Abstract
Background and Objectives
Optimal surgical management for gastric cancer remains controversial. We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes after open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG), and robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer.
Methods
A systematic search of electronic databases was undertaken. An NMA was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-NMA guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using R and Shiny.
Results
Twenty-two RCTs including 6890 patients were included. Overall, 49.6% of patients underwent LAG (3420/6890), 46.6% underwent OG (3212/6890), and 3.7% underwent RG (258/6890). At NMA, there was a no significant difference in recurrence rates following LAG (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–1.49) compared with OG. Similarly, overall survival (OS) outcomes were identical following OG and LAG (OS: OG, 87.0% [1652/1898] vs. LAG: OG, 87.0% [1650/1896]), with no differences in OS in meta-analysis (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77–1.52). Importantly, patients undergoing LAG experienced reduced intraoperative blood loss, surgical incisions, distance from proximal margins, postoperative hospital stays, and morbidity post-resection.
Conclusions
LAG was associated with non-inferior oncological and surgical outcomes compared with OG. Surgical outcomes following LAG and RG superseded OG, with similar outcomes observed for both LAG and RG. Given these findings, minimally invasive approaches should be considered for the resection of local gastric cancer, once surgeon and institutional expertise allows.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide and third leading cause of cancer-related mortality.1 Its management paradigm has evolved with the advent of multimodal therapeutic strategies, including novel combinations of chemotherapeutic agents,2 radiotherapies,3 and immunomodulatory drugs,4 all of which may be tailored in accordance with patient and tumour factors to improve oncologic outcomes. This personalized approach is conducted with the intention of minimizing treatment-related toxicities, while simultaneously achieving the best pathological responses to conventional therapeutic strategies.5,6 Despite these advances, high-quality radical en bloc surgical resection of the tumour remains the cornerstone of management,7,8 Traditionally, gastrectomy was performed as an open procedure (OG), although more recently, minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches have undergone widespread adoption, including laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) and robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RG).9,10 Advocates of MIS hold this approach to be advantageous for several reasons, particularly reduced morbidity, and enhanced recovery and cosmesis.11,12 Nevertheless, OG remains the approach of choice for certain cases, as surgical approach is dependent on an array of patient, pathological, and societal parameters, as well as surgeon and institutional expertise.13
The first LAG was performed for gastric cancer in 1994,14 and this approach has subsequently been developed and refined.15 Several studies, including multicentre, prospective, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), have illustrated the non-inferiority of long-term oncological and survival outcomes following LAG and OG. Consequently, LAG is a well-established surgical approach in the management of early gastric carcinoma.16,17,18,19 Increasingly, LAG is currently emerging as feasible, safe and effective for radical resection of locally advanced distal gastric cancer.20,21 Nevertheless, there remains debate surrounding the differences in postoperative and oncological outcomes following LAG, as well as the considerable technical aspects and learning curve associated with the laparoscopic approach.22,23,24,25,26
Robot-assisted surgery has been proposed as a potential platform to overcome some of the limitations of conventional laparoscopy and has recently undergone widespread adoption by many specialists and surgical oncology units for the management of many solid organ cancers. This is principally due to the reported advantages of three-dimensional vision, enhanced skill acquisition (due to a shorter learning curve relative to laparoscopic surgery), increased operator dexterity, improved mobility in narrow areas that have restricted access, and improved ergonomics for the operating surgeon.27,28 However, while the first RG was performed in Japan 20 years ago by Hashizume et al.,29 the uptake of robotic surgery in upper gastrointestinal surgery has lagged considerably behind other surgical specialties.30 At present, data available in relation to robotic surgery is primarily obtained from studies of a retrospective design, typically involving outcomes regarding single-centre or single-surgeon experiences of using robotics for gastric cancer resections, with limited long-term oncological outcomes being reported.7 Therefore, there is a paucity of high-quality data evaluating the role of RG for resection of gastric tumours.31,32,33
Several RCTs and standard pairwise meta-analyses32,34,35,36,37 have attempted to determine the optimal surgical approaches used for the resection of gastric carcinoma, however consensus in relation to the oncological and surgical safety of LAG and RG relative to OG is yet to be determined. Importantly, two recent RCTs have reported short-term postoperative and survival outcomes following RG,38,39 and anticipation among gastroesophageal surgeons is that such minimally invasive approaches should enhance patient outcomes.40 Therefore, application of the network meta-analysis (NMA) methodology here is timely to allow simultaneous comparison (direct and indirect) of minimally invasive approaches to gastrectomy with OG using RCT data only.41,42
Methods
A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating NMAs of healthcare interventions.43 This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42022330440).
Search Strategy
A formal systematic search of four electronic databases was performed in March 2022 for relevant titles. Details in relation to the search strategy can be found in Appendix 1 in the electronic supplementary material (ESM). Study-specific definitions and the research question determined using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework44 are outlined in detail in ESM Appendices 2 and 3.
Eligibility Criteria
All published RCTs with full-text manuscripts comparing the outcomes of two or more methods of surgical intervention for gastric cancer (i.e., OG, LAG or RG) were included. The inclusion criteria for studies were (1) compared postoperative surgical outcomes (e.g., complications, estimated blood loss, lymph node yield [LNY], etc.) or long-term oncological and survival outcomes (e.g., disease recurrence, overall survival [OS], etc.); (2) were of a prospective, randomized design; (3) recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing surgery for known primary gastric cancer; and (4) studies had to have full-text manuscripts available. Note that when overlapping trial data were reported from two different sources, the source with the longest patient follow-up or largest sample size was included.
The exclusion criteria were (1) studies failing to fulfil the above inclusion criteria; (2) studies that only have results published in abstract form or from conference proceedings; (3) studies not published in the English language; or (4) studies in which the primary indication for the gastrectomy was not for gastric cancer (e.g., bariatric sleeve gastrectomy, etc.).
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to outline the characteristics of the included trials. Data pertaining to recurrence, OS, morbidity, complications and readmission were expressed as dichotomous or binary outcomes, reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). ORs were calculated using crude event RCT data, to compare interventions using per-protocol data, where applicable. Continuous data were calculated using mean values, standard deviations (SDs) and pooled mean variance, with differences expressed as weighted mean differences (WMDs). OG was the principal comparator for all analyses. Bayesian NMAs were conducted using netameta45 and Shiny packages46 for R. Point estimates of effect sizes were described with a 95% CI. Results were considered statistically significant at the p < 0.050 level if the 95% CI did not include a value of 1. Estimates of mean and SDs were calculated using standard statistical methods, where applicable.47,48 Rank probabilities were plotted against the possible ranks for all competing treatments. The confidence in estimates of the outcome was assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) tool.49
Risk-of-Bias Assessment
Assessment of potential biases within the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool (for RCTs).50 This assessment tool grades the risk of bias in each study as being high risk (marked in red), low risk (marked in green), or uncertain risk (marked in yellow) of bias across six categories. The critical appraisal was independently completed by two reviewers (HCT and MGD), and in the case of discrepancies in opinion, a third reviewer (NED) was asked to arbitrate.
Results
Literature Search
In total, 7385 articles were identified and 4220 duplicate articles were excluded. Thereafter, study titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in 53 studies being eligible for full-text review. Of these, 22 RCTs met the eligibility criteria and were included.22,23,24,25,26,39,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66 The PRISMA flow chart is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Study Characteristics
Overall, 6890 patients with gastric cancer were included, of whom 3212 patients underwent OG (46.6%, 3212/6890), 3420 patients underwent LAG (49.6%, 3420/6890) and 258 patients underwent RG (3.7%, 258/6890). The mean age at surgery was 60.9 years (range 54.5–72.0 years). Overall, 15/22 studies included distal gastrectomy (DG) only (68.2%), with 6/22 (27.3%) and 4/22 (18.2%) also including total gastrectomy (TG) and partial gastrectomy (PG), respectively. Overall, 40.9% reported outcomes for early gastric cancer (9/22), 18.2% for locally advanced gastric cancer (4/22), 9.1% for advanced gastric cancer (2/22), and 31.8% for resectable gastric cancer (7/22). The characteristics of the trials included in this meta-analysis are shown in Table 1. All ranking tables illustrating the data are presented in Table 2.
Primary Outcome Measures
Disease Recurrence
Overall, 27.3% of studies reported outcomes with respect to disease recurrence (6/22). The mean follow-up was 56.4 months (range 22.1–99.8 months), and the overall recurrence rate was 9.1% (435/4775). LAG had the highest recurrence rate (9.5%, 226/2,373), followed by OG (8.7%, 209/2402). Of note, recurrence was not reported in any of the studies reporting outcomes following RG. When compared with an OG, the risk of disease recurrence was similar for those who underwent LAG (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.77–1.49) (Fig. 2a) and ESM Appendix 2a].
Overall Survival
Overall, 31.8% of included studies reported outcomes for analysis in relation to OS (7/22). The mean follow-up was 56.4 months (range 22.1–99.8 months). For the overall patient cohort, 87.0% of patients were alive at follow-up (3302/3794). Of note, OS rates were identical for both OG and LAG (OS: OG, 87.0% [1652/1898] vs. LAG: OG, 87.0% [1650/1896]). OS was not reported in the RG groups. When compared with OG, OS was similar for those who underwent LAG (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.765–1.52) (Fig. 2b and ESM Appendix 2b].
Secondary Outcome Measures
Intraoperative Outcomes
All 22 RCTs reported outcomes on intraoperative time. LAG (OR 64.3, 95% CI 51.0–78.7) and RG (OR 99.3, 95% CI 55.1–145.0) were associated with significantly longer intraoperative duration than OG. Compared with LAG, intraoperative time was not significantly different to those who underwent RG (OR 34.96, 95% CI − 7.53 to 77.84) (Fig. 3a and ESM Appendix 3a). Of note, the rank probability was highest in the OG group (0.999), indicating the lowest intraoperative time associated with OG (Table 2).
In total, 95.5% (21/22) of the included studies reported outcomes in relation to intraoperative blood loss (IBL). Compared with OG, there was a significant reduction in IBL for those who underwent LAG (OR − 79.4, 95% CI − 108.0 to − 52.3) and the robotic group (OR − 87.2, 95% CI − 173.0 to − 2.75) (Fig. 3b and ESM Appendix 3b). Furthermore, there was a non-significant reduction in IBL in those undergoing RG compared with those undergoing LAG (OR − 7.83, 95% CI − 88.83 to 73.02).
