Abstract
Background
Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) for gastric cancer is still a controversial surgical technique for adequate tumor resection, lymphadenectomy, and postoperative outcome.
Methods
A meta-analysis analyzed updated clinical trials that have compared RAG with laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) to evaluate whether RAG is equivalent to LAG.
Results
Eight studies were included in the analysis, comprising 1,875 patients. RAG was associated with a longer operative time (p < 0.05), lower estimated blood loss (p < 0.05), and a longer distal margin (p < 0.05). RAG can be performed safely with lower estimated blood loss and a longer distal margin than with LAG. Complications, hospital stay, proximal margin, and harvested lymph nodes for RAG and LAG were similar.
Conclusions
RAG is as acceptable as LAG for obtaining safe complications and for performing radical gastrectomy.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
The development of laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for gastric cancer has been ongoing since it was reported by Kitano et al. [1]. The clinical efficacy of laparoscopic radical gastrectomy has now been recognized. A large number of non-randomized trials, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and meta-analyses comparing laparoscopic with open surgery have confirmed that minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery has obvious advantages [2–8]. Clinical trials have shown that laparoscopic radical gastrectomy has the same long-term effects as open radical gastrectomy [9].
Application of the Da Vinci robotic surgical system has opened up a new era of minimally invasive surgery, with laparoscopic surgery now elevated to a new stage. The da Vinci robotic surgery system has been widely used, for example, in urinary tract, hepatobiliary, cardiovascular, and gynecological surgery [10–13]. Hashizume et al. [14] reported the first robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) in 2002, followed by similar reports from China, Korea, Japan, and Italy, among others. Because of the complex technical requirements and expensive equipment, however, the development of RAG has been slow.
During the last 5 years, only one meta-analysis on this topic has been published. The meta-analysis by Xiong et al. [15] contains only three trials. Adequate tumor resection is related to survival and local recurrence rates, which is very important to evaluate surgical techniques. However, only one trial reports surgical margins in that meta-analysis. That may be unreliable and unpowerful. In the meta-analysis by Xiong et al., the authors perform a quality assessment referring to Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) [16], which is developed to assess the quality of case–control and cohort studies. The evaluation items are not adequate.
This study systematically analyzed high-quality clinical trials that have compared RAG with LAG. There is evidence that pooling of high-quality non-randomized studies is as credible as pooling RCTs when comparing clinical surgical outcomes [17]. The meta-analysis allowed clinical outcomes to be quantified for evaluating the advantages of RAG.
Methods
Literature search
A literature search was performed in Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for clinical research published before May 2013 that compared RAG with LAG. Article language was limited to English. The search used the following terms: gastric neoplasms, robotic surgery, robot-assisted surgery, minimally invasive laparoscopic gastrectomy, or laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy. The references of all relevant articles were evaluated to find other related studies.
Study selection
Inclusion criteria: (1) Study compared the outcomes of RAG and LAG; (2) Study reported at least one of the following clinical outcomes: complications, harvested lymph nodes, proximal margin, distal margin, hospital stay, operative time, and estimated blood loss; (3) If the same team published more than one article, the latest or the most detailed data were included. Exclusion criteria: (1) Study included recurrent gastric cancer, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, or benign gastric diseases; (2) Study included emergency operation cases; (3) Impossible to extract effective data from the study’s defined clinical outcomes.
Data extraction
Two reviewers (W.S.S., H.Q.X) independently extracted relevant data. The following data were extracted from each study: first author, year of publication, type of study, study period, selection criteria, age, sex, body mass index, number of participants, operative factors, short-term outcomes, and pathological parameters.
Assessment of methodological quality of included studies
The quality of the non-randomized studies was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) scale [18]. To meet the needs of our study, we changed the evaluation criterion of MINORS that referred to a meta-analysis of non-randomized and randomized studies [19] as follows: (1) Two of the 12 items were not considered because they are more suitable for assessing long-term outcomes (follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study; lost to follow-up <5 %); (2) The item “Prospective calculation of the study size” was modified to assess weight given by the actual number of RAG cases. Scoring was assigned as follows: 0 points for <15 LDG cases; 1 point for >15 but <35 cases; and 2 points for ≥35 RAG cases. We assessed the quality of a study by evaluating ten items. Studies with ≥15 points were considered high quality and were included in the meta-analysis.
Statistical analysis
Stata 12.0 software (StatCorp, College Station, TX, USA) was used for statistical analysis. Harvested lymph nodes, proximal margin, distal margin, hospital stay, operative time, and estimated blood loss were compared using weighted mean differences (WMDs). Complications were compared using odds ratios (ORs). Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using the χ 2 and I 2 statistics. A value of p < 0.10 indicated significance. Generally, a fixed-effect model was used. If the test of heterogeneity was statistically significant, a random-effect model was used. Publication bias was evaluated with the Begg’s test. A p value of <0.05 was regarded as significant.
Results
Selected studies
Our search strategy initially retrieved 134 potential articles. After screening the title and abstract, 71 reports were excluded. After reading the abstract, 45 reports were excluded because there was no control group or it was a review, editorial, or case report. After reading the full text, four reports were excluded because there was no control group. Six reports were excluded owing to overlapping patients in multiple studies. Eight studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. The selection process is shown in Fig. 1. The characteristics of the included studies can be found in Table 1 [20–27].
Short-term outcomes
Six studies reported data on the adequacy of the hospital stay. Because of significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 80.6 %, p < 0.1), a random-effect model was used. There was no difference in hospital stay between the RAG and LAG groups (WMD = −1.00, 95 % CI −2.57 to 0.56, p > 0.05) (Table 2). All eight studies reported postoperative complications. There was no significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 0, p > 0.1), and a fixed-effect model was used. The incidence of postoperative complications was not significantly different in the two groups (OR 0.95, 95 % CI 0.7–1.28, p > 0.05) (Fig. 2).
Operative factors
Seven studies reported the operative time. Because significant heterogeneity was observed in seven studies (I 2 = 86.6 %, p < 0.1), a random-effect model was used. Operating time was longer for RAG than for LAG (WMD = 48.46 min, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 29.49–67.43, p < 0.05) (Table 2). The data regarding the estimated blood loss (EBL) were reported in six studies. Because of significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 93.3 %, p < 0.1), a random-effect model was used. RAG was associated with less EBL than LAG (WMD = −38.43 ml, 95 % CI −67.55 to −9.30, p < 0.05) (Table 2).
Pathological parameters
Proximal margin was recorded in three studies. There was no significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 0, p > 0.1), and a fixed-effect model was used. The proximal margin was not significantly different in the RAG and LAG groups (WMD = 0.1 cm, 95 % CI −0.25 to 0.45, p > 0.05) (Fig. 3). Distal margin was recorded in three studies. There was no significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 0, p > 0.1), and a fixed-effect model was used. The distal margin in RAG was longer than that in LAG (WMD = 1.04 cm, 95 % CI 0.46–1.62, p < 0.05) (Fig. 4). Harvested lymph nodes were reported in seven studies. Significant heterogeneity was recognized in the studies (I 2 = 74.1 %, p < 0.1), so a random-effect model was used. Harvested lymph nodes were similar in the two groups (WMD = 1.06, 95 % CI −2.33 to 4.45, p > 0.05) (Fig. 5).
Publication bias
Publication bias was evaluated based on postoperative complications using the Begg’s test. There was no publication bias in eight studies (p = 0.386). Funnel plot analysis of the studies is shown in Fig. 6.
Discussion
Surgeons have accepted the use of laparoscopic techniques, and they are being used more and more frequently. For example, not only gastrectomy that retains gastric function is performed in patients with early gastric cancer, but also special gastrectomy is being performed laparoscopically combined with endoscopy [28]. There are also many reports on laparoscopic surgery for advanced gastric cancer, with no difference in long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery [29–32]. Although laparoscopic surgery has a number of advantages, there are also deficiencies, such as the surgeon’s postural discomfort, performing a reverse operation, and the possibility of tremor. These factors hinder the use of laparoscopy for complex surgery. Robotic surgery is superior to laparoscopic surgery in that it has wristed instruments, tremor filtration, the ability to scale motion, and stereoscopic vision [33, 34]. These characteristics improve a surgeon’s dexterity and allow precise lymph node dissection and intracorporeal anastomoses [35].
The results in our analysis indicated that RAG requires a longer operative time (WMD = 48.46 min, p < 0.05). On one hand, the most important reason is that robot-assisted gastrectomy requires “setting and docking” time for the robotic arms, which results in a longer operative time [36]. On the other hand, most studies reported the mean operative times for all their robotic cases. Also, they did not consider the learning curve for RAG, which can increase the operative time. In our meta-analysis, three studies reported that the operative time for RAG decreased between the initial RAG and gastrectomies performed after experience had been gained [21, 25, 27]. Woo et al. [24], whose study contained the largest number of robotic cases, found that the mean operative time was reduced from 233 to 219 min when compared with the previous 100 cases in their study [37]. Therefore, with the development of the Da Vinci robotic surgery system, more experience, and a shortened learning curve, the operative time is mostly often shortened. The meta-analysis indicated that there was less blood loss in the RAG group than in the LAG group (WMD = -38.43 ml, p < 0.05). With tremor filtration and stereoscopic vision supplied by the robotic system, a surgeon not only can precisely dissect primary gastric carcinoma and lymph nodes but he or she can also reduce blood loss during the surgery.
According to the studies included in the meta-analysis, six studies performed anastomoses extracorporeally and intracorporeally. Two studies performed anastomoses only intracorporeally. Intracorporeal anastomosis has potential benefits over extracorporeal anastomosis during minimally invasive surgery [38]. Intracorporeal anastomosis is technically difficult and requires a longer time to complete. Robotic systems improve a surgeon’s dexterity and are favored for performing intracorporeal anastomoses [35]. Also, with recent technical advancements and stapling devices, robotic is easier than laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomoses. Intracorporeal anastomosis performed with robotic technology is also much faster and simpler than with laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomoses. Therefore, more intracorporeal anastomoses can be accomplished with the robotic system.
Surgical margins are related to survival and local recurrence rates. As a pathological parameter, the proximal margin was similar for RAG and LAG (p > 0.05). Moreover, the distal margin was longer in the RAG group (p < 0.05). Meta-analysis of seven studies revealed that the number of harvested lymph nodes did not differ significantly between RAG and LAG. From Fig. 5, the mean number of harvested lymph nodes of RAG varies from 25 to 44; the mean number of harvested lymph nodes of LAG varies from 26 to 43. Therefore, the resections of the stomach and lymph nodes appear to be D2 resections. Among these studies, six were reported from eastern countries. One study was reported from Italy. Figure 5 shows that the RAG group had more lymph nodes removed than the LAG groups in every one of the eastern studies. Curative resection for gastric cancer requires adequate extent of lymphadenectomy. RAG has the advantages of dexterity and accuracy over LAG because of a tremor filter, three-dimensional imaging, and an internal articulated EndoWrist with 7° of freedom. These features contribute to precise dissection and lymphadenectomy. With adequate margins and harvested lymph nodes, RAG meets the criteria for performing radical gastrectomy.
Many studies have reported that minimally invasive laparoscopy surgery has reduced the hospital stay [2–8]. Two studies that compared open gastrectomy (OG) with laparoscopic gastrectomy [22, 25] are included in this meta-analysis. Both studies showed that the hospital stay in the OG group was longer than that in the LAG and RAG groups. As observed in the meta-analysis, hospital stay was not significantly different in the RAG and LAG groups (p > 0.05). Postoperative recovery time was also similar in the RAG and LAG groups. The postoperative complication rate is an important indicator of the short-term outcome, which with RAG is acceptable according to our finding of similar complication rates for the two groups (p > 0.05). Based on these results, we deduced that RAG is safe and acceptable.
In general, the Da Vinci robotic system overcomes the technical limitations of laparoscopy. This study demonstrated that RAG is as acceptable as LAG for obtaining safe complications and for performing radical gastrectomy. With acceptable complications and radical resection, RAG is a promising approach that improves on LAG. Because of the lack of long-term studies, it is too early to draw final conclusions. Long-term clinical outcomes should be evaluated.
References
Kitano S, Iso Y, Moriyama M, Sugimachi K (1994) Laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc 4:146–148
Kitano S, Shiraishi N, Fujii K, Yasuda K, Inomata M, Adachi Y (2002) A randomized controlled trial comparing open vs laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for the treatment of early gastric cancer: an interim report. Surgery 131:S306–S311
Lee JH, Han HS, Lee JH (2005) A prospective randomized study comparing open vs laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy in early gastric cancer: early results. Surg Endosc 19:168–173
Huscher CG, Mingoli A, Sgarzini G, Sansonetti A, Di Paola M, Recher A, Ponzano C (2005) Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for distal gastric cancer: five-year results of a randomized prospective trial. Ann Surg 241:232–237
Hayashi H, Ochiai T, Shimada H, Gunji Y (2005) Prospective randomized study of open versus laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with extraperigastric lymph node dissection for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 19:1172–1176
Kim YW, Baik YH, Yun YH, Nam BH, Kim DH, Choi IJ, Bae JM (2008) Improved quality of life outcomes after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 248:721–727
Kim HH, Hyung WJ, Cho GS, Kim MC, Han SU, Kim W, Ryu SW, Lee HJ, Song KY (2010) Morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an interim report–a phase III multicenter, prospective, randomized Trial (KLASS Trial). Ann Surg 251:417–420
Kodera Y, Fujiwara M, Ohashi N, Nakayama G, Koike M, Morita S, Nakao A (2010) Laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: a collective review with meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Surg 211:677–686
Lee JH, Yom CK, Han HS (2009) Comparison of long-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted and open distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 23:1759–1763
Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC (2004) Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg 239:14–21
Kaushik D, High R, Clark CJ, LaGrange CA (2010) Malfunction of the Da Vinci robotic system during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: an international survey. J Endourol 24:571–575
Oleynikov D (2008) Robotic surgery. Surg Clin of N Am 88:1121–1130
Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Ceribelli C, Bartoli A, Spaziani A, Cisano C, Cigliano S, Casciola L (2011) Robot-assisted laparoscopic management of cardia carcinoma according to Siewert recommendations. Int J Med Robot 7:170–177
Hashizume M, Shimada M, Tomikawa M, Ikeda Y, Takahashi I, Abe R, Koga F, Gotoh N, Konishi K, Maehara S, Sugimachi K (2002) Early experiences of endoscopic procedures in general surgery assisted by a computer-enhanced surgical system. Surg Endosc 16:1187–1191
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
The Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale(NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in Meta-analyses. Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 16 Oct 2013
Abraham NS, Byrne CJ, Young JM, Solomon MJ (2010) Meta-analysis of well-designed nonrandomized comparative studies of surgical procedures is as good as randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 63:238–245
Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73:712–716
Vinuela EF, Gonen M, Brennan MF, Coit DG, Strong VE (2012) Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and high-quality nonrandomized studies. Ann Surg 255:446–456
Hyun MH, Lee CH, Kwon YJ, Cho SI, Jang YJ, Kim DH, Kim JH, Park SH, Mok YJ, Park SS (2013) Robot versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer by an experienced surgeon: comparisons of surgery, complications, and surgical stress. Ann Surg Oncol 20:1258–1265
Kang BH, Xuan Y, Hur H, Ahn CW, Cho YK, Han SU (2012) Comparison of surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: the learning curve of robotic surgery. J Gastric Cancer 12:156–163
Kim MC, Heo GU, Jung GJ (2010) Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: surgical techniques and clinical merits. Surg Endosc 24:610–615
Yoon HM, Kim YW, Lee JH, Ryu KW, Eom BW, Park JY, Choi IJ, Kim CG, Lee JY, Cho SJ, Rho JY (2012) Robot-assisted total gastrectomy is comparable with laparoscopically assisted total gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 26:1377–1381
Woo Y, Hyung WJ, Pak KH, Inaba K, Obama K, Choi SH, Noh SH (2011) Robotic gastrectomy as an oncologically sound alternative to laparoscopic resections for the treatment of early-stage gastric cancers. Arch Surg (Chicago, Ill: 1960) 146:1086–1092
Huang KH, Lan YT, Fang WL, Chen JH, Lo SS, Hsieh MC, Li AF, Chiou SH, Wu CW (2012) Initial experience of robotic gastrectomy and comparison with open and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 16:1303–1310
Pugliese R, Maggioni D, Sansonna F, Costanzi A, Ferrari GC, Di Lernia S, Magistro C, De Martini P, Pugliese F (2010) Subtotal gastrectomy with D2 dissection by minimally invasive surgery for distal adenocarcinoma of the stomach: results and 5-year survival. Surg Endosc 24:2594–2602
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
Tonouchi H, Mohri Y, Kobayashi M, Tanaka K, Ohi M, Kusunoki M (2007) Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with laparoscopic sentinel lymph node biopsy after endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 21:1289–1293
Scatizzi M, Kroning KC, Lenzi E, Moraldi L, Cantafio S, Feroci F (2011) Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a case-control study. Updates Surg 63:17–23
Shuang J, Qi S, Zheng J, Zhao Q, Li J, Kang Z, Hua J, Du J (2011) A case-control study of laparoscopy-assisted and open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 15:57–62
Kojima K, Yamada H, Inokuchi M, Hayashi M, Sekita Y, Kawano T, Sugihara K (2006) Current status and evaluation of laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer. Nihon Geka Gakkai zasshi 107:77–80
Song J, Lee HJ, Cho GS, Han SU, Kim MC, Ryu SW, Kim W, Song KY, Kim HH, Hyung WJ (2010) Recurrence following laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective analysis of 1,417 patients. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1777–1786
Hanly EJ, Talamini MA (2004) Robotic abdominal surgery. Am J Surg 188:19S–26S
Gutt CN, Oniu T, Mehrabi A, Kashfi A, Schemmer P, Buchler MW (2004) Robot-assisted abdominal surgery. Br J Surg 91:1390–1397
Hur H, Kim JY, Cho YK, Han SU (2010) Technical feasibility of robot-sewn anastomosis in robotic surgery for gastric cancer. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 20:693–697
deSouza AL, Prasad LM, Park JJ, Marecik SJ, Blumetti J, Abcarian H (2010) Robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy: is there a role? Dis Colon Rectum 53:1000–1006
Song J, Oh SJ, Kang WH, Hyung WJ, Choi SH, Noh SH (2009) Robot-assisted gastrectomy with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: lessons learned from an initial 100 consecutive procedures. Ann Surg 249:927–932
Song KY, Park CH, Kang HC, Kim JJ, Park SM, Jun KH, Chin HM, Hur H (2008) Is totally laparoscopic gastrectomy less invasive than laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy?: prospective, multicenter study. J Gastrointest Surg 12:1015–1021
Acknowledgments
Supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China, Nos. 81272698.
Disclosures
Wei-song Shen, Hong-qing Xi, Lin Chen, and Bo Wei have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
W.-S. Shen and H.-Q. Xi have contributed equally to this work.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shen, WS., Xi, HQ., Chen, L. et al. A meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 28, 2795–2802 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3547-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3547-1