Short-term outcomes of robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted Total Gastrectomy for advanced gastric Cancer: a propensity score matching study

被引:28
作者
Yang, Changdong [1 ]
Shi, Yan [1 ]
Xie, Shaohui [1 ]
Chen, Jun [1 ]
Zhao, Yongliang [1 ]
Qian, Feng [1 ]
Hao, Yingxue [1 ]
Tang, Bo [1 ]
Yu, Peiwu [1 ]
机构
[1] Army Med Univ, Southwest Hosp, Dept Gen Surg, 30 Gaotanyan St, Chongqing 400038, Peoples R China
关键词
Advanced gastric cancer; Total gastrectomy; Robotic; Laparoscopic; Short-term outcomes; LYMPH-NODE DISSECTION; SURGICAL COMPLICATIONS; DISTAL GASTRECTOMY; SURGERY; LYMPHADENECTOMY; CLASSIFICATION; MORTALITY;
D O I
10.1186/s12885-020-07160-1
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
BackgroundFew studies have been designed to evaluate the short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) and laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The purpose of this study was to assess the short-term outcomes of RATG compared with LATG for AGC.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated 126 and 257 patients who underwent RATG or LATG, respectively. In addition, we performed propensity score matching (PSM) analysis between RATG and LATG for clinicopathological characteristics to reduce bias and compared short-term surgical outcomes.ResultsAfter PSM, the RATG group had a longer mean operation time (291.1459.18 vs. 270.34 +/- 52.22min, p =0.003), less intraoperative bleeding (154.37 +/- 89.68 vs. 183.77 +/- 95.39ml, p =0.004) and more N2 tier RLNs (9.07 +/- 5.34 vs. 7.56 +/- 4.50, p =0.016) than the LATG group. Additionally, the total RLNs of the RATG group were almost significantly different compared to that of the LATG group (34.90 +/- 13.05 vs. 31.91 +/- 12.46, p =0.065). Moreover, no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of the length of incision, proximal resection margin, distal resection margin, residual disease and postoperative hospital stay. There was no significant difference in the overall complication rate between the RATG and LATG groups after PSM (23.8% vs. 28.6%, p =0.390). Grade II complications accounted for most of the complications in the two cohorts after PSM. The conversion rates were 4.55 and 8.54% in the RATG and LATG groups, respectively, with no significant difference (p =0.145), and the ratio of splenectomy were 1.59 and 0.39% (p =0.253). The mortality rates were 0.8 and 0.4% for the RATG and LATG groups, respectively (p =1.000).Conclusion This study demonstrates that RATG is comparable to LATG in terms of short-term surgical outcomes.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Surgical and oncological outcomes of robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis of 1164 patients
    Gao, Gengmei
    Liao, Hualin
    Jiang, Qunguang
    Liu, Dongning
    Li, Taiyuan
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2022, 20 (01)
  • [22] Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy and open total gastrectomy in gastric cancer patients
    Lee, Moon-Soo
    Lee, Ju-Hee
    Park, Do Joong
    Lee, Hyuk-Joon
    Kim, Hyung-Ho
    Yang, Han-Kwang
    [J]. SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2013, 27 (07): : 2598 - 2605
  • [23] Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison of short-term surgical outcomes
    Shen, Weisong
    Xi, Hongqing
    Wei, Bo
    Cui, Jianxin
    Bian, Shibo
    Zhang, Kecheng
    Wang, Ning
    Huang, Xiaohui
    Chen, Lin
    [J]. SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2016, 30 (02): : 574 - 580
  • [24] Retrospective assessment of short-term outcomes of robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted duodenal diamond anastomosis in neonates
    Yang, Si-Si
    Lv, Chengjie
    Huang, Shoujiang
    Tou, Jin-Fa
    Lai, Deng-Ming
    [J]. SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2024, 38 (09): : 5214 - 5219
  • [25] Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomy: A propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study
    Zhang, Yaqi
    Feng, Haoran
    Wang, Shaodong
    Gu, Yifei
    Shi, Yi
    Song, Zijia
    Deng, Yang
    Ji, Xiaopin
    Cheng, Xi
    Zhang, Tao
    Zhao, Ren
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2022, 105
  • [26] Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis
    Sueda, Toshinori
    Tei, Mitsuyoshi
    Nishida, Kentaro
    Yoshikawa, Yukihiro
    Matsumura, Tae
    Koga, Chikato
    Wakasugi, Masaki
    Miyagaki, Hiromichi
    Kawabata, Ryohei
    Tsujie, Masanori
    Hasegawa, Junichi
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2022, 16 (02) : 323 - 331
  • [27] Robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison of surgical performance and short-term outcomes
    Zhou Junfeng
    Shi Yan
    Tang Bo
    Hao Yingxue
    Zeng Dongzhu
    Zhao Yongliang
    Qian Feng
    Yu Peiwu
    [J]. SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2014, 28 (06): : 1779 - 1787
  • [28] Comparison of short-term outcomes and 3-year overall survival between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis
    Zhang, Li
    Cui, Jingli
    Cai, Mingzhi
    Li, Bin
    Ma, Gang
    Wang, Xuejun
    Liu, Yong
    Deng, Jingyu
    Zhang, Rupeng
    Liang, Han
    Yang, Jilong
    [J]. ACTA CHIRURGICA BELGICA, 2024, 124 (06) : 478 - 486
  • [29] Comparison of totally robotic and totally laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis
    Zheng, Yi-ming
    Luo, Zi-yan
    Li, Zheng-yan
    Liu, Jia-jia
    Ren, Zhi-xiang
    Wang, Jun-jie
    Yu, Pei-wu
    Shi, Yan
    Zhao, Yong-liang
    Qian, Feng
    [J]. SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2024, 38 (08): : 4476 - 4484
  • [30] Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis
    Toshinori Sueda
    Mitsuyoshi Tei
    Kentaro Nishida
    Yukihiro Yoshikawa
    Tae Matsumura
    Chikato Koga
    Masaki Wakasugi
    Hiromichi Miyagaki
    Ryohei Kawabata
    Masanori Tsujie
    Junichi Hasegawa
    [J]. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2022, 16 : 323 - 331