A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Oncological, Cost, and Surgical Stress Analysis

被引:34
|
作者
Lu, Jun [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Zheng, Hua-Long [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Li, Ping [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Xie, Jian-Wei [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Wang, Jia-Bin [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Lin, Jian-Xian [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Chen, Qi-Yue [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Cao, Long-Long [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Lin, Mi [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Tu, Ru-Hong [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Huang, Ze-Ning [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Huang, Chang-Ming [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Zheng, Chao-Hui [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Fujian Med Univ, Union Hosp, Dept Gastr Surg, Fuzhou, Fujian, Peoples R China
[2] Fujian Med Univ, Union Hosp, Dept Gen Surg, Fuzhou, Fujian, Peoples R China
[3] Fujian Med Univ, Key Lab, Minist Educ Gastrointestinal Canc, Fuzhou, Fujian, Peoples R China
[4] Fujian Med Univ, Fujian Key Lab Tumor Microbiol, Fuzhou, Fujian, Peoples R China
关键词
Gastric cancer; Laparoscopy; Robot; Surgical stress; Cost-effectiveness;
D O I
10.1007/s11605-018-3785-y
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) has been rapidly adopted for gastric cancer (GC) treatment. However, whether RAG provides any significant outcome/cost advantages over laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for the experienced laparoscopist remains unclear. A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database identified 768 consecutive patients who underwent either RAG (n = 103) or LAG (n = 667) for GC between July 2016 and June 2017 at a large center. A 1:3 matched propensity score analysis was performed. The short-term outcomes and hospital costs between the two groups were compared. A well-balanced cohort of 404 patients was analyzed (RAG:LAG = 1:3 match). The mean operation times were 226.6 +/- 36.2 min for the RAG group and 181.8 +/- 49.8 min for the LAG group (p < 0.001). The total numbers of retrieved lymph nodes were similar in the RAG and LAG groups (means 38 and 40, respectively, p = 0.115). The overall and major complication rates (RAG, 13.9% vs. LAG, 12.5%, p = 0.732 and RAG, 3.0% vs. LAG, 1.3%, p = 0.373, respectively) were similar. RAG was much more costly than LAG (1.3 times, p < 0.001) mainly due to the amortization and consumables of the robotic system. According to cumulative sum (CUSUM), the learning phases were divided as follows: phase 1 (cases 1-21), phase 2 (cases 22-63), and phase 3 (cases 64-101), in the robotic group. The surgical stress (SS) was higher in the robotic group compared with the laparoscopic group in phase 1 (p < 0.05). However, the SS did not differ significantly between the two groups in phase 3. RAG is a feasible and safe surgical procedure for GC, especially in the post-learning curve period. However, further studies are warranted to evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes and to elucidate whether RAG is cost-effective when compared to LAG.
引用
收藏
页码:1152 / 1162
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic versus Open Total Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis
    Lee, Hayemin
    Kim, Wook
    Lee, Junhyun
    DIGESTIVE SURGERY, 2020, 37 (03) : 220 - 228
  • [32] Comparison of Surgical and Oncological Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Open Gastrectomy for Pathologically Serosa-Invasive (pT4a) Advanced Gastric Cancer-Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Analysis
    Kuwabara, Shirou
    Kobayashi, Kazuaki
    Sudo, Natsuru
    Omori, Ai
    Matsuya, Naoki
    Utsumi, Shiori
    JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2023, 33 (08): : 756 - 762
  • [33] Comparison of the effects of open and laparoscopic approach on body composition in gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A propensity score-matched study
    Takeoka, Tomohira
    Yamamoto, Kazuyoshi
    Kurokawa, Yukinori
    Miyazaki, Yasuhiro
    Kawabata, Ryohei
    Omori, Takeshi
    Imamura, Hiroshi
    Fujita, Junya
    Eguchi, Hidetoshi
    Doki, Yuichiro
    ANNALS OF GASTROENTEROLOGICAL SURGERY, 2024, 8 (01): : 40 - 50
  • [34] Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: A propensity score-matched study
    Liu, Rong
    Liu, Qu
    Zhao, Zhi-Ming
    Tan, Xiang-Long
    Gao, Yuan-Xing
    Zhao, Guo-Dong
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2017, 116 (04) : 461 - 469
  • [35] Comparison of totally robotic and totally laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis
    Zheng, Yi-ming
    Luo, Zi-yan
    Li, Zheng-yan
    Liu, Jia-jia
    Ren, Zhi-xiang
    Wang, Jun-jie
    Yu, Pei-wu
    Shi, Yan
    Zhao, Yong-liang
    Qian, Feng
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2024, 38 (08): : 4476 - 4484
  • [36] Robotic versus standard open pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis comparison
    Benedetto Ielpo
    Riccardo Caruso
    Hipolito Duran
    Eduardo Diaz
    Isabel Fabra
    Luis Malavé
    Yolanda Quijano
    Emilio Vicente
    Updates in Surgery, 2019, 71 : 137 - 144
  • [37] Robotic versus standard open pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis comparison
    Ielpo, Benedetto
    Caruso, Riccardo
    Duran, Hipolito
    Diaz, Eduardo
    Fabra, Isabel
    Malave, Luis
    Quijano, Yolanda
    Vicente, Emilio
    UPDATES IN SURGERY, 2019, 71 (01) : 137 - 144
  • [38] Pooled analysis of the oncological outcomes in robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer
    Wu, Hong-Ying
    Lin, Xiu-Feng
    Yang, Ping
    Li, Wei
    JOURNAL OF MINIMAL ACCESS SURGERY, 2021, 17 (03) : 287 - 293
  • [39] Circular versus linear stapling in esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched study
    Noriaki Kyogoku
    Yuma Ebihara
    Toshiaki Shichinohe
    Fumitaka Nakamura
    Katsuhiko Murakawa
    Takayuki Morita
    Shunichi Okushiba
    Satoshi Hirano
    Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, 2018, 403 : 463 - 471
  • [40] Laparoscopic Versus Open Total Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter, Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study in China
    Feng, Xingyu
    Chen, Xin
    Ye, Zaisheng
    Xiong, Wenjun
    Yao, Xueqing
    Wang, Wei
    Wang, Junjiang
    Chen, Luchuan
    Li, Yong
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2021, 11