After propensity score matching in long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy

Kim, Jong Won

doi:10.1007/s10120-018-0850-x

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The titles and abstracts of the remaining 231 papers were screened, and 10 papers potentially suitable for analysis were identified. After a thorough review of the full text of the 10 papers, one paper was excluded because it was a letter [13], and another study was excluded because the survival data were insufficient for analysis [14]. Finally, eight papers were included for our meta-analysis [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of robotic gastrectomy and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in terms of their long-term oncological outcomes: a meta-analysis of 3410 gastric cancer patients

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Data regarding the long-term oncological outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) are limited despite the increased commonality of this method as an alternative for gastric cancer treatment. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes of RG in comparison to that of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Methods The PubMed, ISI Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were comprehensively searched for studies that compared RG and LG in terms of their long-term survival outcomes. The hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and relapse-free survival (RFS) were obtained, while the odds ratio (OR) was recorded for the recurrence rate. A sensitivity analysis was performed. Egger’s test and Begg’s test were applied to evaluate publication bias. Results Eight studies were identified and involved 3410 gastric cancer patients (RG, 1009; LG, 2401). The two groups had no significant differences in OS (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.80–1.20; P = 0.81), DFS (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.33–5.59; P = 0.67), RFS (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72–1.19; P = 0.53), or recurrence rate (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.71–1.19; P = 0.53). Moreover, the two techniques were comparable in length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative complication rate, 30-day mortality rate, and rate of conversion to open surgery. Conclusions The long-term oncological outcomes, expressed as OS, DFS, RFS, and recurrence rate, were similar between RG and LG. However, more randomized controlled trials with rigorous study designs and patient cohorts are needed to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of RG in patients with gastric cancer. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12957-019-1628-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of robotic gastrectomy and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in terms of their long-term oncological outcomes: a meta-analysis of 3410 gastric cancer patients

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The largest series on the oncological results, in terms of overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival (RFS) and recurrence patterns was published by Obama et al [46]. This single-centre retrospective, prospectively collected, propensity-score matched study (the matching of which have been questioned some [56]) compared 313 RAG with 313 (out of 524) LAG. Total or subtotal gastrectomy was performed according to the Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines [57].…”

Section: Long-term Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a European perspective

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gastrectomy is the mainstay treatment for gastric cancer. To reduce the associated patient burden, minimally invasive gastrectomy was introduced in almost 30 years ago. The increase in the availability of surgical robotic systems led to the first robotic-assisted gastrectomy to be performed in 2002 in Japan. Robotic gastrectomy however, particularly in Europe, has not yet gained significant traction. Most reports to date are from Asia, predominantly containing observational studies. These cohorts are commonly different in the tumour stage, location (particularly with regards to gastroesophageal junctional tumours) and patient BMI compared to those encountered in Europe. To date, no randomised clinical trials have been performed comparing robotic gastrectomy to either laparoscopic or open equivalent. Cohort studies show that robotic gastrectomy is equal oncological outcomes in terms of survival and lymph node yield. Operative times in the robotic group are consistently longer compared to laparoscopic or open gastrectomy, although evidence is emerging that resectional surgical time is equal. The only reproducibly significant difference in favour of robot-assisted gastrectomy is a reduction in intraoperative blood loss and some studies show a reduction in the risk of pancreatic fistula formation.

show abstract

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After propensity score matching in long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy

Cited by 4 publications

References 2 publications

Comparative analysis of robotic gastrectomy and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in terms of their long-term oncological outcomes: a meta-analysis of 3410 gastric cancer patients

Comparative analysis of robotic gastrectomy and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in terms of their long-term oncological outcomes: a meta-analysis of 3410 gastric cancer patients

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a European perspective

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About