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
  • [41] Circular versus linear stapling in esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched study
    Kyogoku, Noriaki
    Ebihara, Yuma
    Shichinohe, Toshiaki
    Nakamura, Fumitaka
    Murakawa, Katsuhiko
    Morita, Takayuki
    Okushiba, Shunichi
    Hirano, Satoshi
    LANGENBECKS ARCHIVES OF SURGERY, 2018, 403 (04) : 463 - 471
  • [42] Surgical and oncological outcomes of robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score‑matched analysis of 1164 patients
    Gengmei Gao
    Hualin Liao
    Qunguang Jiang
    Dongning Liu
    Taiyuan Li
    World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 20
  • [43] Propensity score-matched analysis comparing laparoscopic to robotic surgery for colorectal cancer shows comparable clinical and oncological outcomes
    Fleming, Christina A.
    Ullah, Muhamad Fahad
    Chang, Kah Hoong
    McNamara, Emma
    Condon, Eoghan
    Waldron, David
    Coffey, J. Calvin
    Peirce, Colin B.
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2021, 15 (03) : 389 - 396
  • [44] Propensity score-matched analysis comparing laparoscopic to robotic surgery for colorectal cancer shows comparable clinical and oncological outcomes
    Christina A. Fleming
    Muhamad Fahad Ullah
    Kah Hoong Chang
    Emma McNamara
    Eoghan Condon
    David Waldron
    J. Calvin Coffey
    Colin B. Peirce
    Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2021, 15 : 389 - 396
  • [45] Long-term outcome of laparoscopic versus open total gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis.
    Lee, Hayemin
    Lee, Junhyun
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2019, 37 (04)
  • [46] Robotic vs. laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A propensity score-matched retrospective comparative study at a single institution
    Kitazono, Masaki
    Fujita, Makoto
    Uchiyama, Shuichiro
    Eguchi, Mayumi
    Ikeda, Naotaka
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2024, 47 (06) : 2598 - 2605
  • [47] Textbook outcome and survival of robotic versus laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matched cohort study
    Chul Kyu Roh
    Soomin Lee
    Sang-Yong Son
    Hoon Hur
    Sang-Uk Han
    Scientific Reports, 11
  • [48] Textbook outcome and survival of robotic versus laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matched cohort study
    Roh, Chul Kyu
    Lee, Soomin
    Son, Sang-Yong
    Hur, Hoon
    Han, Sang-Uk
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2021, 11 (01)
  • [49] A propensity score-matched analysis of laparoscopic versus open surgical radical resection for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor
    Xu, ZhaoHui
    Qu, Hui
    Ren, YanYing
    Gong, ZeZhong
    Kanani, George
    Zhang, Fan
    Shao, Shuai
    Chen, XiaoLiang
    Chen, Xin
    JOURNAL OF MINIMAL ACCESS SURGERY, 2022, 18 (04) : 510 - 518
  • [50] Laparoscopic vs. Open Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer in a Western Population: a Propensity-Score Matched Analysis of Surgical and Oncological Results
    Alberto G. Barranquero
    Pablo Priego
    Paula Muñoz
    Mariam Bajawi
    Marta Cuadrado
    Luis Blázquez
    Silvia Sánchez-Picot
    Julio Galindo
    José María Fernández-Cebrián
    Indian Journal of Surgery, 2022, 84 : 1253 - 1262