Copaifera multijuga oleoresin and its constituent diterpene (-)-copalic acid: Genotoxicity and chemoprevention study.

J. M. Alves,J. M. Senedese,L. Leandro,P. T. D. Castro,D. Pereira,L. Carneiro,S. Ambrósio,J. Bastos,D. Tavares

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2017.05.001

2017-07-01

Mutation Research

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Robotic versus laparoscopic Gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Ke Chen,Yu Pan,Bin Zhang,Hendi Maher,Xian-fa Wang,Xiu-jun Cai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-017-0290-2

2017-01-01

BMC Surgery

Abstract:Background Advanced minimally invasive techniques including robotic surgery are being employed with increasing frequency around the world, primarily in order to improve the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy (RG). Methods Studies, which compared surgical outcomes between LG and RG, were retrieved from medical databases before May 2017. Outcomes of interest were estimated as weighted mean difference (WMD) or risk ratio (RR) using the random-effects model. The software Review Manage version 5.1 was used for all calculations. Results Nineteen comparative studies with 5953 patients were included in this analysis. Compared with LG, RG was associated with longer operation time (WMD = −49.05 min; 95% CI: -58.18 ~ −39.91, P < 0.01), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = 24.38 ml; 95% CI: 12.32 ~ 36.43, P < 0.01), earlier time to oral intake (WMD = 0.23 days; 95% CI: 0.13 ~ 0.34, P < 0.01), and a higher expense (WMD = −3944.8 USD; 95% CI: -4943.5 ~ −2946.2, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding time to flatus, hospitalization, morbidity, mortality, harvested lymph nodes, and cancer recurrence. Conclusions RG can be performed as safely as LG. However, it will take more effort to decrease operation time and expense.
Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: a Comparative Study with Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy at a High-Volume Center

Ke Chen,Shu-Ting Zhai,Jun-Hai Pan,Wei-Hua Yu,Yu Pan,Qi-Long Chen,Ding-Wei Chen,Yi-Ping Zhu,Jia-Fei Yan,Hendi Maher,Xian-Fa Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2017.1350718

2017-01-01

Abstract:Background: Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) for gastric cancer has gradually gained popularity. However, laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) has been reported rarely when compared with LDG. This study was designed to evaluate the surgical outcomes as well as the morbidity and mortality of LTG compared with LDG to confirm the feasibility and safety of LTG. Material and methods: We reviewed the data of patients at our institution undergoing LTG (n = 448) or LDG (n = 956) for gastric cancer between January 2008 and July 2016. Then the clinical characteristics and perioperative clinical outcomes of the two groups were compared. Results: Except for tumor size and stage, there were no statistically significant differences in the clinicopathological parameters between the groups. LTG was associated with significantly longer operation time, late time to postoperative diet, and longer hospital stay compared with the LDG group. Overall complications developed in 60 patients (13.4%) and surgical complications in 48 patients (10.7%) after LTG. Postoperative complications were less frequent in the LDG group than in the LTG group (8.4% versus 13.4%, p < .01), and fewer surgical complications were observed with LDG than with LTG (7.5% versus 10.7%, p = .05). Conclusions: The results of LTG were favorable even though are not inferior to those of LDG. LTG for gastric cancer is technically feasible and safe. However, because of the limits of this study, other high-quality studies are needed for further evaluation.
Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Xiaowei Wang,Gaoyang Cao,Weifang Mao,Weifeng Lao,Chao He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_533_18

2020-01-01

Abstract:This study aimed to compare clinical and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.We searched PubMed/Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Yahoo, and Google Scholar databases for relevant articles published up to 2017. Studies based on comparability between robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer were designated. Clinical outcomes included operative time, conversion to open surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), bowel function recovery time, length of hospital stay (LOS), anastomosis leak, and postoperative complications. Oncological outcomes comprised the number of lymph nodes extracted, the positive circumferential margin (PCRM), and the distal resection margin (DRM).Twenty studies were designated totaling 5496 patients, comprising a robot-assisted surgery patient group (n = 2168, 39.4%) and a laparoscopic surgery patient group (n = 3328, 60.6%). The robot-assisted surgery group was associated with longer operative time (odds ratio [OR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.14, 0.82), lower conversion to open surgery rate (OR 0.55, 95% CI; 0.44, 0.69), shorter LOS (OR - 0.15, 95% CI; -0.30, 0.00), faster bowel function recovery (OR - 0.38, 95% CI; -0.74, -0.02), and lower postoperative complications (OR 0.79, 95% CI; 0.65, 0.97). EBL, anastomosis leak rate, and oncological outcomes including the number of lymph nodes extracted, the DRM, and the PCRM showed no significant differences between groups.Robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer showed longer operative time, lower conversion, faster bowel function recovery rates, and shorter hospital stay, and similar oncological outcomes compared to laparoscopic surgery.
Total laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Yuhua Zhang,Defei Hong,Chengwu Zhang,Zhiming Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5582/bst.2018.01236

2018-01-01

BioScience Trends

Abstract:In this study, the clinical effectiveness of the robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy LPD were retrospectively reviewed. From December 2013 to September 2017, 20 patients underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 80 patients underwent Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. The clinical data of the RPDs and the first 20 LPDs were reviewed retrospectively. There is no difference in operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and rates of complications and mortality between the LPD and RPD group. The next 10 cases in the RPD group had shorter operative times (p = 0.03) than the first 10 cases. The estimated blood loss and length of stay were also lower in the next 10 cases; however, these results did not reach statistical significance. Our results show that LPD and RPD are technically safe and feasible. Comparable results were demonstrated between the two groups, while the robotic system seemed to shorten the learning curve of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Meta-Analysis Of Short-Term Outcomes

Jiayu Zhou,Chang Xin,Yi-Ping Mou,Xiao-Wu Xu,Miao-Zun Zhang,Yu-Cheng Zhou,Chao Lu,Rong-Gao Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151189

IF: 3.7

2016-01-01

PLoS ONE

Abstract:AIMTo compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).METHODSA literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database up to June 30, 2015 was performed. The following key words were used: pancreas, distal pancreatectomy, pancreatic, laparoscopic, laparoscopy, robotic, and robotic-assisted. Fixed and random effects models were applied. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.RESULTSSeven non-randomized controlled trials involving 568 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes harvested, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.CONCLUSIONRADP is a safe and feasible alternative to LDP with regard to short-term outcomes. Further studies on the long-term outcomes of these surgical techniques are required.Core tipTo date, there is no consensus on whether laparoscopic or robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy is more beneficial to the patient. This is the first meta-analysis to compare laparoscopic and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy. We found that robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.
Meta-analysis of Laparoscopic-Assisted Versus Open Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Xiao-wu Xu,Ke Chen,Ren-chao Zhang,Jie Wang,Yi-ping Mou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2013.16.005

2013-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for gastric cancer through a meta-analysis of LADG versus open distal gastrectomy(ODG). METHODS:Comparative studies of LADG and ODG wer collected from Pubmed, Cochrane library, Web of Science and Biosis Previews Databases between January 1995 and October 2012. The data of operative duration, blood loss volume, number of harvested lymph node, proximal and distal resection margins, time to flatus, time to first oral intake, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative morbidity and 5-year survival rate were analyzed. And statistical analysis was performed with RevMan 5.1 software. RESULTS:A total of 16 articles were analyzed. There were 4 randomized controlled trials and 12 retrospective observational reports. Among a total of 2854 patients with gastric cancer, 1441 LADG and 1413 ODG subjects were included. Compared with ODG, LADG resulted in significantly prolonged operative duration (weighted mean difference (WMD) = 49.09 min, P < 0.01), less blood loss volume(WMD = -118.99 ml, P < 0.01), less time to flatus (WMD = -0.58 d, P < 0.01) and oral intake (WMD = -0.61 d, P < 0.01), shortened postoperative hospital stay (WMD = -2.48 d, P < 0.01) and less postoperative morbidity (relative risk (RR) = 0.62, P < 0.01). Distal resection margin did not differ significantly between LADG and ODG (WMD = -0.01 cm, P = 0.94) while proximal resection margin was significantly shorter in the LADG group (WMD = -0.83 cm, P < 0.01). The number of harvested lymph node was significantly lesser in the LADG group than that in ODG group (WMD = -2.17, P = 0.05). However, no significant difference existed when only analyzing the papers published over the last 5 years or having over 50 LADG cases (all P > 0.05). Furthermore, the 5-year survival rate did not differ significantly between two groups (RR = 1.02, P = 0.52). CONCLUSION:As a safe and practical procedure with less blood loss volume, fewer overall complications and a quicker recovery, LADG may offer satisfactory long-term outcomes comparable to those of conventional open surgery.
Surgical and short-term outcomes in robotic and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer with enhanced recovery after surgery protocol: A propensity score matching analysis

Weijia Huang,Siyu Liu,Junqiang Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.944395

IF: 1.8

2022-10-06

Frontiers in Surgery

Abstract:Objective This study aims to evaluate the short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) and robot-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) for gastric cancer (GC) with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols. Methods We reviewed the medical records of 202 patients undergoing radical distal gastrectomy; among them, 67 cases were assisted through RADG, while 135 cases were assisted through LADG along with ERAS. We retrospectively collected the medical records in succession from a database (January 2016–March 2019). We adopted propensity score matching to compare surgical and short-term outcomes of both groups. Results After the successful examination of 134 cases, including 67 receiving RADG and 67 undergoing LADG, the operative times were noted as 5.78 ± 0.96 h for the RADG group and 4.47 ± 1.01 h for the LADG group ( P < 0.001). The blood loss was noted as 125.52 ± 101.18 ml in the RADG group and 164.93 ± 109.32 ml in the LADG group ( P < 0.05). The shorter time to first flatus was 38.82 ± 10.56 h in the RADG group and 42.88 ± 11.25 h in the LADG group ( P < 0.05). In contrast, shorter days of postoperative hospital stay were 5.94 ± 1.89 days in the RADG group and 6.64 ± 1.92 days in the LADG group ( P < 0.05). Also, the RADG group (84483.03 ± 9487.37) was much more costly than the LADG group (65258.13 ± 8928.33) ( P < 0.001). The postoperative overall complication rates, numbers of dissected lymph nodes, visual analogue scale (VAS), and time to start a liquid diet for the RADG group and the LADG group were similar. Conclusions In this research, we concluded that RADG provides surgical benefits and short-term outcomes compared to LADG for GC with ERAS.

surgery
Comparison of short-term surgical outcomes between totally laparoscopic and laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a 10-y single-center experience with meta-analysis

Ke Chen,Yi-Ping Mou,Xiao-Wu Xu,Yu Pan,Yu-Cheng Zhou,Jia-Qin Cai,Chao-Jie Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2014.10.020

IF: 2.417

2015-01-01

Journal of Surgical Research

Abstract:Laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) and totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) are two commonly used methods of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. This study aimed to compare the short-term surgical outcomes of these two methods.A prospectively maintained gastric cancer database between October 2004 and February 2014 was reviewed and 115 patients underwent LADG and 198 patients underwent TLDG were included. The clinical characteristics and perioperative clinical outcomes of two groups were compared. Moreover, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted.The mean operation time and blood loss were similar in two groups, as was the number of retrieved lymph nodes. There was no significant difference in time to first flatus, the time to restart oral intake, the length of the hospital stay after surgery, and postoperative complications. The meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in the operative time, surgical margin, time to first flatus, length of hospital stay, mortality, overall, and anastomosis-related complications among the groups. However, the intraoperative blood loss was lower in TLDG (weighted mean difference = 21.50 mL; 95% confidence interval: 9.79-33.22; P < 0.01), and number of retrieved lymph nodes was higher in TLDG (weighted mean difference = -1.56; 95% confidence interval: -2.69 to -0.44; P < 0.01).TLDG is safe and feasible compared with LADG. However, it is difficult to identify the clinical advantages of TLDG over LADG based on our study. Thus, the choice of surgical approach mainly depends on the patient conditions and the preference of the patients or surgeons.
[Totally Laparoscopic Versus Laparoscopic Assisted Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: a Meta-Analysis].

Xiao-wu Xu,Yu Pan,Ke Chen,Jia-qin Cai,Di Wu,Ren-chao Zhang,Yi-ping Mou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3785/j.issn.1008-9292.2014.09.002

2014-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To compare the safety and efficacy of totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) with laparoscopic assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for gastric cancer by meta-analysis. METHODS:The literature on comparative studies of TLDG and LADG up to June 2014 were extensively retrieved from database PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Biosis Previews. The operation time, blood loss, time to flatus, time to first oral intake, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative morbidity, times of analgestic requirement, pain score, and the level of C-reactive protein (CRP) on postoperative day 1 and 7 were analyzed. The statistical analysis was performed with RevMan 5.1 software. RESULTS:Seven studies met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. A total of 1783 Patients were included for meta-analysis, among whom 727 cases underwent TLDG and 1056 underwent LADG. Comparing with LADG, TLDG experienced less blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD)=22.86 ml，95% confidence interval (CI): 12.0-33.72, P<0.01)], less times of analgesic requirement (WMD=0.58, 95% CI: 0.35-0.81, P< 0.01)，less pain score on postoperative day 1 and day 3 (day1: WMD=0.60, 95% CI: 0.20-0.99, P < 0.01; day3: WMD=0.36, 95% CI: 0.24-0.48, P < 0.01), earlier beginning to take diet (WMD=0.66, 95% CI: 0.13-1.19, P=0.01). The operation time, postoperative hospital stay, overall morbidity and anastomosis-related morbidity, and the level of CRP on postoperative day 1 and 7 were similar between two groups (Ps>0.05). CONCLUSION:TLDG is a safe and feasible procedure with less blood loss, less pain, and quicker recovery than those of LADG.
Case-matched Comparison of Laparoscopy-Assisted and Open Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Wei Wang,Ke Chen,Xiao-Wu Xu,Yu Pan,Yi-Ping Mou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v19.i23.3672

IF: 5.374

2013-01-01

World Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:AIM:To compare short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted and open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer.METHODS:A retrospective study was performed by comparing the outcomes of 54 patients who underwent laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with those of 54 patients who underwent open distal gastrectomy (ODG) between October 2004 and October 2007. The patients' demographic data (age and gender), date of surgery, extent of lymphadenectomy, and differentiation and tumor-node-metastasis stage of the tumor were examined. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, complications, pathological findings, and follow-up data were compared between the two groups.RESULTS:The mean operative time was significantly longer in the LADG group than in the ODG group (259.3 ± 46.2 min vs 199.8 ± 40.85 min; P < 0.05), whereas intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complications were significantly lower (160.2 ± 85.9 mL vs 257.8 ± 151.0 mL; 13.0% vs 24.1%, respectively, P < 0.05). In addition, the time to first flatus, time to initiate oral intake, and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the LADG group than in the ODG group (3.9 ± 1.4 d vs 4.4 ± 1.5 d; 4.6 ± 1.2 d vs 5.6 ± 2.1 d; and 9.5 ± 2.7 d vs 11.1 ± 4.1 d, respectively; P < 0.05). There was no signiﬁcant difference between the LADG group and ODG group with regard to the number of harvested lymph nodes. The median follow-up was 60 mo (range, 5-97 mo). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 94.3%, 90.2%, and 76.7%, respectively, in the LADG group and 89.5%, 84.7%, and 82.3%, respectively, in the ODG group. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 98.0%, 91.9%, and 81.1%, respectively, in the LADG group and 91.5%, 86.9%, and 82.1%, respectively, in the ODG group. There was no signiﬁcant difference between the two groups with regard to the survival rate.CONCLUSION:LADG is suitable and minimally invasive for treating distal gastric cancer and can achieve similar long-term results to ODG.
Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison of short-term surgical outcomes

Weisong Shen,Hongqing Xi,Bo Wei,Jianxin Cui,Shibo Bian,Kecheng Zhang,Ning Wang,Xiaohui Huang,Lin Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4241-7

2015-07-25

Surgical Endoscopy

Abstract:BackgroundRobot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) is a new minimally invasive surgical technique for gastric cancer. This study was designed to compare RAG with laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) in short-term surgical outcomes.MethodsBetween October 2011 and August 2014, 423 patients underwent robotic or laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: 93 RAG and 330 LAG. We performed a comparative analysis between RAG group and LAG group for clinicopathological characteristics and short-term surgical outcomes.ResultsRAG was associated with a longer operative time (P < 0.001), lower blood loss (P = 0.001), and more harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.047). Only three patients in LAG group had positive margins, and R0 resection rate for RAG and LAG was similar (P = 0.823). The RAG group had postoperative complications of 9.8 %, comparable with those of the LAG group (P = 0.927). Proximal margin, distal margin, hospital stay, days of first flatus, and days of eating liquid diet for RAG and LAG were similar. In the subgroup of serosa-negative patients, RAG had a longer operation time (P = 0.003), less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.005), and more harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.04). However, in the subgroup of serosa-positive patients, RAG had a longer operation time (P = 0.001), but no less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.139) and no more harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.139). Similarly, in the subgroup of total gastrectomy patients, RAG had a longer operation time (P = 0.018), but no less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.173).ConclusionsThe comparative study demonstrates that RAG is as acceptable as LAG in terms of surgical and oncologic outcomes. With lower estimated blood loss, acceptable complications, and radical resection, RAG is a promising approach for the treatment of gastric cancer. However, the indication of patients for RAG is critical.

English Else
Adaptive waveform design for enhanced detection of extended target

Xuzi Wu,Zheng Liu,R. Xie,Xuehua Mu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/RADAR.2016.8059560

2016-10-01

Radar

Abstract:This paper considers waveform design for target detection with variations in the target impulse response (TIR). A generalized model of the TIR that consists of both the deterministic term and random term is introduced. Based on the derivation of the generalized likelihood ratio test (GLRT) detector and the optimization function for waveform design, an iterative algorithm with the criteria of maximizing the signal to noise ratio (SNR) and minimizing the mean square error (MSE) is proposed. Simulation results verify the efficiency of the proposed method.
Totally Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes Compared with Open Surgery

Ke Chen,Yu Pan,Jia-Qin Cai,Xiao-Wu Xu,Di Wu,Yi-Ping Mou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i42.15867

IF: 5.374

2014-01-01

World Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:AIM: To systematically review the surgical outcomes of totally laparoscopic gastrectomy (TLG) vs open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer.METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted. All original studies comparing TLG with OG were included for critical appraisal. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out using RevMan 5.1 software.RESULTS: One RCT and 13 observational studies involving 1532 patients were included (721 TLG and 811 OG). TLG was associated with longer operation time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 58.04 min, 95%CI: 37.77-78.32, P < 0.001], less blood loss [WMD = -167.57 min, 95%CI: -208.79-(-126.34), P < 0.001], shorter hospital stay [WMD = -3.75 d, 95%CI: -4.88-(-2.63), P < 0.001] and fewer postoperative complications (RR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.58-0.86, P < 0.001). The number of harvested lymph nodes, surgical margin, mortality and cancer recurrence rate were similar between the two groups.CONCLUSION: TLG may be a technically safe, feasible and favorable approach in terms of better cosmesis, less blood loss and faster recovery compared with OG. (C) 2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A Western propensity score matched analysis

Andre Roncon Dias,Marina A. Pereira,Marcus F. K. P. Ramos,Rodrigo José de Oliveira,Osmar Kenji Yagi,Ulysses Ribeiro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.27651

2024-04-18

Journal of Surgical Oncology

Abstract:Background Robot‐assisted gastrectomy (RG) has been shown to be safe and feasible in the treatment of gastric cancer (GC). However, it is unclear whether RG is equivalent to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), especially in the Western world. Our objective was to compare the outcomes of RG and LG in GC patients. Methods We reviewed all gastric adenocarcinoma patients who underwent curative gastrectomy by minimally invasive approach in our institution from 2009 to 2022. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to reduce selection bias. DaVinci Si platform was used for RG. Results A total of 156 patients were eligible for inclusion (48 RG and 108 LG). Total gastrectomy was performed in 21.3% and 25% of cases in LG and RG, respectively. The frequency of stage pTNM II/III was 48.1%, and 54.2% in the LG and RG groups (p = 0.488). After PSM, 48 patients were matched in each group. LG and RG had a similar number of dissected lymph nodes (p = 0.759), operative time (p = 0.421), and hospital stay (p = 0.353). Blood loss was lower in the RG group (p = 0.042). The major postoperative complications rate was 16.7% for LG and 6.2% for RG (p = 0.109). The 30‐day mortality rate was 2.1% and 0% for LG and RG, respectively (p = 1.0). There was no significant difference between the LG and RG groups for disease‐free survival (79.6% vs. 61.2%, respectively; p = 0.155) and overall survival (75.9% vs. 65.7%, respectively; p = 0.422). Conclusion RG had similar surgical and long‐term outcomes compared to LG, with less blood loss observed in RG.

oncology,surgery
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,S.‐S. Park,M-H Hyun,C-H Lee,H-J Kim,Y Tong,S-S Park

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9242

2013-10-09

Abstract: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 ≤ 0·001). 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.

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

Masaaki Nishi,Mistuo Shimada,Kozo Yoshikawa,Chie Takasu,Yuma Wada,Takuya Tokunaga,Toshihiro Nakao,Hideya Kashihara,Toshiaki Yoshimoto,Shoko Yamashita

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-11203-7

IF: 4.339

2022-01-10

Annals of Surgical Oncology

Abstract:BackgroundRobotic gastrectomy (RG) has been rapidly adopted for gastric cancer (GC) treatment. However, the benefits of RG over laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for GC remain unclear.MethodsA total of 451 patients who underwent either RG (n = 83) or LG (n = 368) for GC were enrolled in this study. A 1:1 matched, propensity score-matched analysis was performed using the following factors: age, sex, body mass index, pT, pN, pStage, tumor location, vessel invasion, tumor markers, surgical procedure, reconstruction method, extent of lymphadenectomy, and Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System qualified surgeon as an operator. The surgical outcomes of the two groups were compared.ResultsA well-balanced cohort of 158 patients was analyzed (n = 79 in the RG group, n = 79 in the LG group). Regarding the short-term outcomes, the respective blood loss volume, drain amylase content, and number of retrieved lymph nodes in the RG and LG groups were 38.62 ± 73.06 ml and 67.53 ± 108.20 ml (p < 0.05), 450 ± 371 IU/l and 1590 ± 6392 IU/l (p < 0.01), and 35.02 ± 15.51 and 25.28 ± 11.70 (p < 0.01). The morbidity rate was similar between the RG and LG groups (not significant [NS]). Regarding the long-term survival outcomes, there were no intergroup differences in 3-year overall survival (91.72% in the RG group vs. 83.39% in the LG group: NS) and 3-year, disease-free survival (93.31% in the vs. 90.44%: NS).ConclusionsRG was safe and contributed to better short-term outcomes and similar long-term survival outcomes compared with LG.

oncology,surgery
Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes after Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Radical Gastrectomy: a Propensity Score-Matching Study

Jin-Tao Li,Jian-Xian Lin,Fu-Hai Wang,Jia-Bin Wang,Jun Lu,Qi-Yue Chen,Long-Long Cao,Mi Lin,Ru-Hong Tu,Ze-Ning Huang,Ju-Li Lin,Hua-Long Zheng,Chao-Hui Zheng,Chang-Ming Huang,Ping Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09245-3

2022-01-01

Surgical Endoscopy

Abstract:Objective There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the long-term outcomes of robotic radical gastrectomy. The aim of this study was to compare the radical results and long-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. Methods We prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed the general clinicopathological data of gastric cancer patients treated with robotic radical gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic radical gastrectomy (LG) from July 2016 to July 2018 at Fujian Medical University Union Hospital. The RG cohort was matched 1:3 with the LG cohort by using propensity score matching (PSM). The primary endpoints of the study were 3-year overall survival (OS) and 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS). Results The study included 221 patients treated with RG and 1106 patients treated with LG for gastric cancer. After PSM, 211 patients were included in the RG cohort, and 663 patients were included in the LG cohort. The 3-year OS rate was 81.0% in the robotic cohort and 79.3% in the laparoscopic cohort (log-rank test, P = 0.516). The 3-year RFS rate was 78.7% in the robotic cohort and 75.6% in the laparoscopic cohort (log-rank test, P = 0.600). In the subgroup analyses, no significant differences were noted between the RG and LG cohorts in terms of 3-year OS and 3-year RFS (all P > 0.05). The therapeutic value index of each lymph node station dissection in the robotic cohort was comparable to that in the laparoscopic cohort. Conclusion Robotic radical gastrectomy can achieve radical results and long-term outcomes comparable to laparoscopic surgery, and further multicenter prospective studies can be conducted to assess the clinical efficacy of robotic radical gastrectomy.
Systematic review of laparoscopy-assisted versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer

Long-yun Ye,Da-ren Liu,Chao Li,Xiao-wen Li,Ling-na Huang,Sheng Ye,Yi-xiong Zheng,Li Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B1200197

2013-01-01

Abstract:Objective The study compared laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) with open gastrectomy (OG) in the management of advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Methods Literature search was performed in the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify control studies that compared LAG and OG for AGC. A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the surgical safety and oncologic adequacy, using the random-effect model. Results Seven eligible studies including 815 patients were analyzed. LAG was associated with less blood loss, less use of analgesics, shorter time of flatus and periods of hospital stay, but longer time of operation. The incidence of most complications was similar between the two groups. However, LAG was associated with a lower rate of pulmonary infection (odds ratio (OR) 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.68; P <0.05). No significant differences were noted in terms of the number of harvested lymph nodes (weighted mean difference (WMD) 1.165; 95% CI–2.000 to 4.311; P >0.05), overall mortality (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.10; P >0.05), cancer-related mortality (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.25; P >0.05), or recurrence (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.33 to 1.16; P >0.05). Conclusions LAG could be performed safely for AGC with adequate lymphadenectomy and has several short-term advantages compared with conventional OG. No differences were found in long-term outcomes. However, these results should be validated in large randomized controlled studies (RCTs) with sufficient follow-up.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes: robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer patients with visceral obesity

Lin-Wen Yang,Xiang-Yu Bai,Guo-Min Jing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-02002-9

2024-06-04

Abstract:The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the comparative efficacy of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery in treating gastric cancer among patients characterized by a high visceral fat area (VFA). In April 2024, we conducted a comprehensive literature review using major international databases, such as PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. We restricted our selection to articles written in English, excluding reviews, protocols without published data, conference abstracts, and irrelevant content. Our analysis focused on continuous data using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and standard mean differences (SMDs), while dichotomous data were assessed with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. We set the threshold for statistical significance at P < 0.05. Data extraction included baseline characteristics, primary outcomes (such as operative time, major complications, lymph node yield, and anastomotic leakage), and secondary outcomes. The meta-analysis included three cohort studies totaling 970 patients. The robotic-assisted group demonstrated a significantly longer operative time compared to the laparoscopic group, with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of - 55.76 min (95% CI - 74.03 to - 37.50; P < 0.00001). This group also showed a reduction in major complications, with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.48 (95% CI 1.09-5.66; P = 0.03) and fewer occurrences of abdominal infections (OR 3.17, 95% CI 1.41-7.14; P = 0.005), abdominal abscesses (OR 3.83, 95% CI 1.53-9.57; P = 0.004), anastomotic leaks (OR 4.09, 95% CI 1.73-9.65; P = 0.001), and pancreatic leaks (OR 8.93, 95% CI 2.33-34.13; P = 0.001). However, no significant differences were observed between the groups regarding length of hospital stay, overall complications, estimated blood loss, or lymph node yield. Based on our findings, robot-assisted gastric cancer surgery in obese patients with visceral fat appears to be correlated with fewer major complications compared to laparoscopic surgery, while maintaining similar outcomes in other surgical aspects. However, it is important to note that robot-assisted procedures do tend to have longer operative times.
[Comparative Study on Clinical Efficacy of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer].

Xiao-lei Zhang,Zhi-wei Jiang,Kun Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0274.2012.08.016

2012-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To compare the clinical efficacy of robot-assisted procedure with laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer.METHODS:The clinical data of patients who underwent gastrectomy in the Department of General Surgery in the Affiliated Jinling Hospital, Nanjing University Medical College from January 2009 to December 2011 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 97 patients undergoing robotic gastrectomy(ROB group) and 70 patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy (LAP group). The following parameters were compared between these two groups: intraoperative factors, oncologic outcomes, and short-term surgical outcomes.RESULTS:All the operations were performed successfully without conversion. Compared with the LAP group, the ROB group had less intraoperative blood loss [(80.8±53.1) vs. (153.7±26.4) ml, P=0.001], more number of lymph node dissection [(23.1±5.4) vs. (20.0±4.3), P=0.001], longer operative time [(272.3±46.1) vs. (240.3±89.1) min, P=0.001], earlier semifluid diet time [(3.2±0.8) vs. (3.6±1.2) d, P=0.002], shorter postoperative hospital stay [(6.1±2.6) vs. (6.9±2.3) d, P=0.037]. There were no significant differences in the length of distal and proximal margin, postoperative ambulation time, ventilation time and postoperative complications(all P>0.05).CONCLUSIONS:The robotic gastrectomy is safe and feasible for gastric cancer. It has many advantages such as less blood loss, more number of lymph node dissection and quicker recovery. Similar radical resection can be achieved compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy.

Copaifera multijuga oleoresin and its constituent diterpene (-)-copalic acid: Genotoxicity and chemoprevention study.

Robotic versus laparoscopic Gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: a Comparative Study with Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy at a High-Volume Center

Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Total laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Meta-Analysis Of Short-Term Outcomes

Meta-analysis of Laparoscopic-Assisted Versus Open Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Surgical and short-term outcomes in robotic and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer with enhanced recovery after surgery protocol: A propensity score matching analysis

Comparison of short-term surgical outcomes between totally laparoscopic and laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a 10-y single-center experience with meta-analysis

[Totally Laparoscopic Versus Laparoscopic Assisted Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: a Meta-Analysis].

Case-matched Comparison of Laparoscopy-Assisted and Open Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison of short-term surgical outcomes

Adaptive waveform design for enhanced detection of extended target

Totally Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes Compared with Open Surgery

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A Western propensity score matched analysis

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

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

Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes after Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Radical Gastrectomy: a Propensity Score-Matching Study

Systematic review of laparoscopy-assisted versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer

Systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes: robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer patients with visceral obesity

[Comparative Study on Clinical Efficacy of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer].