Dataset Information

Short-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic gastrectomy with articulating instruments for gastric cancer compared with the robotic approach.

ABSTRACT: To overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, robotic systems have been commonly used in the era of minimally invasive surgery despite their high cost. However, the articulation of instruments can be achieved without a robotic system at lower cost using articulating laparoscopic instruments (ALIs). Between May 2021 and May 2022, perioperative outcomes following laparoscopic gastrectomy using ALIs versus robotic gastrectomy were compared. A total of 88 patients underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy using ALIs, while 96 underwent robotic gastrectomy. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups except for a higher proportion of patients with a medical history in the ALI group (p = 0.013). Clinicopathologic and perioperative outcomes were not significantly different between the groups. However, the operation time was significantly shorter in the ALI group (p = 0.026). No deaths occurred in either group. In conclusion, laparoscopic gastrectomy using ALIs was associated with comparable perioperative surgical outcomes and a shorter operation time compared to robotic gastrectomy in this prospective cohort study.

SUBMITTER: Lee CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10250398 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Short-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic gastrectomy with articulating instruments for gastric cancer compared with the robotic approach.

Lee Chang Min CM Park Sungsoo S Park Sung Hyun SH Kim Ki-Yoon KY Cho Minah M Kim Yoo Min YM Hyung Woo Jin WJ Kim Hyoung-Il HI

Scientific reports 20230608 1

To overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, robotic systems have been commonly used in the era of minimally invasive surgery despite their high cost. However, the articulation of instruments can be achieved without a robotic system at lower cost using articulating laparoscopic instruments (ALIs). Between May 2021 and May 2022, perioperative outcomes following laparoscopic gastrectomy using ALIs versus robotic gastrectomy were compared. A total of 88 patients underwent laparoscopic gastr ...[more]

PMID: 37291374

Similar Datasets

Project description:Advancements in minimally invasive surgery has led to the development of several surgical instruments, including the ArtiSential®. This new instrument provides a greater range of motion and improved dexterity to laparoscopic procedures, making it an alternative option to traditional straight instruments, and the Da Vinci robot system. The purpose of this study is to compare the postoperative outcomes of a prospective cohort of patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy using articulating instruments with those of a historical cohort of patients who underwent the same procedure using straight instruments. The study was designed as a prospective observational cohort study matched to a retrospective historical cohort using propensity score matching. The primary outcome was the rate of early complications within 90 days of surgery. Other outcomes included the operation time, estimated blood loss, time to first flatus, time to first soft fluid diet, hospital stay, and mortality. After propensity score matching, 41 patients were enrolled in both groups. The mean age was 62.4 ± 12.3 years in the conventional group and 63.5 ± 9.6 years in the artisential group (p = 0.647). Mean operative time was significantly shorter in the artisential group compared to the conventional group (136.1 min vs. 163.9 min, p = 0.032). The time to first soft fluid diet was also significantly shorter in the artisential group (2.2 days vs. 2.8 days, p = 0.030), but there was no significant difference in the time to first flatus and overall hospital stay. The incidence of early complications was lower in the artisential group, but the difference was not significant (24.4% vs 7.3%, p = 0.070). There was no mortality in either group. The use of articulating instruments for laparoscopic gastrectomy did not increase postoperative morbidity compared to straight laparoscopic instruments. The use of articulating instruments may be associated with faster bowel recovery and less early complications.

Project description:ImportanceRobotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer may be associated with decreased incidence of intra-abdominal infectious complications, including pancreatic fistula, leakage, and abscess. Prospective randomized clinical trials comparing laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and RG are thus required.ObjectiveTo compare the short-term surgical outcomes of RG with those of LG for patients with gastric cancer.Design, setting, and participantsIn this phase 3, prospective superiority randomized clinical trial of RG vs LG regarding reduction of complications, 241 patients with resectable gastric cancer (clinical stages I-III) were enrolled between April 1, 2018, and October 31, 2020.InterventionsLG vs RG.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was the incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications. Secondary end points were incidence of any complications, surgical results, postoperative courses, and oncologic outcomes. The modified intention-to-treat population excluded patients who had been randomized and met the postrandomization exclusion criteria. There was also a per-protocol population for analysis of postoperative complications.ResultsThis study enrolled 241 patients, with 236 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population (150 men [63.6%]; mean [SD] age, 70.8 [10.7] years). There was no significant difference in the incidence of intra-abdominal infectious complications (per-protocol population: 10 of 117 [8.5%] in the LG group vs 7 of 113 [6.2%] in the RG group). Of 241 patients, 122 were randomly assigned to the LG group, and 119 patients were randomly assigned to the RG group. Two of the 122 patients (1.6%) in the LG group converted from LG to open surgery, and 4 of 119 patients (3.4%) in the RG group converted from RG to open or laparoscopic surgery, with no significant difference. Finally, 117 patients in the LG group completed the procedure, and 113 in the RG group completed the procedure; these populations were defined as the per-protocol population. The overall incidence of postoperative complications of grade II or higher was significantly higher in the LG group (23 [19.7%]) than in the RG group (10 [8.8%]) (P = .02). Even in analysis limited to grade IIIa or higher, the complication rate was still significantly higher in the LG group (19 [16.2%]) than in the RG group (6 [5.3%]) (P = .01).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found no reduction of intra-abdominal infectious complications with RG compared with LG for gastric cancer.Trial registrationumin.ac.jp/ctr Identifier: UMIN000031536.

Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic gastrectomy and robotic gastrectomy are the most widely adopted treatment of choice for gastric cancer. To systematically assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis on short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy.MethodsIn order to find relevant studies on the efficacy and safety of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in the treatment of gastric cancer, numerous medical databases including PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, and China Journal Full-text Database (CNKI) were consulted, and Chinese and English studies on the efficacy and safety of RG and LG in the treatment of gastric cancer published from 2012 to 2022 were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.ResultsThe meta-analysis inlcuded 48 literatures, with 20,151 gastric cancer patients, including 6,175 in the RG group and 13,976 in the LG group, respectively. Results of our meta-analysis showed that RG group had prololonged operative time (WMD = 35.72, 95% CI = 28.59-42.86, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 258.69 min ± 32.98; LG: mean ± SD = 221.85 min ± 31.18), reduced blood loss (WMD = -21.93, 95% CI = -28.94 to -14.91, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 105.22 ml ± 62.79; LG: mean ± SD = 127.34 ml ± 79.62), higher number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.99-3.63, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 35.88 ± 4.14; LG: mean ± SD = 32.73 ± 4.67), time to first postoperative food intake shortened (WMD = -0.20, 95% CI = -0.29 to -0.10, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 4.5 d ± 1.94; LG: mean ± SD = 4.7 d ± 1.54), and lower length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD = -0.54, 95% CI = -0.83 to -0.24, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 8.91 d ± 6.13; LG: mean ± SD = 9.61 d ± 7.74) in comparison to the LG group. While the other variables, for example, time to first postoperative flatus, postoperative complications, proximal and distal mar gin, R 0 resection rate, mortality rate, conversion rate, and 3-year overall survival rate were all found to be statistically similar at P > 0.05.ConclusionsIn the treatment of gastric cancer, robotic gastrectomy is a safe and effective procedure that has both short- and long-term effects. To properly evaluate the advantages of robotic surgery in gastric cancer, more randomised controlled studies with rigorous research methodologies are needed.

Project description:Background and Objectives: Gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard surgical treatment with curative intent for patients with gastric cancer (GC). Over the last three decades, surgeons have been increasingly adopting laparoscopic surgery for GC, due to its better short-term outcomes. In particular, laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been routinely used for early gastric cancer (EGC) treatment. However, LG suffers from technical limitations and drawbacks, such as a two-dimensional surgical field of view, limited movement of laparoscopic tools, unavoidable physiological tremors and discomfort for operating surgeon. Therefore, robotic surgery has been developed to address such limitations. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines in order to investigate the benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared to the LG. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Re-views, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL) and Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index) databases were used to search all related literature. Results: The 7 included meta-analyses covered an approximately 20 years-study period (2000-2020). Almost all studies included in the meta-analyses were retrospective ones and originated from Asian countries (China and Korea, in particular). Examined overall population ranged from 3176 to 17,712 patients. If compared to LG, RG showed both operative advantages (operative time, estimated blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes) and perioperative ones (time to first flatus, time to restart oral intake, length of hospitalization, overall complications, Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ III complications, pancreatic complications), in the absence of clear differences of oncological outcomes. However, costs of robotic approach appear significant. Conclusions: It is impossible to make strong recommendations, due to the statistical weakness of the included studies. Further randomized, possibly multicenter trials are strongly recommended, if we want to have our results confirmed.

Project description:BackgroundMotorized articulating laparoscopic instruments (ALI) offer more degrees of freedom than conventional laparoscopic instruments (CLI). However, a difficult learning curve and complex instrument handling are still a problem of ALI. We compared the performance of new prototypes of motorized ALI with CLI in a series of standardized laparoscopic tasks performed by laparoscopic novices. Further, usability of the new ALI was assessed.MethodsA randomized cross-over study with 50 laparoscopic novices who either started with CLI and then changed to ALI (CA) or vice versa (AC) was conducted. All participants performed the European training in basic laparoscopic urological skills (E-BLUS) with each instrument in given order. Time and errors were measured for each exercise. Instrument usability was assessed.ResultsOverall, using CLI was significantly faster (CLI 4:27 min vs. ALI 4:50 min; p-value 0.005) and associated with fewer exercise failures in needle guidance (CLI 0 vs. ALI 12; p-value 0.0005) than ALI. Median amount of errors was similar for both instruments. Instrument sequence did not matter, as CA and AC showed comparable completion times. Regarding the learning effect, participants were significantly faster in the second attempt of exercises than in the first. In the needle guidance task, participants using CLI last demonstrated a significant speed improvement, whereas ALI were significantly slower in the second run. Regarding usability, CLI were preferred over ALI due to lighter weight and easier handling. Nevertheless, participants valued ALI's additional degrees of freedom.ConclusionUsing new motorized ALI in the E-BLUS examination by laparoscopic novices led to a worse performance compared to CLI. An explanation could be that participants felt overwhelmed by ALI and that ALI have an own distinct learning curve. As participants valued ALI's additional degrees of freedom, however, a future application of ALI could be for training purposes, ideally in combination with CLI.

Dataset Information

Short-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic gastrectomy with articulating instruments for gastric cancer compared with the robotic approach.

Publications

Short-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic gastrectomy with articulating instruments for gastric cancer compared with the robotic approach.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets