Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma in the US: a propensity score-matching analysis of 11,173 patients on oncological adequacy

被引:4
|
作者
Maegawa, Felipe B. [1 ]
Patel, Ankit D. [1 ]
Patel, Snehal G. [1 ]
Stetler, Jamil L. [1 ]
Patel, Dipan C. [1 ]
Ashouri, Yazan [2 ]
Sarmiento, Juan M. [1 ]
Konstantinidis, Ioannis T. [3 ]
Lin, Edward [1 ]
机构
[1] Emory Univ, Dept Surg, Div Gen & Gastrointestinal Surg, 5673 Peachtree Dunwoody Rd,Suite 680, Atlanta, GA 30342 USA
[2] Mercy Hlth, St Vincent Med Ctr, Toledo, OH USA
[3] Texas Tech Univ Hlth Sci Ctr, Dept Surg, Div Surg Oncol, El Paso, TX USA
关键词
Gastric cancer; Gastrectomy; Robotic; Laparoscopic; GASTRIC-CANCER; DISTAL GASTRECTOMY; SURGERY;
D O I
10.1007/s00464-023-10519-7
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction Surgery remains the cornerstone treatment for gastric cancer. Previous studies have reported better lymphadenectomy with minimally invasive approaches. There is a paucity of data comparing robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy in the US. Herein, we examined whether oncological adequacy differs between laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Methods The National Cancer Database was utilized to identify patients who underwent gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2019. A propensity score-matching analysis between robotic gastrectomy (RG) versus laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) was performed. The primary outcomes were lymphadenectomy >= 16 nodes and surgical margins. Results A total of 11,173 patients underwent minimally invasive surgery for gastric adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2019. Of those 8320 underwent LG and 2853 RG. Comparing the unmatched cohorts, RG was associated with a higher rate of adequate lymphadenectomy (63.5% vs 57.1%, p < .0.0001), higher rate of negative margins (93.8% vs 91.9%, p < 0.001), lower rate of prolonged length of stay (26.0% vs 29.6%, p < .0.001), lower 90-day mortality (3.7% vs 5.0%, p < 0.0001), and a better 5-year overall survival (OS) (56% vs 54%, p = 0.03). A propensity score-matching cohort with a 1:1 ratio was created utilizing the variables associated with lymphadenectomy >= 16 nodes. The matched analysis revealed that the rate of adequate lymphadenectomy was significantly higher for RG compared to LG, 63.5% vs 60.4% (p = 0.01), respectively. There was no longer a significant difference between RG and LG regarding the rate of negative margins, prolonged length of stay, 90-day mortality, rate of receipt of postoperative chemotherapy, and OS. Conclusions This propensity score-matching analysis with a large US cohort shows that RG was associated with a higher rate of adequate lymphadenectomy compared to LR. RG and LG had a similar rate of negative margins, prolonged length of stay, receipt of postoperative chemotherapy, 90-day mortality, and OS, suggesting that RG is a comparable surgical approach, if not superior to LG.
引用
收藏
页码:9643 / 9650
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma: Propensity matched analysis of the National Cancer Database
    Ryan, Sean
    Murphy, Amy
    Tameron, Ashley
    Hussain, Lala
    Teng, Annabelle
    Dunki-Jacobs, Erik M.
    Lee, David Y.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2018, 36 (04)
  • [32] The safety assessment of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer using a propensity score matching method.
    Makuuchi, Rie
    Toriumi, Tetsuro
    Waki, Yuhei
    Nakamura, Kenichi
    Kamiya, Satoshi
    Tanizawa, Yutaka
    Bando, Etsuro
    Terashima, Masanori
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2019, 37 (04)
  • [33] Surgicel for Prevention of Postoperative Adhesions in Laparoscopic Myomectomy: A Propensity Score-Matching Analysis
    Osman, Mustafa Abdallah Ahmed
    Mohamed, Hamdy A.
    Ibrahim, Adel A.
    JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGIC SURGERY, 2022, 38 (02) : 111 - 114
  • [34] Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Adenocarcinoma: Propensity Matched Analysis of the National Cancer Database
    Ryan, S. P.
    Tameron, A.
    Murphy, A.
    Hussein, L.
    Dunki-Jacobs, E.
    Lee, D. Y.
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2018, 25 : S205 - S205
  • [35] Comparison of Sutureless and Conventional Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: A Propensity Score-Matching Analysis
    Zhang, Feng
    Gao, Shuang
    Zhao, Yiqiao
    Wu, Bin
    Chen, Xiaonan
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2021, 11
  • [36] A propensity score-matching analysis comparing the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with Stage I/II colon and upper rectal cancers
    Numata, Masakatsu
    Hasuo, Kimiatsu
    Hara, Kentaro
    Maezawa, Yukio
    Kazama, Keisuke
    Inari, Hitoshi
    Takata, Ken
    Jin, Yasuyuki
    Yukawa, Norio
    Oshima, Takashi
    Rino, Yasushi
    Taguri, Masataka
    Masuda, Munetaka
    SURGERY TODAY, 2015, 45 (06) : 700 - 707
  • [37] Propensity score-matching analysis for single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A retrospective cohort study
    Han, Dai Hoon
    Choi, Sung Hoon
    Kang, Chang Moo
    Lee, Woo Jung
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2020, 78 : 138 - 142
  • [38] A propensity score-matching analysis comparing the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with Stage I/II colon and upper rectal cancers
    Masakatsu Numata
    Kimiatsu Hasuo
    Kentaro Hara
    Yukio Maezawa
    Keisuke Kazama
    Hitoshi Inari
    Ken Takata
    Yasuyuki Jin
    Norio Yukawa
    Takashi Oshima
    Yasushi Rino
    Masataka Taguri
    Munetaka Masuda
    Surgery Today, 2015, 45 : 700 - 707
  • [39] Cost analysis of single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer: A propensity score-matching analysis
    Kim, Chang Woo
    Park, Youn Young
    Hur, Hyuk
    Min, Byung Soh
    Lee, Kang Young
    Kim, Nam Kyu
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2020, 43 (04) : 557 - 563
  • [40] Surgical outcomes and prognosis of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score-matching study
    Seo, Ji Won
    Park, Ki Bum
    Kim, Eun Young
    Jun, Kyong-Hwa
    Chin, Hyung Min
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2024, 14 (01):