» Articles » PMID: 36277282

Surgical and Short-term Outcomes in Robotic and Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Overview
Journal Front Surg
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2022 Oct 24
PMID 36277282
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) and robot-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) for gastric cancer (GC) with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols.

Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 202 patients undergoing radical distal gastrectomy; among them, 67 cases were assisted through RADG, while 135 cases were assisted through LADG along with ERAS. We retrospectively collected the medical records in succession from a database (January 2016-March 2019). We adopted propensity score matching to compare surgical and short-term outcomes of both groups.

Results: After the successful examination of 134 cases, including 67 receiving RADG and 67 undergoing LADG, the operative times were noted as 5.78 ± 0.96 h for the RADG group and 4.47 ± 1.01 h for the LADG group ( < 0.001). The blood loss was noted as 125.52 ± 101.18 ml in the RADG group and 164.93 ± 109.32 ml in the LADG group ( < 0.05). The shorter time to first flatus was 38.82 ± 10.56 h in the RADG group and 42.88 ± 11.25 h in the LADG group ( < 0.05). In contrast, shorter days of postoperative hospital stay were 5.94 ± 1.89 days in the RADG group and 6.64 ± 1.92 days in the LADG group ( < 0.05). Also, the RADG group (84483.03 ± 9487.37) was much more costly than the LADG group (65258.13 ± 8928.33) ( < 0.001). The postoperative overall complication rates, numbers of dissected lymph nodes, visual analogue scale (VAS), and time to start a liquid diet for the RADG group and the LADG group were similar.

Conclusions: In this research, we concluded that RADG provides surgical benefits and short-term outcomes compared to LADG for GC with ERAS.

Citing Articles

Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score matching studies.

Li W, Wei S J Robot Surg. 2024; 18(1):333.

PMID: 39231865 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-02038-x.


Comparison of totally robotic and totally laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.

Zheng Y, Luo Z, Li Z, Liu J, Ren Z, Wang J Surg Endosc. 2024; 38(8):4476-4484.

PMID: 38902410 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10924-6.

References
1.
Timerbulatov V, Timerbulatov S, Timerbulatov M . [Classification of surgical complications]. Khirurgiia (Mosk). 2018; (9):62-67. DOI: 10.17116/hirurgia2018090162. View

2.
Kehlet H . Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br J Anaesth. 1997; 78(5):606-17. DOI: 10.1093/bja/78.5.606. View

3.
Woo Y, Hyung W, Pak K, Inaba K, Obama K, Choi S . 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. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2011.114. View

4.
Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol J, Blasco J, Guerra M, Andradas E . Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2010; 252(2):254-62. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181e6239e. View

5.
Hyung W, Noh S, Shin D, Huh J, Huh B, Choi S . Adverse effects of perioperative transfusion on patients with stage III and IV gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002; 9(1):5-12. DOI: 10.1245/aso.2002.9.1.5. View