Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic and open resections for gastric carcinoma

M. H. Hyun, C. H. Lee, H. J. Kim, Y. Tong, Sungsoo Park

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

49 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) has been developed in the hope of improving surgical quality and overcoming the limitations of conventional laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy (LAG) and open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to determine the extent of evidence in support of these ideals. Methods A systematic review of the three operation types (RAG, LAG and OG) was carried out to evaluate short-term outcomes including duration of operation, retrieved lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, resection margin status, technical postoperative complications and hospital stay. Results Nine non-randomized observational clinical studies involving 7200 patients satisfied the eligibility criteria. RAG was associated with longer operating times than LAG and OG (weighted mean difference 61·99 and 65·73 min respectively; P â 0A;circ·001). The number of retrieved lymph nodes and the resection margin length in RAG were comparable with those of LAG and OG. Estimated blood loss was significantly less in RAG than in OG (P = 0·002), but not LAG. Mean hospital stay for RAG was similar to that for LAG (P = 0·14). In contrast, hospital stay was significantly shorter, by a mean of 2·18 days, for RAG compared with OG (P < 0·001). Postoperative complications were similar for all three operative approaches. Conclusion Short-term oncological outcomes of RAG were comparable with those of the other approaches. LAG was a shorter procedure and less expensive than RAG. Future studies involving RAG should focus on minimizing duration of operation and reducing cost. Expensive, but no great advantage for robotics

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1566-1578
Number of pages13
JournalBritish Journal of Surgery
Volume100
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013 Nov 1

Fingerprint

Robotics
Gastrectomy
Meta-Analysis
Stomach
Carcinoma
Length of Stay
Lymph Nodes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic and open resections for gastric carcinoma. / Hyun, M. H.; Lee, C. H.; Kim, H. J.; Tong, Y.; Park, Sungsoo.

In: British Journal of Surgery, Vol. 100, No. 12, 01.11.2013, p. 1566-1578.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{9c46157c938f4795b5295ab774a08986,
title = "Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic and open resections for gastric carcinoma",
abstract = "Background Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) has been developed in the hope of improving surgical quality and overcoming the limitations of conventional laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy (LAG) and open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to determine the extent of evidence in support of these ideals. Methods A systematic review of the three operation types (RAG, LAG and OG) was carried out to evaluate short-term outcomes including duration of operation, retrieved lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, resection margin status, technical postoperative complications and hospital stay. Results Nine non-randomized observational clinical studies involving 7200 patients satisfied the eligibility criteria. RAG was associated with longer operating times than LAG and OG (weighted mean difference 61·99 and 65·73 min respectively; P {\^a} 0A;circ·001). The number of retrieved lymph nodes and the resection margin length in RAG were comparable with those of LAG and OG. Estimated blood loss was significantly less in RAG than in OG (P = 0·002), but not LAG. Mean hospital stay for RAG was similar to that for LAG (P = 0·14). In contrast, hospital stay was significantly shorter, by a mean of 2·18 days, for RAG compared with OG (P < 0·001). Postoperative complications were similar for all three operative approaches. Conclusion Short-term oncological outcomes of RAG were comparable with those of the other approaches. LAG was a shorter procedure and less expensive than RAG. Future studies involving RAG should focus on minimizing duration of operation and reducing cost. Expensive, but no great advantage for robotics",
author = "Hyun, {M. H.} and Lee, {C. H.} and Kim, {H. J.} and Y. Tong and Sungsoo Park",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/bjs.9242",
language = "English",
volume = "100",
pages = "1566--1578",
journal = "British Journal of Surgery",
issn = "0007-1323",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic and open resections for gastric carcinoma

AU - Hyun, M. H.

AU - Lee, C. H.

AU - Kim, H. J.

AU - Tong, Y.

AU - Park, Sungsoo

PY - 2013/11/1

Y1 - 2013/11/1

N2 - Background Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) has been developed in the hope of improving surgical quality and overcoming the limitations of conventional laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy (LAG) and open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to determine the extent of evidence in support of these ideals. Methods A systematic review of the three operation types (RAG, LAG and OG) was carried out to evaluate short-term outcomes including duration of operation, retrieved lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, resection margin status, technical postoperative complications and hospital stay. Results Nine non-randomized observational clinical studies involving 7200 patients satisfied the eligibility criteria. RAG was associated with longer operating times than LAG and OG (weighted mean difference 61·99 and 65·73 min respectively; P â 0A;circ·001). The number of retrieved lymph nodes and the resection margin length in RAG were comparable with those of LAG and OG. Estimated blood loss was significantly less in RAG than in OG (P = 0·002), but not LAG. Mean hospital stay for RAG was similar to that for LAG (P = 0·14). In contrast, hospital stay was significantly shorter, by a mean of 2·18 days, for RAG compared with OG (P < 0·001). Postoperative complications were similar for all three operative approaches. Conclusion Short-term oncological outcomes of RAG were comparable with those of the other approaches. LAG was a shorter procedure and less expensive than RAG. Future studies involving RAG should focus on minimizing duration of operation and reducing cost. Expensive, but no great advantage for robotics

AB - Background Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) has been developed in the hope of improving surgical quality and overcoming the limitations of conventional laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy (LAG) and open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to determine the extent of evidence in support of these ideals. Methods A systematic review of the three operation types (RAG, LAG and OG) was carried out to evaluate short-term outcomes including duration of operation, retrieved lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, resection margin status, technical postoperative complications and hospital stay. Results Nine non-randomized observational clinical studies involving 7200 patients satisfied the eligibility criteria. RAG was associated with longer operating times than LAG and OG (weighted mean difference 61·99 and 65·73 min respectively; P â 0A;circ·001). The number of retrieved lymph nodes and the resection margin length in RAG were comparable with those of LAG and OG. Estimated blood loss was significantly less in RAG than in OG (P = 0·002), but not LAG. Mean hospital stay for RAG was similar to that for LAG (P = 0·14). In contrast, hospital stay was significantly shorter, by a mean of 2·18 days, for RAG compared with OG (P < 0·001). Postoperative complications were similar for all three operative approaches. Conclusion Short-term oncological outcomes of RAG were comparable with those of the other approaches. LAG was a shorter procedure and less expensive than RAG. Future studies involving RAG should focus on minimizing duration of operation and reducing cost. Expensive, but no great advantage for robotics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885415710&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84885415710&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/bjs.9242

DO - 10.1002/bjs.9242

M3 - Review article

VL - 100

SP - 1566

EP - 1578

JO - British Journal of Surgery

JF - British Journal of Surgery

SN - 0007-1323

IS - 12

ER -