Comparison of Surgical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopy-Assisted Pylorus-Preserving Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis
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.
KeywordsGastric Cancer Propensity Score Early Gastric Cancer Propensity Score Match Left Gastric Artery
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.
- 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
- 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.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