Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Potential advantages of robotic radical gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in comparison with conventional laparoscopic approach: a single institutional retrospective comparative cohort study

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

We have previously reported that laparoscopic approach improved short-term postoperative courses even for advanced gastric adenocarcinoma, but not morbidity, in comparison with open approach. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of the use of the surgical robot, da Vinci Surgical System, in minimally invasive radical gastrectomy on short-term outcomes.

Methods

A single institutional retrospective cohort study was performed (UMIN000011749). Five hundred twenty-six patients who underwent radical gastrectomy were enrolled. Eighty-eight patients who agreed to uninsured use of the surgical robot underwent robotic gastrectomy, whereas the remaining 438 patients who wished for laparoscopic (lap) approach with health insurance coverage underwent conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy.

Results

In the robotic group, morbidity (robotic vs lap 2.3 vs 11.4 %, p = 0.009) and hospital stay following surgery (robotic vs lap 14 [2–31] vs 15 [8–136] days, p = 0.021) were significantly improved, even though operative time (p = 0.003) and estimated blood loss (p = 0.026) were slightly greater. In particular, local (robotic vs lap 1.1 vs 9.8 %, p = 0.007) rather than systemic (robotic vs lap 1.1 vs 2.5 %, p = 0.376) complication rates were attenuated using the surgical robot. Multivariate analyses revealed that non-use of the surgical robot (OR 6.174 [1.454–26.224], p = 0.014), total gastrectomy (OR 4.670 [2.503–8.713], p < 0.001), and D2 lymphadenectomy (OR 2.095 [1.124–3.903], p = 0.020) were the significant independent risk factors determining postoperative complications.

Conclusions

The use of the surgical robot might reduce surgery-related complications, leading to further improvement in short-term postoperative courses following minimally invasive radical gastrectomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

Lap:

Laparoscopic

EGC:

Early gastric cancer

AGC:

Advanced gastric cancer

JCGC:

Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma

Ccr:

Creatinine clearance

PaO2 :

Arterial oxygen pressure

JGCA:

Japanese Gastric Cancer Association

FEEA:

Functional end-to-end anastomosis

R3:

Robotic third arm

R1:

Robotic first arm

R2:

Robotic second arm

OR:

Odds ratio

NCCN:

National Comprehensive Cancer Network

References

  1. Crew KD, Neugut AI (2006) Epidemiology of gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol 12:354–362

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sano T, Sasako M, Yamamoto S, Nashimoto A, Kurita A, Hiratsuka M, Tsujinaka T, Kinoshita T, Arai K, Yamamura Y, Okajima K (2004) Gastric cancer surgery: morbidity and mortality results from a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing D2 and extended para-aortic lymphadenectomy: Japan Clinical Oncology Group study 9501. J Clin Oncol 22:2767–2773

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. NCCN Guidelines Version 2.2011 Gastric Cancer. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp

  4. Bamboat ZM, Strong VE (2013) Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol 107:271–276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wei HB, Wei B, Qi CL, Chen TF, Huang Y, Zheng ZH, Huang JL, Fang JF (2011) Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 21:383–390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Angst E, Hiatt JR, Gloor B, Reber HA, Hines OJ (2010) Laparoscopic surgery for cancer: a systematic review and a way forward. J Am Coll Surg 211:412–423

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Shinohara T, Satoh S, Kanaya S, Ishida Y, Taniguchi K, Isogaki J, Inaba K, Yanaga K, Uyama I (2013) Laparoscopic versus open D2 gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 27:286–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Suda K, Ishida Y, Kawamura Y, Inaba K, Kanaya S, Teramukai S, Satoh S, Uyama I (2012) Robot-assisted thoracoscopic lymphadenectomy along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the prone position: technical report and short-term outcomes. World J Surg 36:1608–1616

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Boone J, Schipper ME, Moojen WA et al (2009) Robot-assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy for cancer. Br J Surg 96:878–886

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ruurda JP, van Vroonhoven TJ, Broeders IA (2002) Robot-assisted surgical systems: a new era in laparoscopic surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 84:223–226

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Camarillo DB, Krummel TM, Salisbury JK Jr (2004) Robotic technology in surgery: past, present, and future. Am J Surg 188:2S–15S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Coratti A, Annecchiarico M, Coratti A, Di Marino M, Gentile E, Coratti F, Giulianotti PC (2013) Robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: current status and technical considerations. World J Surg 37:2771–2781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. Annual health, labor and welfare report 2009–2010. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/wp/wp-hw4/02.html

  14. 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 Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 

  16. Lee JH, Park do J, Kim HH, Lee HJ, Yang HK (2012) Comparison of complications after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy and open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Surg Endosc 26:1287–1295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Japan Clinical Oncology Group. Postoperative Complication Criteria according to Clavien-Dindo Classification ver. 2.0. http://www.jcog.jp/doctor/tool/Clavien_Dindo.html

  18. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (2011) Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma: 3rd English edition. Gastric Cancer 14:101–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET, Carbone PP (1982) Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 5:649–655

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Uyama I, Kanaya S, Ishida Y, Inaba K, Suda K, Satoh S (2012) Novel integrated robotic approach for suprapancreatic D2 nodal dissection for treating gastric cancer: technique and initial experience. World J Surg 36:331–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kanaya S, Haruta S, Kawamura Y, Yoshimura F, Inaba K, Hiramatsu Y, Ishida Y, Taniguchi K, Isogaki J, Uyama I (2011) Video: laparoscopy distinctive technique for suprapancreatic lymph node dissection: medial approach for laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery. Surg Endosc 25:3928–3929

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Uyama I, Suda K, Satoh S (2013) Laparoscopic surgery for advanced gastric cancer: current status and future perspectives. J Gastric Cancer 13:19–25

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (2011) Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer 14:113–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kanaya S, Gomi T, Momoi H, Tamaki N, Isobe H, Katayama T, Wada Y, Ohtoshi M (2002) Delta-shaped anastomosis in totally laparoscopic Billroth I gastrectomy: new technique of intraabdominal gastroduodenostomy. J Am Coll Surg 195:284–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Uyama I, Sugioka A, Fujita J, Komori Y, Matsui H, Hasumi A (1999) Laparoscopic total gastrectomy with distal pancreatosplenectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2:230–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Inaba K, Satoh S, Ishida Y, Taniguchi K, Isogaki J, Kanaya S, Uyama I (2010) Overlap method: novel intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy. J Am Coll Surg 211:e25–e29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yu HW, Jung do H, Son SY, Lee CM, Lee JH, Ahn SH, Park do J, Kim HH (2013) Risk factors of postoperative pancreatic fistula in curative gastric cancer surgery. J Gastric Cancer 13:179–184

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Xiong B, Ma L, Zhang C (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of short outcomes. Surg Oncol 21:274–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Junfeng Z, Yan S, Bo T, Yingxue H, Dongzhu Z, Yongliang Z, Feng Q, Peiwu Y (2014) Robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison of surgical performance and short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 28(6):1779–1787

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Liao GX, Xie GZ, Li R, Zhao ZH, Sun QQ, Du SS, Ren C, Li GX, Deng HJ, Yuan YW (2013) Meta-analysis of outcomes compared between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 14:4871–4875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hyun MH, Lee CH, Kim HJ, Tong Y, Park SS (2013) Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic and open resections for gastric carcinoma. Br J Surg 100:1566–1578

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Noshiro H, Ikeda O, Urata M (2013) Robotically-enhanced surgical anatomy enables surgeons to perform distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer using electric cautery devices alone. Surg Endosc 28(4):1180–1187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Park DJ, Lee HJ, Kim HH, Yang HK, Lee KU, Choe KJ (2005) Predictors of operative morbidity and mortality in gastric cancer surgery. Br J Surg 92:1099–1102

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Persiani R, Antonacci V, Biondi A, Rausei S, La Greca A, Zoccali M, Ciccoritti L, D’Ugo D (2008) Determinants of surgical morbidity in gastric cancer treatment. J Am Coll Surg 207:13–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Komatsu S, Ichikawa D, Kashimoto K, Kubota T, Okamoto K, Konishi H, Shiozaki A, Fujiwara H, Otsuji E (2013) Risk factors to predict severe postoperative pancreatic fistula following gastrectomy for gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol 19:8696–8702

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kenngott HG, Fischer L, Nickel F, Rom J, Rassweiler J, Müller-Stich BP (2012) Status of robotic assistance: a less traumatic and more accurate minimally invasive surgery? Langenbecks Arch Surg 397:333–341

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Park SS, Kim MC, Park MS, Hyung WJ (2012) Rapid adaptation of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Surg Endosc 26:60–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express special thanks to Professor Masaki Kitajima for his wonderful supervision of this project. The authors are indebted to Ms. Michelle Paknad for her review of this manuscript.

Disclosures

All the authors (K.S., M.M., Y.I., Y.K., S.S., and I.U.) have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Upper GI, Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan

    Koichi Suda, Mariko Man-i, Yoshinori Ishida, Yuichiro Kawamura, Seiji Satoh & Ichiro Uyama

Authors
  1. Koichi Suda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mariko Man-i
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yoshinori Ishida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuichiro Kawamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Seiji Satoh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ichiro Uyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koichi Suda.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Suda, K., Man-i, M., Ishida, Y. et al. Potential advantages of robotic radical gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in comparison with conventional laparoscopic approach: a single institutional retrospective comparative cohort study. Surg Endosc 29, 673–685 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3718-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3718-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation