4.5 Article

Assessing the safety and efficacy of full robotic gastrectomy with intracorporeal robot-sewn anastomosis for gastric cancer: A randomized clinical trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 113, Issue 4, Pages 397-404

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.24146

Keywords

robotic surgery; gastric cancer; total gastrectomy; D2 lymph node dissection

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81500417]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundRobotic gastrectomy is increasingly used in gastric cancer patients. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of full robotic gastrectomy with intracorporeal robot-sewn anastomosis for gastric cancer. MethodsThree hundred and eleven patients were randomized into an open gastrectomy group or a robotic gastrectomy group, and digestive restorations were performed under direct vision and with intracorporeal robot-sewn anastomosis, respectively. Length of postoperative hospital stay, number of lymph node dissections, surgical duration, blood loss, and complication rate after surgery were recorded. ResultsThere were no significant differences in the number of lymph node dissections (30.910.4 vs. 29.3 +/- 9.7 days, P=0.281) or complication rates (10.3 vs. 9.3%, P=0.756) between the two groups. Surgical duration was significantly longer in the robotic gastrectomy group than in the open gastrectomy group (242.7 +/- 43.8 vs. 192.4 +/- 31.5min, P=0.002), whereas blood loss was less (94.2 +/- 51.5 vs. 152.8 +/- 76.9ml, P<0.001), length of postoperative hospital stay was shorter (5.6 +/- 1.9 vs. 6.7 +/- 1.9 days, P=0.021), and postoperative restoration of bowel function was earlier (2.6 +/- 1.1 vs. 3.1 +/- 1.2 days, P=0.028). ConclusionFull robotic gastrectomy with intracorporeal robot-sewn anastomosis for gastric cancer is safe and does not increase the complication risk during or after surgery. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:397-404. (c) 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available