun Li, You-Wei Ma, Ling Wang, Wei Hu, Yu-Min Li, and Hong-Bin Liu have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, WJ., Li, HT., Yu, JP. et al. Severity and incidence of complications assessed by the Clavien–Dindo classification following robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a retrospective and propensity score-matched study. Surg Endosc 33, 3341–3354 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-06624-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-06624-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation