Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis.

Abstract

Aim The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of robot-assisted (RAGD2) and laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy (LAGD2) for patients with gastric cancer. Material and methods Relevant articles published up to September 2020 were searched. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was used to pool continuous variables, while risk ratio (RR) was calculated for dichotomous outcomes. Results RAGD2 required a longer operating time (WMD = 29.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 15.97–43.59) and had less operative blood loss (WMD = − 31.93, 95% CI: − 44.03 to − 19.83), shorter time to first flatus (WMD = − 0.13, 95% CI: − 0.22 to − 0.04), shorter time to liquid diet (WMD = − 0.20, 95% CI: − 0.28 to 0.12), and fewer severe complications (RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43–0.90) and overall complications (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.62–0.91) than LAGD2. Conclusions RAGD2 could be beneficial in reducing operative blood loss and postoperative complications relative to LAGD2.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review

“…Analysis involved all 224 studies: out of them, 193 ones turned as not relevant for title and abstract, while 31 full-texts were considered eligible. Twe of the 31 studies were excluded because they were identified as duplicate publicati After removal of 4 studies not complying with inclusion criteria (1 robotic gastrecto versus open gastrectomy meta-analysis; 1 umbrella review; 1 umbrella review protoc network meta-analysis), 7 meta-analyses underwent qualitative synthesis [14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. No ditional record was found through other source (References list).…”

“…Table 1 shows demographic features of 7 included meta-analyses that covered 2000-2020 time frame [14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Studies included into the meta-analyses ranged from 12 to 40, were almost all retrospective ones and originated from Asian countries (China and Korea, in particular) [14][15][16][17][18][19][20].…”

“…Table 1 shows demographic features of 7 included meta-analyses that covered 2000-2020 time frame [14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Studies included into the meta-analyses ranged from 12 to 40, were almost all retrospective ones and originated from Asian countries (China and Korea, in particular) [14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Examined overall population ranged from 3176 to 17,712 patients; in all studies, the laparoscopic subgroup turned out as more represented than the robotic one [14][15][16][17][18][19][20].…”

“…Studies included into the meta-analyses ranged from 12 to 40, were almost all retrospective ones and originated from Asian countries (China and Korea, in particular) [14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Examined overall population ranged from 3176 to 17,712 patients; in all studies, the laparoscopic subgroup turned out as more represented than the robotic one [14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Almost all researches detailed surgical adopted procedure, with a prevalence of distal and total gastrectomy [14][15][16][17][18][19][20].…”

“…Examined overall population ranged from 3176 to 17,712 patients; in all studies, the laparoscopic subgroup turned out as more represented than the robotic one [14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Almost all researches detailed surgical adopted procedure, with a prevalence of distal and total gastrectomy [14][15][16][17][18][19][20].…”