Skip to main content
Log in

Robot-assisted total gastrectomy is comparable with laparoscopically assisted total gastrectomy for early gastric cancer

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopically assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) is technically difficult. Robot surgery has theoretical advantages such as increased degrees of freedom of instruments and a three-dimensional view. The current study aimed to determine whether a robot-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) has a real benefit over LATG in terms of surgical and oncologic outcomes.

Methods

A single-center case–control study was conducted. The study included 36 patients who underwent RATG and 65 patients who underwent LATG at the National Cancer Center in Korea between February 2009 and May 2011. No patients were excluded from the analysis within the study period. Clinicopathologic data, operative data, postoperative morbidity, and pathologic data were analyzed by Student’s t-tests and Chi-square tests, as indicated.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 53.9 ± 11.7 years in the RATG group and 56.9 ± 12.3 years in the LATG group (P = 0.236). The mean BMI was 23.2 ± 2.5 kg/m2 in the RATG group and 23.6 ± 3.4 kg/m2 in the LATG group (P = 0.494). The mean postoperative hospital stay was 8.8 ± 3.3 days in the RATG group and 10.3 ± 10.8 days in the LATG group (P = 0.416). The mean operative time was 305.8 ± 115.8 min in the RATG group and 210.2 ± 57.7 min in the LATG group (P < 0.001). The mean number of dissected lymph nodes was 42.8 ± 12.7 in the RATG group and 39.4 ± 13.4 in the LATG group (P = 0.209). Postoperative complications were experienced by 6 patients (16.7%) in the RATG group and 10 patients (15.4%) in the LATG group (P = 0.866).

Conclusion

Despite early experiences, RATG was shown to be comparable with LATG in terms of surgical and oncologic outcomes. However, no apparent benefit is associated with RATG to date.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kitano S, Iso Y, Moriyama M, Sugimachi K (1994) Laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc 4:146–148

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 

  3. Lee SE, Ryu KW, Nam BH, Lee JH, Kim Y-W, Yu JS, Cho SJ, Lee JY, Kim CG, Choi IJ, Kook MC, Park SR, Kim MJ, Lee JS (2009) Technical feasibility and safety of laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy in gastric cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy. J Surg Oncol 100:392–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cadiere GB, Himpens J, Germay O, Izizaw R, Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Capelluto E, Bruyns J (2001) Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J Surg 25:1467–1477

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hashizume M, Sugimachi K (2003) Robot-assisted gastric surgery. Surg Clin North Am 83:1429–1444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson C, Ellenhorn J, Hellan M, Pigazzi A (2007) Pilot series of robot-assisted laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 21:1662–1666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 

  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(9):1086–1092

    Google Scholar 

  10. Scozzari G, Rebecchi F, Millo P, Rocchietto S, Allieta R, Morino M (2011) Robot-assisted gastrojejunal anastomosis does not improve the results of the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc 25:597–603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Park J, Choi G-S, Lim K, Jang Y, Jun S (2011) S052: a comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 25:240–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schaer G (2010) Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case–control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 150:92–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Link RE, Bhayani SB, Kavoussi LR (2006) A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Ann Surg 243:486–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Song J, Kang WH, Oh SJ, Hyung WJ, Choi SH, Noh SH (2009) Role of robotic gastrectomy using da Vinci system compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy: initial experience of 20 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 23:1204–1211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 

  16. Hur H, Kim JY, Cho YK, Han SU (2010) Technical feasibility of robot-sewn anastomosis in robotic surgery for gastric cancer. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 20:693–697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jayaraman S, Quan D, Al-Ghamdi I, El-Deen F, Schlachta C (2010) Does robotic assistance improve efficiency in performing complex minimally invasive surgical procedures? Surg Endosc 24:584–588

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stefanidis D, Wang F, Korndorffer J, Dunne J, Scott D (2010) Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload. Surg Endosc 24:377–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Byrn JC, Schluender S, Divino CM, Conrad J, Gurland B, Shlasko E, Szold A (2007) Three-dimensional imaging improves surgical performance for both novice and experienced operators using the da Vinci Robot System. Am J Surg 193:519–522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by a grant (NCC 0310060-1,2,3) from the National Cancer Center, Korea.

Disclosures

Hong Man Yoon, Young-Woo Kim, Jun Ho Lee, Keun Won Ryu, Bang Wool Eom, Ji Yeon Park, Il Ju Choi, Chan Gyoo Kim, Jong Yeul Lee, Soo Jeong Cho, and Ji Yoon Rho have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Young-Woo Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yoon, H.M., Kim, YW., Lee, J.H. et al. Robot-assisted total gastrectomy is comparable with laparoscopically assisted total gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 26, 1377–1381 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-2043-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-2043-0

Keywords

Navigation