Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 22, Issue 7, pp 2323–2328 | Cite as

Comparison of Surgical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopy-Assisted Pylorus-Preserving Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

  • Dong-Seok Han
  • Yun-Suhk Suh
  • Hye Seong Ahn
  • Seong-Ho Kong
  • Hyuk-Joon Lee
  • Woo-Ho Kim
  • Han-Kwang YangEmail author
Gastrointestinal Oncology



The three-dimensional view and articulating devices in robot system might have a benefit performing the delicate procedure of pylorus-preserving gastrectomy. This study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility and safety of robot-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (RAPPG) and to compare the perioperative outcomes and oncologic safety between RAPPG and laparoscopy-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (LAPPG) for middle-third early gastric cancer.


Between June 2008 and December 2013, we retrospectively collected data of 68 patients with RAPPG and propensity score matched 68 patients with LAPPG for the treatment of early gastric cancer at Seoul National University Hospital. The covariates for propensity score matching were: age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, and operators. Clinicopathologic characteristics and surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups.


All RAPPG cases were performed successfully without open or laparoscopic conversion. Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes did not differ between the two groups except in operation time (258.3 vs. 193.9 min; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in complication rates between the two groups (19.1 vs. 22.1 %; P = 0.671). The mean number of examined lymph nodes (33.4 vs. 36.5; P = 0.153), and the mean number of lymph nodes at each station was not different between the two groups.


RAPPG can be a safe treatment option for middle-third early gastric cancer in terms of surgical complications and oncologic outcomes. However, RAPPG has no benefit over LAPPG in this study.


Gastric Cancer Propensity Score Early Gastric Cancer Propensity Score Match Left Gastric Artery 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was supported by a research fund from the Seoul National University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (Grant No. 800-20130198). Statistical analysis was supported by the Medical Research Collaborating Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.


The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Jeong O, Park YK. Clinicopathological features and surgical treatment of gastric cancer in South Korea: the results of 2009 nationwide survey on surgically treated gastric cancer patients. J Gastric Cancer. 2011; 11:69–77.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer. 2011; 14:113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tomita R, Fujisaki S, Tanjoh K. Pathophysiological studies on the relationship between postgastrectomy syndrome and gastric emptying function at 5 years after pylorus-preserving distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. World J Surg. 2003; 27:725–733.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shibata C, Shiiba K, Funayama Y, et al. Outcomes after pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: a prospective multicenter trial. World J Surg. 2004; 28:857–861.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nunobe S, SasakoM, Saka M, Fukagawa T, Katai H, Sano T. Symptom evaluation of long-term postoperative outcomes after pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2007; 10:167–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Park DJ, Lee HJ, Jung HC, Kim WH, Lee KU, Yang HK. Clinical outcome of pylorus-preserving gastrectomy in gastric cancer in comparison with conventional distal gastrectomy with Billroth I anastomosis. World J Surg. 2008; 32:1029–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kong SH, Kim JW, Lee HJ, Kim WH, Lee KU, Yang HK. The safety of the dissection of lymph node stations 5 and 6 in pylorus-preserving gastrectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009; 16:3252–3258.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yoo MW, Park DJ, Ahn HS, et al. Evaluation of the adequacy of lymph node dissection in pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer using the maruyama index. World J Surg. 2010; 34:291–295.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horiuchi T, Shimomatsuya T, Chiba Y. Laparoscopically assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy. Surg Endosc. 2001; 15:325–328.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hiki N, Shimoyama S, Yamaguchi H, Kubota K, Kaminishi M. Laparoscopy-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy with quality controlled lymph node dissection in gastric cancer operation. J Am Coll Surg. 2006; 203:162–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nunobe S, Hiki N, Fukunaga T, Tokunaga M, Ohyama S, Seto Y, Yamaguchi T. Laparoscopy-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy: preservation of vagus nerve and infrapyloric blood flow induces less stasis. World J Surg. 2007; 31:2335–2340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tanaka N, Katai H, Saka M, Morita S, Fukagawa T. Laparoscopy-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy: a matched case–control study. Surg Endosc. 2011; 25:114–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jiang X, Hiki N, Nunobe S, et al. Postoperative outcomes and complications after laparoscopy-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Ann Surg. 2011; 253:928–933.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suh YS, Han DS, Kong SH, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy is better than laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for middle-third early gastric cancer. Ann Surg. 2014; 259:485–493.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anderson C, Ellenhorn J, Hellan M, Pigazzi A. Pilot series of robot-assisted laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2007; 21:1662–1666.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Song J, Oh SJ, Kang WH, Hyung WJ, Choi SH, Noh SH. Robot-assisted gastrectomy with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: lessons learned from an initial 100 consecutive procedures. Ann Surg. 2009; 249:927–932.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim MC, Heo GU, Jung GJ. Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: surgical techniques and clinical merits. Surg Endosc. 2010; 24:610–615.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Woo Y, Hyung WJ, Pak KH, Inaba K, Obama K, Choi SH, Noh SH. Robotic gastrectomy as an oncologically sound alternative to laparoscopic resections for the treatment of early-stage gastric cancers. Arch Surg. 2011; 146:1086–1092.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A. AJCC cancer staging manual, 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2009.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    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; 240:205–213.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat. 1985; 39:33–38.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D`Agostino RB Jr. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med. 1998; 17:2265–2281.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yoon HM, Kim YW, Lee JH, et al. Robot-assisted total gastrectomy is comparable with laparoscopically assisted total gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2012; 26:1377–1381.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Park JY, Jo MJ, Nam BH, et al. Surgical stress after robot-assisted distal gastrectomy and its economic implications. Br J Surg. 2012; 99:1554–1561.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hur H, Kim JY, Cho YK, Han SU. Technical feasibility of robot-sewn anastomosis in robotic surgery for gastric cancer. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2010; 20:693–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stefanidis D, Wang F, Korndorffer J, Dunne JB, Scott DJ. Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload. Surg Endosc. 2010; 24:377–382.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dong-Seok Han
    • 1
    • 5
  • Yun-Suhk Suh
    • 1
  • Hye Seong Ahn
    • 2
  • Seong-Ho Kong
    • 1
  • Hyuk-Joon Lee
    • 1
    • 3
  • Woo-Ho Kim
    • 3
    • 4
  • Han-Kwang Yang
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of SurgerySeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of SurgerySeoul National University Boramae HospitalSeoulKorea
  3. 3.Cancer Research InstituteSeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  4. 4.Department of PathologySeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryKonkuk University School of MedicineSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations