scholarly journals Comparison of Long-Term and Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of PSM and RCT Studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qingbo Feng ◽  
Hexing Ma ◽  
Jie Qiu ◽  
Yan Du ◽  
Guodong Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Laparoscopic Gastrectomy ◽  
Resection Margin ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Oncological Outcomes

BackgroundTo investigate the perioperative and oncological outcomes of gastric cancer (GC) after robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy (RG versus LG), we carried out a meta-analysis of propensity score matching (PSM) studies and randomized controlled study (RCT) to compare the safety and overall effect of RG to LG for patients with GC.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible PSM and RCT studies before July 2021. Data on perioperative and oncological outcomes were subjected to meta-analysis.ResultsOverall, we identified 19 PSM studies and 1 RCT of RG versus LG, enrolling a total of 13,446 patients (6,173 and 7,273 patients underwent RG and LG, respectively). The present meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant differences in tumor size, proximal resection margin distance, distal resection margin distance, abdominal bleeding, ileus, anastomosis site leakage, duodenal stump leakage rate, conversion rate, reoperation, overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate between the two groups. Alternatively, comparing RG with LG, RG has a longer operative time (p < 0.00001), less blood loss (p <0.0001), earlier time to first flatus (p = 0.0003), earlier time to oral intake (p = 0.0001), shorter length of stay (p = 0.0001), less major complications (p = 0.0001), lower overall complications (p = 0.0003), more retrieved lymph nodes (P < 0.0001), and more cost (p < 0.00001).ConclusionsIn terms of oncological adequacy and safety, RG is a feasible and effective treatment strategy for gastric cancer but takes more cost in comparison with LG.

scholarly journals Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianglei Ma ◽  
Xiaoyao Li ◽  
Shifu Zhao ◽  
Ruifu Zhang ◽  
Dejun Yang
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Robotic Surgery ◽  
Laparoscopic Gastrectomy ◽  
Resection Margin ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background To date, robotic surgery has been widely used worldwide. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) in gastric cancer patients to determine whether RG can replace laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was applied to perform the study. Pubmed, Cochrane Library, WanFang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP databases were comprehensively searched for studies published before May 2020 that compared RG with LG. Next, two independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The quality of the literature was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and the data analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Random effects or fixed effects models were applied according to heterogeneity. Results A total of 19 studies including 7275 patients were included in the meta-analyses, of which 4598 patients were in the LG group and 2677 in the RG group. Compared with LG, RG was associated with longer operative time (WMD = −32.96, 95% CI −42.08 ~ −23.84, P < 0.001), less blood loss (WMD = 28.66, 95% CI 18.59 ~ 38.73, P < 0.001), and shorter time to first flatus (WMD = 0.16 95% CI 0.06 ~ 0.27, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference between RG and LG in terms of the hospital stay (WMD = 0.23, 95% CI −0.53 ~ 0.98, P = 0.560), overall postoperative complication (OR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 ~ 1.25, P = 0.430), mortality (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 ~ 1.90, P = 0.450), the number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = −0.96, 95% CI −2.12 ~ 0.20, P = 0.100), proximal resection margin (WMD = −0.10, 95% CI −0.29 ~ 0.09, P = 0.300), and distal resection margin (WMD = 0.15, 95% CI −0.21 ~ 0.52, P = 0.410). No significant differences were found between the two treatments in overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 ~ 1.18, P = 0.640), recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 ~ 1.21, P = 0.530), and recurrence rate (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 ~ 1.21, P = 0.500). Conclusions The results of this study suggested that RG is as acceptable as LG in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. RG can be performed as effectively and safely as LG. Moreover, more randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques with rigorous study designs are still essential to evaluate the value of the robotic surgery for gastric cancer.

Long-term oncological outcomes in robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (10) ◽  
pp. 4244-4251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing-hua Pan ◽  
Hong Zhou ◽  
Xiao-xu Zhao ◽  
Hui Ding ◽  
Li Qin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Laparoscopic Gastrectomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Robotic Gastrectomy ◽  
Oncological Outcomes

scholarly journals Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianglei Ma ◽  
Xiaoyao Li ◽  
Shifu Zhao ◽  
Ruifu Zhang ◽  
Dejun Yang
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Robotic Surgery ◽  
Laparoscopic Gastrectomy ◽  
Resection Margin ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background To date, robotic surgery has been widely used worldwide. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) in gastric cancer patients to determine whether RG can replace laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).Methods Pubmed, Cochrane Library, WanFang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and VIP databases were comprehensively searched for studies published before May 2020 that compared RG with LG. Next, two independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The quality of the literature was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS),and the data analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Random effects or fixed effects models were applied according to heterogeneity.Results A total of 19 studies including 7275 patients were included in the meta-analyses, of which 4598 patients were in the LG group and 2677 in the RG group. Compared with LG,RG was associated with longer operative time (WMD=−32.96 min; 95% CI:-42.08~-23.84, P<0.00001),less blood loss (WMD=28.66 ml; 95% CI: 18.59~38.73, P<0.00001),and shorter time to first flatus (WMD=0.16days; 95%CI:0.06~0.27, P=0.003).There was no significant difference between RG and LG in terms of the hospital stay (WMD=0.23days, 95 % CI:-0.53~0.98, P=0.56),overall postoperative complication (OR=1.07, 95 % CI:0.91~1.25, P=0.43),mortality (OR=0.67, 95% CI=0.24~1.90, P=0.45),the number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD=-0.96, 95% CI:-2.12~0.20, P=0.10),proximal resection margin (WMD=-0.10 cm,95% CI:-0.29~0.09, P=0.30),and distal resection margin (WMD=0.15cm,95% CI:-0.21~0.52, P=0.41).No significant differences were found between the two treatments in overall survival(OS) (HR=0.95, 95% CI:0.76~1.18; P=0.64), recurrence-free survival(RFS) (HR=0.91, 95% CI:0.69~1.21;P=0.53), and recurrence rate (OR=0.90, 95% CI:0.67~1.21; P=0.50). Conclusions The results of this study suggested that RG is as acceptable as LG in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. RG can be performed as effectively and safely as LG. Moreover, more randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques with rigorous study designs are still essential to evaluate the value of the robotic surgery for gastric cancer.

scholarly journals The Survival Benefit and Safety of Splenectomy for Gastric Cancer With Total Gastrectomy: Updated Results†

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kun Yang ◽  
Zhi-Yun Zang ◽  
Kai-Fan Niu ◽  
Li-Fei Sun ◽  
Wei-Han Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Lymph Nodes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Mortality ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Overall Survival Rate ◽  
Duration Of Surgery

BackgroundSplenectomy was traditionally performed to dissect the splenic hilar lymph nodes. Considering the important functions of spleen, whether splenectomy would bring beneficial to gastric cancer patients is debatable. This meta-analysis aimed to make an updated evaluation on the effectiveness and safety of splenectomy.MethodsLiterature searches were performed to identify eligible RCTs concerning effectiveness or safety of splenectomy with gastrectomy from PubMed, MEDLINE, CBMdisc, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Two reviewers completed the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment independently. The meta-analyses were performed by RevMan 5.3.ResultsA total of 971 patients from four studies were included (485 in splenectomy group and 486 in spleen preservation group). Splenectomy did not increase 5-year overall survival rate (RR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.96, 1.16) or increase postoperative mortality (RR=1.21, 95% CI: 0.41, 3.54). However, the analysis demonstrated that gastrectomy with splenectomy had significantly higher incidence of postoperative complications (RR=1.80, 95% CI: 1.33, 2.45). No significant differences were found in terms of the number of resected lymph nodes and reoperation rate; however, splenectomy had a tendency to prolong the duration of surgery and hospital stays. Subgroup analyses indicated that splenectomy could not increase overall survival rate for either whole or proximal gastric cancer. Sensitivity analyses also found similar results compared to the primary analyses.ConclusionsSplenectomy cannot benefit the survival of patients with tumor located at lesser curvature, and it could instead increase postoperative morbidity.

scholarly journals Necessity of prophylactic No.10 lymph node clearance for middle and upper third gastric cancer: a network meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaozan Zheng ◽  
Jinqiang Liu ◽  
Yinghao Guo ◽  
Fei Wang ◽  
Shushang Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Lymph Node ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Complication Rate ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Overall Survival Rate ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background It remains controversial whether prophylactic No.10 lymph node clearance is necessary for gastric cancer. Thus, the present study aims to investigate the impact of prophylactic No.10 lymph node clearance on the perioperative complications and prognosis of upper and middle third gastric cancer.Methods A network meta-analysis to identify both direct and indirect evidence with respect to the comparison of gastrectomy alone (G-A), gastrectomy combination with splenectomy (G+S) and gastrectomy combination with spleen-preserving splenic hilar dissection (G+SPSHD) was conducted. We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for studies published before September 2018. Perioperative complications and overall survival were analyzed. Hazard ratios (HR) were extracted from the publications on the basis of reported values or were extracted from survival curves by established methods.Results Ten retrospective studies involving 2565 patients were included. In the direct comparison analyses, G-A showed comparable 5-year overall survival rate (HR: 1.1, 95%CI: 0.97-1.3) but lower total complication rate (OR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.17-0.77) compared with G+S. Similarly, the 5-year overall survival rate between G+SPSHD and G+S was comparable (HR: 1.1, 95%CI: 0.92-1.4), while the total complication rate of G+SPSHD was lower than that of G+S (OR: 0.50, 95%CI: 0.28-0.88). In the indirect comparison analyses, both the 5-year overall survival rate (HR: 1.0, 95%CI: 0.78-1.3) and total complication rate (OR: 0.75, 95%CI: 0.29-1.9) were comparable between G-A and G+SPSHD.Conclusion Prophylactic No.10 lymph node clearance was not recommended for treatment of upper and middle third gastric cancer.

scholarly journals Meta-analysis of the effect of the pringle maneuver on long-term oncological outcomes following liver resection

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elias Khajeh ◽  
Saeed Shafiei ◽  
Sadeq Ali-Hasan Al-Saegh ◽  
Ali Ramouz ◽  
Ahmed Hammad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Liver Resection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Pringle Maneuver ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Oncological Outcomes ◽  
Overall Survival Rates

AbstractHepatic pedicle clamping reduces intraoperative blood loss and the need for transfusion, but its long-term effect on survival and recurrence remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of the Pringle maneuver (PM) on long-term oncological outcomes in patients with primary or metastatic liver malignancies who underwent liver resection. Literature was searched in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline (via PubMed), and Web of Science databases. Survival was measured as the survival rate or as a continuous endpoint. Pooled estimates were represented as odds ratios (ORs) using the Mantel–Haenszel test with a random-effects model. The literature search retrieved 435 studies. One RCT and 18 NRS, including 7480 patients who underwent liver resection with the PM (4309 cases) or without the PM (3171 cases) were included. The PM did not decrease the 1-year overall survival rate (OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.67–1.09; P = 0.22) or the 3- and 5-year overall survival rates. The PM did not decrease the 1-year recurrence-free survival rate (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.75–1.50; P = 0.75) or the 3- and 5-year recurrence-free survival rates. There is no evidence that the Pringle maneuver has a negative effect on recurrence-free or overall survival rates.

scholarly journals Long-term oncological outcomes following completely minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
K Patel ◽  
A Askari ◽  
K Moorthy
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Surgical Trauma ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy ◽  
Oncological Outcomes

Summary Open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal and gastroesophageal junctional cancers is associated with high morbidity. Completely minimally invasive esophagectomy (CMIE) techniques have evolved over the last two decades and significantly reduce surgical trauma compared to open surgery. Despite this, long-term oncological outcomes following CMIE compared to OE remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare overall 5-year survival (OFS) and disease-free 5-year survival (DFFS) between CMIE and OE. It was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive electronic literature search from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. The PROSPERO database was also searched for studies comparing OFS and DFFS between CMIE and OE. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality for included studies. Overall, seven studies (containing 949 patients: 527 OE and 422 CMIE) were identified from screening. On pooled meta-analysis, there was no significant difference in OFS or DFFS between CMIE and OE cohorts ([odds ratio 1.12; 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.48; P = 0.41] and [odds ratio 1.34; 95% CI: 0.81–2.22; P = 0.25] respectively). Sensitivity and subgroup analysis with high-quality studies, three highest sample sized studies, and three most recent studies also revealed no difference in long-term oncological outcomes between the two operative groups. This review demonstrates long-term oncological outcomes following CMIE appear equivalent to OE based on amalgamation of existing published literature. Limited high-level evidence comparing OFS and DFFS between CMIE and OE exists. Further research with a randomized controlled trial is required to clinically validate these findings.

scholarly journals Long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy for grossly early gastric cancer-mimicking advanced gastric cancer

Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (49) ◽  
pp. e23441
Author(s):  
Sung Eun Oh ◽  
Ji Yeong An ◽  
Min-Gew Choi ◽  
Tae Sung Sohn ◽  
Jae Moon Bae ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Early Gastric Cancer ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Laparoscopic Gastrectomy ◽  
Oncological Outcomes
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document