Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer : A retrospective cohort study
Copyright © 2018 IJS Publishing Group Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved..
BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG), as an alternative minimally invasive surgical technique, is gradually being used for the treatment of gastric cancer (GC). This study aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of RAG over conventional Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for the treatment of GC.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all procedures (RAG and LAG) performed by one surgeon between 31 January 2017 and 1 December 2017. The short-term of surgical outcomes were compared between two groups and further subgroup analyses were performed.
RESULTS: One hundred patients were enrolled in the RAG group and 135 in the LAG group. The demograghics and clinicopathologic characteristics are well matched between two groups. The RAG group had shorter postoperative hospital stay (11 (interquartile range 9-13) vs. 12 (10-14) day; p < 0.0001), earlier day of first flatus (2 (2-3) vs. 3 (2.3-3) day; p < 0.0001), and larger lymph nodes dissection (40.9 ± 13.1 vs. 35.4 ± 15.8; p = 0.004). Of interest, mean numbers of retrieved lymph nodes from station 6 (p = 0.002), 7 (p = 0.032), 10 (p = 0.025), 11p (p = 0.036), and 14v (p = 0.038) in RAG was significantly larger than LAG. However, no significant differences between two groups were observed in operative time (p = 0.136), operative blood loss (p = 0.434), days of eating liquid diet (p = 0.889), and postoperative complications (p = 0.752). In subgroup analyses, the similar results were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: RAG for the treatment of GC is a safe and feasible procedure and beneficial for postoperative recovery of GC patients. However, further studies are needed to evaluate long-term and oncologic outcomes of RAG.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2018 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2018 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:55 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
International journal of surgery (London, England) - 55(2018) vom: 01. Juli, Seite 15-23 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Liu, Hong-Bin [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Comparative Study |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 16.10.2018 Date Revised 16.10.2018 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.05.015 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM284219010 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM284219010 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225042715.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.05.015 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n0947.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM284219010 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)29775735 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S1743-9191(18)30762-3 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Liu, Hong-Bin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer |b A retrospective cohort study |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2018 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 16.10.2018 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 16.10.2018 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2018 IJS Publishing Group Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG), as an alternative minimally invasive surgical technique, is gradually being used for the treatment of gastric cancer (GC). This study aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of RAG over conventional Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for the treatment of GC | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all procedures (RAG and LAG) performed by one surgeon between 31 January 2017 and 1 December 2017. The short-term of surgical outcomes were compared between two groups and further subgroup analyses were performed | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: One hundred patients were enrolled in the RAG group and 135 in the LAG group. The demograghics and clinicopathologic characteristics are well matched between two groups. The RAG group had shorter postoperative hospital stay (11 (interquartile range 9-13) vs. 12 (10-14) day; p < 0.0001), earlier day of first flatus (2 (2-3) vs. 3 (2.3-3) day; p < 0.0001), and larger lymph nodes dissection (40.9 ± 13.1 vs. 35.4 ± 15.8; p = 0.004). Of interest, mean numbers of retrieved lymph nodes from station 6 (p = 0.002), 7 (p = 0.032), 10 (p = 0.025), 11p (p = 0.036), and 14v (p = 0.038) in RAG was significantly larger than LAG. However, no significant differences between two groups were observed in operative time (p = 0.136), operative blood loss (p = 0.434), days of eating liquid diet (p = 0.889), and postoperative complications (p = 0.752). In subgroup analyses, the similar results were observed | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: RAG for the treatment of GC is a safe and feasible procedure and beneficial for postoperative recovery of GC patients. However, further studies are needed to evaluate long-term and oncologic outcomes of RAG | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Comparative Study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Gastrectomy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Laparoscopy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Robotic surgical procedures | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Stomach neoplasms | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wang, Wen-Jie |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Li, Hong-Tao |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Han, Xiao-Peng |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Su, Lin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wei, Deng-Wen |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Cao, Ting-Bao |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Yu, Jian-Ping |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Jiao, Zuo-Yi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t International journal of surgery (London, England) |d 2004 |g 55(2018) vom: 01. Juli, Seite 15-23 |w (DE-627)NLM169227847 |x 1743-9159 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:55 |g year:2018 |g day:01 |g month:07 |g pages:15-23 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.05.015 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 55 |j 2018 |b 01 |c 07 |h 15-23 | ||