Advertisement

Gastric Cancer

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 377–385 | Cite as

Clinical advantages of robotic gastrectomy for clinical stage I/II gastric cancer: a multi-institutional prospective single-arm study

  • Ichiro UyamaEmail author
  • Koichi Suda
  • Masaya Nakauchi
  • Takahiro Kinoshita
  • Hirokazu Noshiro
  • Shuji Takiguchi
  • Kazuhisa Ehara
  • Kazutaka Obama
  • Shiro Kuwabara
  • Hiroshi Okabe
  • Masanori Terashima
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer (GC) has been increasingly performed for a decade; however, evidence for its use as a standard treatment has not yet been established. The present study aimed to determine the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of RG for GC.

Methods

This multi-institutional, single-arm prospective study, which included 330 patients from 15 institutions, was designed to compare morbidity rate of RG with that of a historical control (conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy, LG). This trial was approved for Advanced Medical Technology (“Senshiniryo”) B. The included patients were operable patients with cStage I/II GC. The primary endpoint was morbidity (Clavien–Dindo Grade ≥ IIIa). The specific hypothesis was that RG could reduce the morbidity rate to less than half of that with LG (6.4%). A sample size of 330 was considered sufficient (one-sided alpha 0.05, power 80%).

Results

Among the 330 study patients, the protocol treatment was suspended in 4 patients. Thus, 326 patients fully enrolled and completed the study. The median patient age and BMI were 66 years and 22.4 kg/m2, respectively. Distal gastrectomy was performed in 253 (77.6%) patients. The median operative time and estimated blood loss were 313 min and 20 mL, respectively. No 30-day mortality was seen, and morbidity showed a significant reduction to 2.45% with RG (p = 0.0018).

Conclusions

RG for cStage I/II GC is safe and feasible. It may be effective in reducing morbidity with LG.

Keywords

Stomach neoplasms Gastrectomy Robotic surgical procedure Minimally invasive surgical procedures Postoperative complications 

Abbreviations

RG

Robotic gastrectomy

GC

Gastric cancer

LG

Laparoscopic gastrectomy

DVSS

Da Vinci surgical system

POPF

Postoperative pancreatic fistula

C-D

Clavien–Dindo classification

EQ-5D

EuroQol 5 dimension

CECT

Contrast-enhanced computed tomography

MHLW

Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare

CRF

Case report form

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all surgeons participating in this study especially to Yoshihiro Hiramatsu (Hamamatsu University, Hamamatsu, Japan), Takeshi Omori (Osaka International Cancer Institute, Osaka, Japan), Yuji Watanabe (Ehime University, Toon, Japan), Hironori Odaira (International University of Health and Welfare, Narita, Japan), Tomohisa Egawa (Saiseikai Yokohamashi Tobu Hospital, Yokohama, Japan), and Yoshiharu Sakai (Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan). We also thank T. Kato, T. Koseki, and Y. Hiramatsu working in data collection center (Center for Research Promotion and Support, Fujita Health University). The authors are indebted to Maruzen Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan) for their native English speaker’s review of this manuscript. All statistical analyses related to the study design and the endpoints were conducted by Sogo Rinsho Medefi Co., Ltd.

Author contributions

All the authors have fully met the ICMJE authorship criteria as follows: (1) study design—IU and KS; data collection—MN, MT, TK, HN, ST, KE, KO, SK, and HO; statistical analysis and interpretation of results—MN, KS, and IU. (2) Drafting of the manuscript—KS and MN; critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content—KS, IU, MN, MT, TK, HN, ST, KE, KO, SK, and HO. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors are accountable for all the aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

In this study, Intuitive Surgical, Inc. reimbursed 500,000 JPY to each patient. Koichi Suda received a grant of Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. 2015 Clinical Robotic Research Grant for this study. The other authors have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Supplementary material

10120_2018_906_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018  https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Suda K, Man IM, Ishida Y, Kawamura Y, Satoh S, Uyama I. Potential advantages of robotic radical gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in comparison with conventional laparoscopic approach: a single institutional retrospective comparative cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:673–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Uyama I, Suda K, Satoh S. Laparoscopic surgery for advanced gastric cancer: current status and future perspectives. J Gastric Cancer. 2013;13:19–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Katai H, Sasako M, Fukuda H, Nakamura K, Hiki N, Saka M, et al. Safety and feasibility of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with suprapancreatic nodal dissection for clinical stage I gastric cancer: a multicenter phase II trial (JCOG 0703). Gastric Cancer. 2010;13:238–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shinohara T, Satoh S, Kanaya S, Ishida Y, Taniguchi K, Isogaki J, et al. Laparoscopic versus open D2 gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:286–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Isogaki J, Haruta S, Man IM, Suda K, Kawamura Y, Yoshimura F, et al. Robot-assisted surgery for gastric cancer: experience at our institute. Pathobiology. 2011;78:328–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim HI, Han SU, Yang HK, Kim YW, Lee HJ, Ryu KW, et al. Multicenter prospective comparative study of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2016;263:103–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Uyama I, Kanaya S, Ishida Y, Inaba K, Suda K, Satoh S. Novel integrated robotic approach for suprapancreatic D2 nodal dissection for treating gastric cancer: technique and initial experience. World J Surg. 2012;36:331–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Suda K, Nakauchi M, Inaba K, Ishida Y, Uyama I. Robotic surgery for upper gastrointestinal cancer: current status and future perspectives. Dig Endosc. 2016;28:701–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee JH, Park DJ, Kim HH, Lee HJ, Yang HK. Comparison of complications after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy and open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer using the Clavien–Dindo classification. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:1287–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    EuroQol G. EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Japanese Gastric Cancer A. Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 3rd english edition. Gastric Cancer. 2011;14:101–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Japanese Gastric Cancer A. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer. 2011;14:113–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sakurai H. Advanced medical technology and health insurance in Japan. JMAJ. 2006;49:41–3.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    The flow from application to advanced medical technology to approval for national health insurance coverage. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/05-Shingikai-12404000-Hokenkyoku-Iryouka/0000021162.pdf. Accessed 8 Nov 2018. (in Japanese).
  18. 18.
    Medicaroid, Inc. https://www.medicaroid.com/en/. Accessed 8 Nov 2018.
  19. 19.
    Medtronic, Inc. https://www.medtronic.com/us-en/index.html. Accessed 8 Nov 2018.
  20. 20.
    Verb Surgical, Inc. https://www.verbsurgical.com/. Accessed 8 Nov 2018.
  21. 21.
    TransEnterix, Inc. https://transenterix.com/. Accessed 8 Nov 2018.
  22. 22.
    Abdel Raheem A, Troya IS, Kim DK, Kim SH, Won PD, Joon PS, et al. Robot-assisted fallopian tube transection and anastomosis using the new REVO-I robotic surgical system: feasibility in a chronic porcine model. BJU Int. 2016;118:604–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pugliese R, Maggioni D, Sansonna F, Costanzi A, Ferrari GC, Di Lernia S, et al. Subtotal gastrectomy with D2 dissection by minimally invasive surgery for distal adenocarcinoma of the stomach: results and 5-year survival. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:2594–602.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim MC, Heo GU, Jung GJ. Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: surgical techniques and clinical merits. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:610–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Woo Y, Hyung WJ, Pak KH, Inaba K, Obama K, Choi SH, et al. Robotic gastrectomy as an oncologically sound alternative to laparoscopic resections for the treatment of early-stage gastric cancers. Arch Surg. 2011;146:1086–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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;38:57–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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;12:156–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yoon HM, Kim YW, Lee JH, Ryu KW, Eom BW, Park JY, et al. Robot-assisted total gastrectomy is comparable with laparoscopically assisted total gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:1377–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huang KH, Lan YT, Fang WL, Chen JH, Lo SS, Hsieh MC, et al. Initial experience of robotic gastrectomy and comparison with open and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:1303–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kim KM, An JY, Kim HI, Cheong JH, Hyung WJ, Noh SH. Major early complications following open, laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy. Br J Surg. 2012;99:1681–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Park JY, Jo MJ, Nam BH, Kim Y, Eom BW, Yoon HM, et al. Surgical stress after robot-assisted distal gastrectomy and its economic implications. Br J Surg. 2012;99:1554–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hyun MH, Lee CH, Kwon YJ, Cho SI, Jang YJ, Kim DH, et al. Robot versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer by an experienced surgeon: comparisons of surgery, complications, and surgical stress. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:1258–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kim HI, Park MS, Song KJ, Woo Y, Hyung WJ. Rapid and safe learning of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: multidimensional analysis in a comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:1346–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Huang KH, Lan YT, Fang WL, Chen JH, Lo SS, Li AF, et al. Comparison of the operative outcomes and learning curves between laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. PLoS One. 2014;9:e111499.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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;28:1779–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Noshiro H, Ikeda O, Urata M. Robotically-enhanced surgical anatomy enables surgeons to perform distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer using electric cautery devices alone. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:1180–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Son T, Lee JH, Kim YM, Kim HI, Noh SH, Hyung WJ. Robotic spleen-preserving total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopic procedure. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:2606–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Seo HS, Shim JH, Jeon HM, Park CH, Song KY. Postoperative pancreatic fistula after robot distal gastrectomy. J Surg Res. 2015;194:361–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lee J, Kim YM, Woo Y, Obama K, Noh SH, Hyung WJ. Robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer patients with high body mass index: comparison with conventional laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:3251–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hyun MH, Lee CH, Kim HJ, Tong Y, Park SS. Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic and open resections for gastric carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2013;100:1566–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nakauchi M, Suda K, Shibasaki S, Kadoya S, Inaba K, Ishida Y, Uyama I. 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. 2016;30:5444–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Suda K, Nakauchi M, Inaba K, Ishida Y, Uyama I. Minimally invasive surgery for upper gastrointestinal cancer: our experience and review of the literature. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22:4626–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bandoh T, Shiraishi N, Yamashita Y, Terachi T, Hashizume M, Akira S, Morikawa T, Kitagawa Y, Yanaga K, Endo S, Onishi K, Takiguchi S, Tamaki Y, Hasegawa T, Mimata H, Tabata M, Yozu R, Inomata M, Matsumoto S, Kitano S, Watanabe M. Endoscopic surgery in Japan: the 12th national survey (2012–2013) by the Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2017;10:345–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gotoh M, Miyata H, Hashimoto H, Wakabayashi G, Konno H, Miyakawa S, Sugihara K, Mori M, Satomi S, Kokudo N. Iwanaka T. National clinical database feedback implementation for quality improvement of cancer treatment in Japan: from good to great through transparency. Surg Today. 2016;46:38–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Choi IJ. Endoscopic gastric cancer screening and surveillance in high-risk groups. Clin Endosc. 2014;47:497–503.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Gastric Cancer Association and The Japanese Gastric Cancer Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ichiro Uyama
    • 1
    Email author
  • Koichi Suda
    • 1
  • Masaya Nakauchi
    • 1
  • Takahiro Kinoshita
    • 2
  • Hirokazu Noshiro
    • 3
  • Shuji Takiguchi
    • 4
    • 5
  • Kazuhisa Ehara
    • 6
  • Kazutaka Obama
    • 7
    • 8
  • Shiro Kuwabara
    • 9
  • Hiroshi Okabe
    • 10
  • Masanori Terashima
    • 11
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryFujita Health UniversityToyoakeJapan
  2. 2.Gastric Surgery DivisionNational Cancer Center Hospital EastKashiwaJapan
  3. 3.Department of SurgerySaga University Faculty of MedicineSagaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Surgery, Graduate School of MedicineOsaka UniversityOsakaJapan
  5. 5.Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical SciencesNagoya City UniversityNagoyaJapan
  6. 6.Department of Gastroenterological SurgerySaitama Cancer CenterSaitamaJapan
  7. 7.Department of SurgeryKyoto City HospitalKyotoJapan
  8. 8.Department of Surgery, Graduate School of MedicineKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  9. 9.Digestive SurgeryNiigata City General HospitalNiigataJapan
  10. 10.Department of SurgeryOtsu City HospitalOtsuJapan
  11. 11.Division of Gastric SurgeryShizuoka Cancer CenterShizuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations