Short- and long-term comparison of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer by the same surgical team: a propensity score matching analysis

被引:26
|
作者
Tian, Yulong [1 ]
Cao, Shougen [1 ]
Kong, Ying [1 ,2 ]
Shen, Shuai [1 ]
Niu, Zhaojian [1 ]
Zhang, Jian [1 ]
Chen, Dong [1 ]
Jiang, Haitao [1 ]
Lv, Liang [1 ]
Liu, Xiaodong [1 ]
Li, Zequn [1 ]
Zhong, Hao [1 ]
Zhou, Yanbing [1 ]
机构
[1] Qingdao Univ, Affiliated Hosp, Dept Gastrointestinal Surg, 16 Jiangsu Rd, Qingdao 266003, Peoples R China
[2] Jining 1 Peoples Hosp, Dept Gastrointestinal Surg, 6 Jiankang Rd, Jining City 272013, Shandong, Peoples R China
关键词
Gastric cancer; Laparoscopic gastrectomy; Robotic gastrectomy; Short-term outcomes; Survival; LYMPH-NODE DISSECTION; DISTAL GASTRECTOMY; NEOADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY; SURGERY; MORBIDITY; MORTALITY; RECOVERY; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1007/s00464-020-08253-5
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Research on short-term outcomes and oncology results after robotic gastrectomy (RG) is still limited, especially from a single surgical team. The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Methods Between October 2014 and September 2019, 1686 consecutive patients who underwent MIS gastrectomy were enrolled. The patients were divided into RG and LG groups according to surgical type. Groups were matched at a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores based on the following variables: age, sex, ASA score, primary tumor location, histologic type, pathological stage, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The primary outcomes were 3-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). The secondary outcomes were postoperative short-term outcomes. Results Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups after matching. Compared to the LG group, the RG group had a significantly higher retrieved lymph node (LN) number (32.15 vs 30.82, P = 0.040), more retrieved supra-pancreatic LNs (12.45 vs 11.61, P = 0.028), lower estimated blood loss (73.67 vs 98.08 ml, P < 0.001), but longer operation time (205.18 vs 185.27 min, P < 0.001) and higher hospitalization costs ($13,607 vs $10,928, P < 0.001) in the matched cohort. In the subgroup analysis, we observed that compared with LG, patients with advanced gastric cancer benefitted more from RG surgery. The matched cohort analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences for 3-year OS or RFS (log-rank, P = 0.648 and P = 0.951, respectively): 80.3% and 77.0% in LG vs. 81.2% and 76.6% in RG, respectively. Conclusion RG has certain technical advantages over LG, especially in patients with advanced gastric cancer. However, RG does not improve long-term oncology outcomes.
引用
收藏
页码:185 / 195
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Short- and long-term comparison of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer by the same surgical team: a propensity score matching analysis
    Yulong Tian
    Shougen Cao
    Ying Kong
    Shuai Shen
    Zhaojian Niu
    Jian Zhang
    Dong Chen
    Haitao Jiang
    Liang Lv
    Xiaodong Liu
    Zequn Li
    Hao Zhong
    Yanbing Zhou
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2022, 36 : 185 - 195
  • [2] Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer
    Masaaki Nishi
    Mistuo Shimada
    Kozo Yoshikawa
    Chie Takasu
    Yuma Wada
    Takuya Tokunaga
    Toshihiro Nakao
    Hideya Kashihara
    Toshiaki Yoshimoto
    Shoko Yamashita
    Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2022, 29 : 3887 - 3895
  • [4] After propensity score matching in long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy
    Jong Won Kim
    Gastric Cancer, 2018, 21 : 1071 - 1071
  • [5] Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score-matching analysis
    Okabe, Hiroshi
    Sunagawa, Hideki
    Saji, Masashi
    Hirai, Kenjiro
    Hisamori, Shigeo
    Tsunoda, Shigeru
    Obama, Kazutaka
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2021, 15 (05) : 803 - 811
  • [6] Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score-matching analysis
    Hiroshi Okabe
    Hideki Sunagawa
    Masashi Saji
    Kenjiro Hirai
    Shigeo Hisamori
    Shigeru Tsunoda
    Kazutaka Obama
    Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2021, 15 : 803 - 811
  • [7] Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a propensity score matching analysis
    Hao Zhong
    Xiaodong Liu
    Yulong Tian
    Shougen Cao
    Zequn Li
    Gan Liu
    Yuqi Sun
    Xingqi Zhang
    Zhenlong Han
    Cheng Meng
    Zhuoyu Jia
    Qingrui Wang
    Yanbing Zhou
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2023, 37 : 5902 - 5915
  • [8] Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a propensity score matching analysis
    Zhong, Hao
    Liu, Xiaodong
    Tian, Yulong
    Cao, Shougen
    Li, Zequn
    Liu, Gan
    Sun, Yuqi
    Zhang, Xingqi
    Han, Zhenlong
    Meng, Cheng
    Jia, Zhuoyu
    Wang, Qingrui
    Zhou, Yanbing
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2023, 37 (08): : 5902 - 5915
  • [9] Robotic vs open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis on short- and long-term outcomes
    Solaini, Leonardo
    Bazzocchi, Francesca
    Pellegrini, Sara
    Avanzolini, Andrea
    Perenze, Barbara
    Curti, Roberta
    Morgagni, Paolo
    Ercolani, Giorgio
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ROBOTICS AND COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY, 2019, 15 (05):
  • [10] ASO Visual Abstract: Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer
    Nishi, Masaaki
    Shimada, Mistuo
    Yoshikawa, Kozo
    Takasu, Chie
    Wada, Yuma
    Tokunaga, Takuya
    Nakao, Toshihiro
    Kashihara, Hideya
    Yoshimoto, Toshiaki
    Yamashita, Shoko
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2022, 29 (06) : 3898 - 3898