A meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

• Published in: Surgical endoscopy Vol. 28; no. 10; pp. 2795 - 2802
• Main Authors: Shen, Wei-Song, Xi, Hong-Qing, Chen, Lin, Wei, Bo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Boston Springer US 01.10.2014; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Abdominal Surgery; Blood Loss, Surgical; Clinical outcomes; Clinical trials; Gastrectomy - methods; Gastric cancer; Gastroenterology; Gastrointestinal surgery; Gynecology; Hepatology; Humans; Laparoscopy; Lymphatic system; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Meta-analysis; Operative Time; Proctology; Robotic surgery; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Statistical analysis; Stomach Neoplasms - surgery; Surgery; Surgical outcomes; China; Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy; Gastric neoplasm; Robot-assisted gastrectomy
• ISSN: 0930-2794; 1432-2218
• DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3547-1

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.