» Articles » PMID: 37496310

Impact of Robotic and Open Surgery on Patient Wound Complications in Gastric Cancer Surgery: A Meta-analysis

Overview
Journal Int Wound J
Date 2023 Jul 27
PMID 37496310
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This meta-analysis is intended to evaluate the effect of both robotic and open-cut operations on postoperative complications of stomach carcinoma. From the earliest date until June 2023, a full and systemic search has been carried out on four main databases with keywords extracted from 'Robot', 'Gastr' and 'Opene'. The ROBINS-I instrument has been applied to evaluate the risk of bias in nonrandomized controlled trials. In these 11 trials, a total of 16 095 patients had received surgical treatment for stomach cancer and all 11 trials were nonrandomized, controlled trials. Abdominal abscesses were reported in 5 trials, wound infections in 8 trials, haemorrhage in 7 trials, wound dehiscence in 2 trials and total postoperative complications in 4 trials. Meta-analyses revealed no statistically significantly different rates of postoperative abdominal abscesses among patients who had received robotic operations than in those who had received open surgical procedures (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.25, 3.36; p = 0.89). The incidence of bleeding after surgery was not significantly different from that in both groups (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.69, 2.75; p = 0.37). Similarly, there was no significant difference between the two groups (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.52, 1.18; p = 0.24). No significant difference was found between the two groups (OR, 1. 28; 95% CI, 0.75, 2.21; p = 0.36). No significant difference was found between the two groups of patients who had received the robotic operation and those who had received the surgery after the operation (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.78, 1.66; p = 0.49). Generally speaking, this meta-analysis suggests that the use of robotics does not result in a reduction in certain postsurgical complications, including wound infections and abdominal abscesses. Thus, the use of a microinvasive robot for stomach carcinoma operation might not be better than that performed on the surgical site after the operation. This is a valuable guide for the surgeon to select the operative method.

Citing Articles

Construction and validation of a nomogram prediction model for the occurrence of complications in patients following robotic radical surgery for gastric cancer.

Ma Y, Deng Y, Wan H, Ma D, Ma L, Fan W Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2025; 410(1):54.

PMID: 39873792 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-024-03594-4.


Impact of robotic and open surgery on patient wound complications in gastric cancer surgery: A meta-analysis.

Ye L, Yang Q, Xue Y, Jia R, Yang L, Zhong L Int Wound J. 2023; 20(10):4262-4271.

PMID: 37496310 PMC: 10681412. DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14328.

References
1.
Huang K, Lan Y, Fang W, Chen J, Lo S, Hsieh M . Initial experience of robotic gastrectomy and comparison with open and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012; 16(7):1303-10. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-012-1874-x. View

2.
de Steur W, Dikken J, Hartgrink H . Lymph node dissection in resectable advanced gastric cancer. Dig Surg. 2013; 30(2):96-103. DOI: 10.1159/000350873. View

3.
Ye L, Yang Q, Xue Y, Jia R, Yang L, Zhong L . Impact of robotic and open surgery on patient wound complications in gastric cancer surgery: A meta-analysis. Int Wound J. 2023; 20(10):4262-4271. PMC: 10681412. DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14328. View

4.
Caruso R, Vicente E, Quijano Y, Ielpo B, Duran H, Diaz E . Robotic assisted gastrectomy compared with open resection: a case-matched study. Updates Surg. 2018; 71(2):367-373. DOI: 10.1007/s13304-018-0533-5. View

5.
Lee J, Kim Y, Woo Y, Obama K, Noh S, Hyung W . Robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer patients with high body mass index: comparison with conventional laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy. Surg Endosc. 2015; 29(11):3251-60. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4069-1. View