4.6 Review

Clinical efficacy and safety of robotic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08994-x

关键词

Gastric cancer; Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy; Meta-analysis; Robotic distal gastrectomy

类别

资金

  1. Key Laboratory of Evidence-Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation Foundation of Gansu Province [GSEBMKT-2021KFJJ001]
  2. Gansu Provincial Key Laboratory of Molecular Diagnosis and Precision Therapy of Surgical Tumors [2019GSZDSYS06, 2019PT320005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This meta-analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG). The analysis included 22 studies with 5386 patients. The results showed that compared to laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG), RDG had longer operating time, less intraoperative blood loss, more retrieved lymph nodes, shorter time to first flatus, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and lower incidence of pancreatic fistula. However, there were no significant differences in other parameters between RDG and LDG groups. Propensity-score-matched analysis showed that the differences in time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups lost significance.
Background Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) is a new technique that is rapidly gaining popularity and may help overcome the limitations of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG); however, its safety and therapeutic efficacy remain controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RDG. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies that compared RDG and LDG and were published between the time of database inception and May 2021. We assessed the bias risk of the observational studies using ROBIN-I, and a random effect model was always applied. Results The meta-analysis included 22 studies involving 5386 patients. Compared with LDG, RDG was associated with longer operating time (Mean Difference [MD] = 43.88, 95% CI = 35.17-52.60), less intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 24.84, 95% CI = - 41.26 to - 8.43), a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD = 2.41, 95% CI = 0.77-4.05), shorter time to first flatus (MD = - 0.09, 95% CI = - 0.15 to - 0.03), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = - 0.68, 95% CI = - 1.27 to - 0.08), and lower incidence of pancreatic fistula (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.07-0.79). Mean proximal and distal resection margin distances, time to start liquid and soft diets, and other complications were not significantly different between RDG and LDG groups. However, in the propensity-score-matched meta-analysis, the differences in time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups lost significance. Conclusions Based on the available evidence, RDG appears feasible and safe, shows better surgical and oncological outcomes than LDG and, comparable postoperative recovery and postoperative complication outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据