Skip to main content
Log in

Robotic spleen‑preserving suprapancreatic and splenic hilar lymph node dissection using the preemptive retropancreatic approach in total gastrectomy for gastric cancer

  • Technical Note
  • Published:
Updates in Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Advanced gastric cancer that has not invaded the greater curvature is a good indication for total gastrectomy (TG) with spleen-preserving suprapancreatic and splenic hilar lymph node dissection (LND). However, the suprapancreatic and splenic hilar LND increases the area of dissection of the pancreas, and prolonged pressure drainage of the pancreas is required to maintain a clear operative view. This can lead to an increased risk of postoperative pancreatic complications. To report the efficacy of our novel preemptive retropancreatic approach (PRA) for the suprapancreatic and splenic hilar LND in robotic TG (RTG). We report our experience with nine patients with gastric cancer who underwent spleen-preserving splenic hilar LND using PRA during RTG at Hokkaido University from October 2018 to November 2021. The PRA involves initial dissection of the left side of the retropancreatic space, followed by the release of the adherence between the retroperitoneum surface and the pancreas (fusion fascia), which provides a good operative field and prevents contact with the pancreas during the suprapancreatic and splenic hilar LND in RTG. The median operating time was 488 min (254–564 min). The median intraoperative bleeding was 55 mL (0–115 mL). One patient had postoperative complications (above grade II of the Clavien–Dindo classification), but there were no postoperative pancreatic complications. The spleen-preserving suprapancreatic and splenic hilar LND using PRA could help to reduce the postoperative pancreatic complications associated with RTG.

Trial registration number and date of registration The Hokkaido University Hospital institutional review board approved the data collection and analysis. The trial registration number and date of registration are No. 021-0022 and July 26, retrospectively registered.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Availability of data and materials

The datasets during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Kang BH, Xuan Y, Hur H, Ahn CW, Cho YK, Han SU (2012) Comparison of surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric Cancer: the learning curve of robotic surgery. J Gastric Cancer 12:156–163

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ye SP, Shi J, Liu DN, Jiang QG, Lei X, Qiu H, Li TY (2019) Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer: short-term outcomes at a mono-institution. BMC Surg 19:86

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Ebihara Y, Kurashima Y, Murakami S, Shichinohe T, Hirano S (2021) Robotic distal gastrectomy with a novel “preemptive retropancreatic approach” during dissection of suprapancreatic lymph nodes for gastric cancer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000000897

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kimura K, Ebihara Y, Tanaka K, Nakanishi Y, Asano T, Noji T, Kurashima Y, Murakami S, Nakamura T, Tsuchikawa T, Okamura K, Shichinohe T, Kanno-Okada H, Hirano S (2020) Robot-assisted laparoscopic total gastrectomy for Epstein–Barrvirus-associated multiple gastric cancer: a case report. Int J Surg Case Rep 75:446–450

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibañes 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 

  7. 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 

  8. Tsujiura M, Hiki N, Ohashi M, Nunobe S, Kumagai K, Ida S, Okumura Y, Sano T, Yamaguchi T (2017) ‘Pancreas-compressionless gastrectomy’: a novel laparoscopic approach for suprapancreatic lymph node dissection. Ann Surg Oncol 24:3331–3337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ida S, Hiki N, Ishizawa T, Kuriki Y, Kamiya M, Urano Y, Nakamura T, Tsuda Y, Kano Y, Kumagai K, Nunobe S, Ohashi M, Sano T (2018) Pancreatic compression during lymph node dissection in laparoscopic gastrectomy: possible cause of pancreatic leakage. J Gastric Cancer 18:134–141

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kumamoto T, Kurahashi Y, Niwa H, Nakanishi Y, Ozawa R, Okumura K, Ishida Y, Shinohara H (2020) Laparoscopic suprapancreatic lymph node dissection using a systematic mesogastric excision concept for gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 27:529–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Study conception and design: Yuma Ebihara and Yo Kurashima; acquisition of data: Yuma Ebihara; analysis and interpretation of data: Yuma Ebihara and Yo Kurashima; drafting of manuscript: Yuma Ebihara; critical revision of the manuscript: Yuma Ebihara, Yo Kurashima, Toshiaki Shichinohe, and Satoshi Hirano.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuma Ebihara.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the Hokkaido University Ethics Committee (No. 021-0022).

Research involving human participants and/or animals and Informed consent

This study was approved by the Hokkaido University Hospital institutional review board the independent ethics committee (No. 021-0022), and informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Consent to participate

The consent form indicated the aim of the study on the hospital’s Website and offered participants the right to decline to participate or opt-out at any time. Comprehensive informed consent to use patient information for this study was obtained from all participants preoperatively.

Consent for publication

All authors (Yuma Ebihara, Yo Kurashima, Toshiaki Shichinohe, and Satoshi Hirano) have consented to be published.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (WMV 87967 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ebihara, Y., Kurashima, Y., Shichinohe, T. et al. Robotic spleen‑preserving suprapancreatic and splenic hilar lymph node dissection using the preemptive retropancreatic approach in total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Updates Surg (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-024-01880-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-024-01880-w

Keywords

Navigation