Overall, 50.0% of included studies reported on the number of LNs harvested (11/22). Compared with OG, LAG showed a significantly decreased LN yield (OR − 1.52, 95% CI − 2.75 to − 0.45), whereas there was a non-significant difference in LNs harvested for those who underwent RG (OR − 1.95, 95% CI − 5.77 to 1.25) (Fig. 3c and ESM Appendix 3c).
In total, 31.8% of the included studies reported on the distance from the proximal margin (7/22). This distance from the proximal margin was significantly lower in those undergoing LAG compared with OG (OR − 0.310, 95% CI − 0.565 to − 0.0992) (Fig. 3d and ESM Appendix 3d). The rank probability was highest in those undergoing LAG (0.99), indicating a decreased distance from the proximal margin in those undergoing LAG (Table 2).
In total, 27.3% of the included studies reported on the distance from the distal margin (6/22). The distance from distal margin was similar to those who underwent LAG and OG (OR − 0.220, 95% CI − 0.530 to 0.0617) (Fig. 3e and ESM Appendix 3e). The rank probability was highest in those undergoing LAG (0.95), indicating a decreased distance from the distal margin associated with LAG (Table 2).
In total, 36.4% of the included studies reported on the length of surgical incision (8/22). This was significantly shorter in those undergoing LAG compared with OG (OR − 11.7, 95% CI − 14.5 to − 8.91) (Fig. 3f and ESM Appendix 3f). The rank probability was highest in those undergoing LAG (0.99), indicating a decreased length of surgical incision associated with LAG (Table 2).
Postoperative Outcomes
Overall, 95.5% of included studies reported outcomes in relation to overall morbidity (21/22). Compared with OG, there was a significant reduction in morbidity in those undergoing LAG (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67–0.95) and RG (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19–0.62), respectively. Compared with LAG, those undergoing RG had a significant reduction in overall morbidity (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25–0.76) [ESM Appendices 4 and 5].
In total, 59.1% of included studies reported outcomes in relation to major morbidity (13/22). Compared with OG, there was similar major morbidity in those undergoing LAG (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.79–1.65) and RG (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.16–1.17). Compared with LAG, there was a significant reduction in major morbidity in those undergoing RG (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14–0.99) [ESM Appendices 4 and 5].
In total, 68.2% of included studies reported outcomes in relation to perioperative mortality (15/22). Compared with OG, there was similar perioperative mortality in those undergoing LAG (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43–1.89) and RG (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.05–16.18). Compared with LAG, perioperative morality was similar for those who underwent RG (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.06–15.88) [ESM Appendices 4 and 5].
Complications
Overall, 50.0% of RCTs reported on wound complications (11/22). Compared with OG, there were similar wound complications for undergoing LAG (OR 0.628, 95% CI 0.30–1.18) and RG (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.11–10.70). Compared with LAG, wound complications were similar for those who underwent RG (OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.20–15.91) [ESM Appendices 4 and 5].
In total, 40.9% of included studies reported on cardiac complications (9/22). Compared with OG, cardiac complications were similar for those who underwent LAG (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.68–3.17) and RG (OR 8.1, 95% CI 0.96–68.2). Compared with LAG, cardiac complications were similar for those who underwent RG (OR 0.18 95% CI 0.02–1.29). Of note, however, one of the two RCTs evaluating RG illustrated a significant increase in cardiac complications (OR 33.5, 95% CI 1.97–568.6) [ESM Appendices 4 and 5].
In total, 81.8% of included studies reported on respiratory complications (18/22). Compared with OG, there was a similar rate of respiratory complications for those who underwent LAG (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62–1.17) and RG (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.29–1.46). Compared with LAG, the risk of respiratory complications was similar for those who underwent RG (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.36–1.61) [ESM Appendices 4 and 5].
In total, 59.1% of included studies reported on pancreatic complications (13/22). Compared with OG, the risk of pancreatic complications was similar for those who underwent LAG (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34–1.51) and RG (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01–4.32). Compared with LAG, the risk of pancreatic complications was similar for those who underwent RG (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01–2.82) [ESM Appendices 4 and 5].
In total, 18.2% of included studies reported on VTE (4/22). Compared with OG, the risk of VTE was similar for those who underwent LAG (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43–1.89) and RG (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.05–16.18). Similarly, the risk of VTE was comparable between LAG and RG (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.06–15.88) [ESM Appendices 4 and 5].
Overall, 72.7% of included studies reported on anastomotic leak (16/22). Compared with OG, the risk of anastomotic leak was similar for those who underwent LAG (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.69–1.96) and RG (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.12–3.67). Compared with LAG, the risk of anastomotic leak was similar for those who underwent RG (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.11–2.80) [ESM Appendices 4 and 5].
In total, 22.7% of included studies reported on anastomotic stenosis (5/22). Compared with OG, the risk of anastomotic stenosis was similar for those who underwent LAG (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.19–3.71) and RG (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00–4.03). Compared with LAG, the risk of anastomotic stenosis was similar for those who underwent RG (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01–3.39) [ESM Appendices 4 and 5].
Recovery
Overall, 45.5% of included studies reported outcomes on length of hospital stay, in days (10/22). When compared with an OG, there was a significant reduction in length of hospital stay for those who underwent LAG (OR − 1.18, 95% CI − 2.01 to − 0.48). Compared with OG, length of hospital stay was similar for patients who underwent RG (OR − 1.78, 95% CI − 4.15 to 0.419). Compared with LAG, length of hospital stay was similar for patients who underwent RG (OR 0.60, 95% CI − 1.54 to 2.78) [ESM Appendices 6 and 7].
In total, 40.9% of included studies reported on the number of days until a patient could ingest sips of fluids (9/22). Compared with an OG, there was a non-significant reduction in the number of days until a patient could ingest sips of fluids for those undergoing LAG (OR − 0.416, 95% CI − 0.826 to 0.0227) and RG (OR − 0.679, 95% CI − 1.53 to 0.245). Compared with LAG, the number of days until a patient could ingest sips of fluids was comparable for those who underwent RG (OR − 0.26, 95% CI − 1.02 to 0.54) [ESM Appendices 6 and 7].
In total, 31.8% of included studies reported on the number of days until a patient could ingest solid food (7/22). Compared with OG, the number of days until a patient could ingest solid food was similar for those who underwent LAG (OR − 0.620, 95% CI − 1.81 to 0.55) and RG (OR 0.379, 95% CI − 2.79 to 3.54). Compared with LAG, the number of days until a patient could ingest solid food was similar for those who underwent RG (OR 1.00, 95% CI − 1.95 to 3.95) [ESM Appendices 6 and 7].
In total, 77.3% of included studies reported on the number of days until a patient could first pass flatus (17/22). Compared with OG, there was a significant reduction in the number of days until a patient could first pass flatus for those undergoing both LAG (OR − 0.455, 95% CI − 0.650 to − 0.259) and RG (OR − 0.61, 95% CI − 1.13 to − 0.080). Compared with LAG, there was a non-significant reduction in the number of days until a patient could first pass flatus for those undergoing RG (OR − 0.15, 95% CI − 0.64 to 0.34) [ESM Appendices 6 and 7].
In total, 36.4% of included studies reported on days till first ambulation (8/22). Compared with OG, there was a similar number of days to first ambulation for those who underwent LAG (OR − 0.15, 95% CI − 0.81 to 0.50) and RG (OR − 0.40, 95% CI − 1.69 to 0.89). Compared with LAG, days to ambulation were similar for those who underwent RG (OR − 0.25, 95% CI − 1.36 to 0.87) [ESM Appendices 6 and 7].
Overall, 18.2% of included studies reported on readmission (4/22). Compared with OG, the rates of readmission were similar to those who underwent LAG (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.53−1.56) or RG (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.12–7.10) [ESM Appendices 6 and 7]. Compared with LAG, the rate of readmission was similar for those who underwent RG (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.14–7.15).
Tumour Size
Overall, 68.2% of included studies reported tumour size (15/22). Compared with OG, tumour size was similar to those who underwent LAG (OR − 0.13, 95% CI − 0.32 to 0.06) and RG (OR − 0.24, 95% CI − 0.75 to 0.30). Compared with LAG, tumour size was similar to those who underwent RG (OR − 0.11, 95% CI − 0.59 to 0.40) [ESM Appendices 8 and 9].
Cost Effectiveness
Overall, 13.6% of included studies reported on cost (3/22). RG was significantly more expensive than LAG (OR 3258.00, 95% CI 3204–59,3311.41) [ESM Appendices 8 and 9].
Risk of Bias
All 22 of the included studies were ‘low’ risk of bias for most categories, using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias assessment for RCTs. In brief, three of the included RCTs had ‘low’ risk of bias, 12 RCTs had ‘some’ risk of bias, and 7 RCTs illustrated evidence of ‘high’ risk of bias. Comprehensive summaries of the risk-of-bias assessment are outlined in ESM Appendix 10.
Discussion
The management paradigm for gastric carcinoma has evolved such that multimodal therapeutic strategies are now pragmatically tailored to each patient, which has translated into enhanced oncological and survival outcomes.67 In addition, the inclusion of quality-of-life (QoL) outcome measures is now routinely utilized to establish the impact of both local and systemic therapies on host (or biological) function, to determine whether the oncological benefit of such treatments offset their associated toxicities and morbidity.68 This NMA was performed to establish the oncological and surgical safety of MIS gastrectomy compared with conventional OG, including data from 6890 patients treated for primary gastric carcinoma in 22 independent RCTs. This analysis illustrated the non-inferiority of LAG compared with OG with respect to survival, while highlighting the improved surgical and recovery outcomes associated with the MIS approaches, supporting their use where possible. Consequently, LAG should be considered for patients with primary resectable gastric cancer, providing that surgeon and institutional expertise allows, echoing the previous comprehensive results of a standard pairwise meta-analysis of RCTs performed by Lou et al. in 2022,69 albeit limited by the inclusion of studies performed three decades previously.
Traditionally, extensive locoregional resection using OG was the standard of care for resection of gastric carcinoma, which has since been surpassed by the adoption of both laparoscopic and robotic approaches as routine.70,71 Importantly, this study illustrated the non-inferiority of LAG relative to OG with respect to long-term oncological and survival outcomes, despite reduced nodal yields harvested and closer distances to specimen margins with LAG. OS was identical for both OG and LAG (both 87.0%) at approximately 5 years’ follow-up, with similar recurrence observed for both (9.5% vs. 8.7%), which likely represents a significant proportion of patients with early-stage disease, limiting the translatability of these results into the locally advanced setting. However, notably, disease recurrence and OS outcomes are as yet unavailable for patients undergoing RG compared with the other modalities. Therefore, while this study comprehensively establishes the non-inferiority of LAG versus OG for disease recurrence and OS, the absence of RCT data for RG limits the synthesis of any similar level 1 conclusions regarding the oncologic efficacy of RG. In a previous meta-analysis of 19 non-randomized, observational studies including 7275 patients, Ma et al. reported similar OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.76–1.18), recurrence-free survival (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69–1.21) and disease recurrence (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67–1.21) for patients undergoing RG versus LAG.72 Furthermore, a previous propensity-matched analysis performed by Obama et al. demonstrated the non-inferiority of RG relative to LAG for disease recurrence (6.7% vs. 5.0%) and OS (8.9% vs. 11.6%).73 Interestingly, however, there was an increase in locoregional recurrence rates following RG relative to LAG (42.9% vs. 30.8%). In the absence of RCT data, the results from studies such as that by Obama et al. are important to highlight the potential risks and fundamental challenges to introducing and implementing new surgical techniques, albeit being limited due to its single-centre, retrospective design. However, it is important that further rigorous scientific evaluation of RG with prospective, randomized studies are conducted to ensure patient safety and to avoid the unexpected issues that have arose during the early adoption of other new surgical techniques for cancer,74,75 while remaining cognizant of the fact that premature adoption, inadequate proctoring and suboptimal execution, rather than any issue with the technique itself, may be to blame.76
While the survival outcomes for LAG and OG are equivocal, it is imperative that the other results in this NMA are considered when selecting the optimal technique for performing gastrectomy for gastric cancer, particularly in terms of the enhanced patient recovery and reduced complication rate associated with the MIS approaches, which coincide with the robust implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in contemporary surgical oncology.77 Patients undergoing LAG experienced a reduction in IBL, shorter surgical incisions, reduced distance from proximal margins, shorter postoperative hospital stays, and, most importantly, reduced morbidity post-resection. When interpretating these data, these important findings tip this study in favour of minimally invasive techniques, particularly when these data support the comparability of LAG and OG regarding long-term follow-up. MIS is advantageous as patients tend to be subject to less physiological stress, immunologic burden, faster recovery times, lower complication rates, and less immediate and long-term burden on healthcare resources.78 Therefore, MIS techniques may prove advantageous in improving cost effectiveness in the long-term, despite the greater direct cost associated with such surgical approaches as described in the current analysis. Accordingly, this study further validates the current paradigm shift towards adopting MIS techniques where possible, as these approaches are associated with longer operative duration relative to OG, as well as RG being significantly more expensive than LAG in the current NMA, coupled with emerging evidence suggesting an increased risk of cardiovascular complications, rendering patient selection imperative if RG is being contemplated during multidisciplinary discussion. Therefore, this study highlights the premise for LAG to be utilized for primary gastric resection where feasible, should institutional expertise allow, with further evaluation of RG approaches required to determine what benefit, if any, this approach may have over LAG.
Despite the absence of survival data, this study does provide preliminary data in support of RG, which was associated with reduced morbidity, major morbidity, and similar cardiorespiratory, pancreatic and other significant postoperative complications in this study compared with OG and LAG. Moreover, when compared with LAG, patients undergoing RG had a significant reduction in overall morbidity (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25–0.76), further potentiating RG as a pragmatic minimally invasive approach to gastrectomy in patients with early gastric cancer. These are important findings that strengthen the perceived benefit associated with RG, particularly when the application of robotic technology is an attractive addition to the surgeons’ armamentarium, due to the theoretical advantages over conventional laparoscopy, including improved dexterity, enhanced visualization, and superior ergonomics.79 Shortcomings of robotic surgery include the longer operative time and increased expense associated with this approach, as well as purchasing and maintaining equipment and training operators, a steep learning curve, and poorer cost effectiveness in low-volume centres.80,81,82,83 While the data suggest reasonable equipoise between RG and LAG surgery in terms of morbidity and recovery,72 the argument that robotic instrumentation may allow for improved mobility in narrow areas with restricted access, for example, at the diaphragmatic hiatus and when performing anastomoses, seems plausible.84 Another example is lymphadenectomy, where the removal of the D2 nodes is considered the standard surgical procedure for the majority of patients with resectable gastric carcinoma.85 Controversary remains in relation to resection beyond D2 for cases of advanced disease, for several reasons, including the reduced operative freedom, the significant difficulty controlling haemorrhage, and the relative ease of trauma to local structures.86 The results of the present NMA show a significant reduction in LNY following LAG, with similar outcomes observed following OG and RG, indicating that RG may offer an advantage over LAG for technically difficult manoeuvres such as extensive lymphatic resection during ‘D2 plus’ lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer.85
The current analysis is subject to limitations. First, as described in detail, none of the two included RCTs reported survival outcomes following RG, limiting the conclusions that may be drawn from the current study. Second, the studies included in this review failed to provide survivorship data that may inform the psychosocial impact of OG, LAG, and RG on patients’ QoL following resection. Third, there are several competing factors that may confound the data presented in this study; these include the prescription of (neo)adjuvant chemo-, radio-, or immunotherapeutic agents to improve survival outcomes, as well as the impact of surgical approach in the context of early, locally advanced, or advanced gastric carcinoma. Unfortunately, attempts to perform analyses allowing for correction of such factors have been futile, thus limiting these results. Finally, evaluation of surgeon-specific proficiency and the influence of the centralisation of gastric cancer treatment to high-volume centres was not evaluated to determine their impact on clinical outcomes. Therefore, those responsible for the provision of the next generation of prospective, randomized gastrectomy trials should consider these confounding factors at the time of trial design to ensure the optimisation of data outcomes.
Conclusion
This analysis demonstrates the non-inferiority of oncological and surgical outcomes for OG and LAG in patients being treated predominantly for early gastric cancer following 5 years of follow-up. Moreover, surgical outcomes following minimally invasive gastrectomy superseded those following OG, with enhanced outcomes observed for both LAG and RG. This highlights the oncological and surgical safety of LAG relative to OG, while also illustrating that the short-term surgical, morbidity and recovery outcomes following RG are comparable with LAG. Given these findings, LAG may be considered for patients with primary resectable gastric cancer, providing that surgeon and institutional expertise allows, however further RCTs are warranted before definitive conclusions may be drawn in the setting of advanced disease. However, given the challenges in adopting high-quality LAG for all cases, evaluation of new techniques that might make the procedure easier and thereby reduce the incidence of poor oncological and functional outcome are warranted. The concept of utilizing RG in these circumstances offers a number of theoretical but as yet unproven advantages, apart from LNY as was demonstrated in this analysis. In time, as more institutions employ an RG approach, it is likely that surgical and institutional expertise will facilitate further evaluation of the MIS techniques to determine the relative advantages and disadvantages of both techniques, which have not been extensive explored in this study. In the interim, technique selection should be based on individual tumour characteristics and patient expectations, as well as surgeon and institutional expertise.
Data availability
Data can be made available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.
References
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.
Wagner AD, Syn NL, Moehler M, et al. Chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;8:4CD004064.
Ng SP, Leong T. Role of radiation therapy in gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(8):4151–7.
Donlon NE, Davern M, Hayes C, et al. The immune response to major gastrointestinal cancer surgery and potential implications for adjuvant immunotherapy. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2022;175:103729.
Smyth EC, Verheij M, Allum W, et al. Gastric cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(Suppl 5):v38–49.
Banks M, Graham D, Jansen M, Gotoda T, Coda S, di Pietro M, et al. British society of gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of patients at risk of gastric adenocarcinoma. Gut. 2019;68(9):1545–75. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2018-318126.
Jin T, Liu HD, Yang K, Chen ZH, Zhang YX, Hu JK. Effectiveness and safety of robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of 12,401 gastric cancer patients. Updates Surg. 2022;74(1):267–81.
Japanese Gastric Cancer A. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2014 (ver. 4). Gastric Cancer. 2017;20(1):1-19.
Caruso S, Giudicissi R, Mariatti M, Cantafio S, Paroli GM, Scatizzi M. Laparoscopic vs. open gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched retrospective case-control study. Curr Oncol. 2022;29(3):1840–65.
Chen K, Pan Y, Zhang B, Maher H, Wang XF, Cai XJ. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis. BMC Surg. 2017;17(1):93.
Kodera Y, Fujiwara M, Ohashi N, et al. Laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: a collective review with meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211(5):677–86.
Bobo Z, Xin W, Jiang L, et al. Robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of prospective observational studies. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(4):1033–48.
Smyth EC, Verheij M, Allum W, Cunningham D, Cervantes A, Arnold D. Gastric cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:v38–49.
Kitano S, Iso Y, Moriyama M, Sugimachi K. Laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1994;4(2):146–8.
Antonakis PT, Ashrafian H, Isla AM. Laparoscopic gastric surgery for cancer: where do we stand? World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(39):14280–91.
Claassen YHM, van Amelsfoort RM, Hartgrink HH, et al. Effect of hospital volume with respect to performing gastric cancer resection on recurrence and survival: results from the CRITICS trial. Ann Surg. 2019;270(6):1096–102.
Kim HH, Han SU, Kim MC, et al. Effect of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy vs open distal gastrectomy on long-term survival among patients with stage I gastric cancer: the KLASS-01 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(4):506–13.
Katai H, Mizusawa J, Katayama H, et al. Survival outcomes after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy versus open distal gastrectomy with nodal dissection for clinical stage IA or IB gastric cancer (JCOG0912): a multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5(2):142–51.
Hyung WJ, Yang HK, Han SU, et al. A feasibility study of laparoscopic total gastrectomy for clinical stage I gastric cancer: a prospective multi-center phase II clinical trial, KLASS 03. Gastric Cancer. 2019;22(1):214–22.
Yu J, Huang C, Sun Y, et al. Effect of laparoscopic vs open distal gastrectomy on 3-year disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer: the CLASS-01 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;321(20):1983–92.
Hyung WJ, Yang HK, Park YK, et al. Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: the KLASS-02-RCT randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(28):3304–13.
Park YK, Yoon HM, Kim YW, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted versus open D2 distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: results from a randomized phase II multicenter clinical trial (COACT 1001). Ann Surg. 2018;267(4):638–45.
Lee HJ, Hyung WJ, Yang HK, et al. Short-term outcomes of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy to open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer (KLASS-02-RCT). Ann Surg. 2019;270(6):983–91.
Hu Y, Huang C, Sun Y, et al. Morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic versus open D2 distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(12):1350–7.
Li Z, Shan F, Ying X, et al. Assessment of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(12):1093–101.
Wang Z, Xing J, Cai J, et al. Short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted versus open D2 distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer in North China: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(1):33–45.
Ashrafian H, Clancy O, Grover V, Darzi A. The evolution of robotic surgery: surgical and anaesthetic aspects. Br J Anaesth. 2017;119(Suppl 1):i72–84.
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(3):156–63. https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2012.12.3.156.
Hashizume M, Shimada M, Tomikawa M, et al. Early experiences of endoscopic procedures in general surgery assisted by a computer-enhanced surgical system. Surg Endosc. 2002;16(8):1187–91.
Alhossaini RM, Altamran AA, Seo WJ, Hyung WJ. Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: current evidence. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2017;1(2):82–9.
Li Z, Li J, Li B, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:705–14. https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S161007.
Ma J, Li X, Zhao S, Zhang R, Yang D. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2020;18(1):306.
Kassab P, Castro OAP. Distal gastrectomy: the evidence—a narrative overview. Ann Laparosc Endosc Surg. 2022;7:7.
Muaddi H, Hafid ME, Choi WJ, et al. Clinical outcomes of robotic surgery compared to conventional surgical approaches (laparoscopic or open): a systematic overview of reviews. Ann Surg. 2021;273(3):467–73.
Chen X, Feng X, Wang M, Yao X. Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and high-quality nonrandomized comparative studies. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020;46(11):1998–2010.
Best LM, Mughal M, Gurusamy KS. Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;3:CD011389.
Aiolfi A, Lombardo F, Matsushima K, et al. Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, and robotic distal gastrectomy for early and locally advanced gastric cancer. Surgery. 2021;170(3):942–51.
Woo Y, Hyung WJ, Pak KH, et al. Robotic gastrectomy as an oncologically sound alternative to laparoscopic resections for the treatment of early-stage gastric cancers. Arch Surg. 2011;146:1086–9.
Lu J, Zheng CH, Xu BB, et al. Assessment of robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2021;273(5):858–67.
Lee S, Kim HH. Minimally invasive surgery in advanced gastric cancer. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2022;6(3):336–43.
Jansen JP, Naci H. Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers. BMC Med. 2013;11:159.
Mills EJ, Ioannidis JP, Thorlund K, Schunemann HJ, Puhan MA, Guyatt GH. How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta- analysis. JAMA. 2012;308(12):1246e53.
Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84.
Armstrong EC. The well-built clinical question: the key to finding the best evidence efficiently. WMJ. 1999;98(2):25–8.
Rücker G, Krahn U, König J, Efthimiou O, Schwarzer G. Netmeta: network meta-analysis using frequentist methods. R package version. 2019;1.
Chang W, Cheng J, Allaire J, Xie Y, McPherson J. Shiny: web application framework for R. R package version. 2017;1(5).
Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5(1):13.
Luo D, et al. Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27(6):1785–805.
Wan X, et al. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):135.
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.
Kim HY. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test. Restor Dent Endod. 2017;42(2):152–5. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2017.42.2.152.
Huscher CG, Mingoli A, Sgarzini G, et al. Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for distal gastric cancer: five-year results of a randomized prospective trial. Ann Surg. 2005;241(2):232–7.
Lee JH, Han HS, Lee JH. A prospective randomized study comparing open vs laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy in early gastric cancer: early results. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(2):168–73.
Hayashi H, Ochiai T, Shimada H, Gunji Y. Prospective randomized study of open versus laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with extraperigastric lymph node dissection for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(9):1172–6.
Takiguchi S, Fujiwara Y, Yamasaki M, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy versus open distal gastrectomy. A prospective randomized single-blind study. World J Surg. 2013;37(10):2379–86.
Aoyama T, Yoshikawa T, Hayashi T, et al. Randomized comparison of surgical stress and the nutritional status between laparoscopy-assisted and open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(6):1983–90.
Shi Y, Xu X, Zhao Y, et al. Short-term surgical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for advanced gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(5):2427–33.
Cai J, Wei D, Gao CF, Zhang CS, Zhang H, Zhao T. A prospective randomized study comparing open versus laparoscopy-assisted D2 radical gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer. Dig Surg. 2011;28(5–6):331–7.
Chen HuJ, Xin Jiang L, Cai L, et al. Preliminary experience of fast-track surgery combined with laparoscopy-assisted radical distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16(10):1830–9.
Cui M, Li Z, Xing J, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing D2 dissection in laparoscopic and open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Med Oncol. 2015;32(10):241.
van der Veen A, Brenkman HJF, Seesing MFJ, et al. Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer (LOGICA): a multicenter randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(9):978–89.
Kim YW, Baik YH, Yun YH, et al. Improved quality of life outcomes after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2008;248(5):721–7.
Sakuramoto S, Yamashita K, Kikuchi S, et al. Laparoscopy versus open distal gastrectomy by expert surgeons for early gastric cancer in Japanese patients: short-term clinical outcomes of a randomized clinical trial. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(5):1695–705.
Kim W, Kim HH, Han SU, et al. Decreased morbidity of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy compared with open distal gastrectomy for stage I gastric cancer: short-term outcomes from a multicenter randomized controlled trial (KLASS-01). Ann Surg. 2016;263(1):28–35.
Katai H, Mizusawa J, Katayama H, et al. Short-term surgical outcomes from a phase III study of laparoscopy-assisted versus open distal gastrectomy with nodal dissection for clinical stage IA/IB gastric cancer: Japan clinical oncology group study JCOG0912. Gastric Cancer. 2017;20(4):699–708.
Ojima T, Nakamura M, Hayata K, et al. Short-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy vs laparoscopic gastrectomy for patients with gastric cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(10):954–63.
Joshi SS, Badgwell BD. Current treatment and recent progress in gastric cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):264–79.
Heneghan HM, Zaborowski A, Fanning M, et al. Prospective study of malabsorption and malnutrition after esophageal and gastric cancer surgery. Ann Surg. 2015;262(5):803–7.
Lou S, Yin X, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Xue Y. Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg. 2022;102:106678.
Park SH, Kim JM, Park SS. Current status and trends of minimally invasive gastrectomy in Korea. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021;57(11):1195.
Scarritt T, Hsu CH, Maegawa FB, Ayala AE, Mobily M, Ghaderi I. Trends in utilization and perioperative outcomes in robotic-assisted bariatric surgery using the MBSAQIP database: a 4-year analysis. Obes Surg. 2021;31(2):854–61.
Ma J, Li X, Zhao S, Zhang R, Yang D. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2020;18(1):306.
Obama K, Kim Y-M, Kang DR, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy. Gastric Cancer. 2018;21(2):285–95.
Larsen SG, Pfeffer F, Kørner H. Norwegian moratorium on transanal total mesorectal excision. Br J Surg. 2019;106(9):1120–1.
van Oostendorp SE, Belgers HJ, Bootsma BT, et al. Locoregional recurrences after transanal total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer during implementation. Br J Surg. 2020;107(9):1211–20.
Soomro NA, Hashimoto DA, Porteous AJ, et al. Systematic review of learning curves in robot-assisted surgery. BJS Open. 2020;4(1):27–44.
Desiderio J, Trastulli S, D’Andrea V, Parisi A. Enhanced recovery after surgery for gastric cancer (ERAS-GC): optimizing patient outcome. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5:11.
Cooper MA, Hutfless S, Segev DL, Ibrahim A, Lyu H, Makary MA. Hospital level under-utilization of minimally invasive surgery in the United States: retrospective review. BMJ. 2014;349:g4198.
Woo Y, Hyung WJ, Pak KH, et al. Robotic gastrectomy as an oncologically sound alternative to laparoscopic resections for the treatment of early-stage gastric cancers. Arch Surg. 2011;146(9):1086–92.
Nomine-Criqui C, Germain A, Ayav A, Bresler L, Brunaud L. Robot-assisted adrenalectomy: indications and drawbacks. Updates Surg. 2017;69(2):127–33.
Pineda-Solís K, Medina-Franco H, Heslin MJ. Robotic versus laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a comparative study in a high-volume center. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(2):599–602.
Owen RK, Bradbury N, Xin Y, Cooper N, Sutton A. MetaInsight: an interactive web-based tool for analyzing, interrogating, and visualizing network meta-analyses using R-shiny and netmeta. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(4):569–81.
Hyams ES, Mullins JK, Pierorazio PM, Partin AW, Allaf ME, Matlaga BR. Impact of robotic technique and surgical volume on the cost of radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2013;27(3):298–303.
Kostakis ID, Sran H, Uwechue R, et al. Comparison between robotic and laparoscopic or open anastomoses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Robot Surg. 2019;6:27–40.
Li JQ, He D, Liang YX. Current status of extended “D2 plus” lymphadenectomy in advanced gastric cancer. Oncol Lett. 2021;21(6):467.
Lee HJ, Hyung WJ, Yang HK, et al. Short-term outcomes of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy to open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer (KLASS-02-RCT). Ann Surg. 2019;270(6):983–91.
Kim YW, Yoon HM, Yun YH, Nam BH, Eom BW, Baik YH, et al. Long-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: result of a randomized controlled trial (COACT 0301). Surg Endosc. 2013;27(11):4267–76.
Yamashita K, Sakuramoto S, Kikuchi S, Futawatari N, Katada N, Hosoda K, et al. Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer in Japan: long-term clinical outcomes of a randomized clinical trial. Surg Today. 2016;46(6):741–9.
van der Veen A, Brenkman HJF, Seesing MFJ, Haverkamp L, Luyer MDP, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, et al. Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer (LOGICA): a multicenter randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(9):978–89.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Dr. Amirhossein Jalali, School of Medicine, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland, for his expertise and assistance with the study.
Funding
Open Access funding provided by the IReL Consortium. No funding was received for this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Matthew G. Davey, Hugo C. Temperley, Niall J. O’Sullivan, Vianka Marcelino, Odhrán K. Ryan, Éanna J. Ryan, Noel E. Donlon, Sean M. Johnston, and William B. Robb have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Ethical Approval
Not applicable as this is a review of previously published studies.
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.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Davey, M.G., Temperley, H.C., O’Sullivan, N.J. et al. Minimally Invasive and Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. Ann Surg Oncol 30, 5544–5557 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-13654-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-13654-6