Table 2.
Comparative case-control studies of robot-assisted gastrectomy vs laparoscopic assisted gastrectomy and/or open gastrectomy
| Ref. | Subject | Stage disease |
Patients (n) |
Operation time (min)1 | Blood loss (mL)1 | Harvested nodes (n)1 | Morbidity (%) | Mortality (%) | Hospital stay (d)1 | ||
| RAG | LAG | OG | |||||||||
| Song et al[35] | RAG vs iLAG2 vs rLAG2 | I-II | 202 | 202 202 | - | 230 vs 289.5 vs 134.1 (RAG < iLAG > rLAG)3 | 94.8 RAG vs 39.5 rLAG (NS) | 35.3 vs 31.5 vs 42.7 (NS) | 5 vs 5 vs 10 (NS) | 0 vs 0 vs 0 | 5.7 vs 7.7 vs 6.2 (RAG < iLAG)3 (RAG~rLAG, NS) |
| Kim et al[36] | RAG vs LAG vs OG | I-II-III | 16 | 11 | 12 | 259.2 vs 203.9 vs 126.7 (RAG > LAG > OG)3 | 30.3 vs 44.7 vs 78.8 (RAG < LAG < OG)3 | 41.1 vs 37.4 vs 43.3 (NS) | 0 vs 10 vs 20 (NS) | 0 vs 0 vs 0 | 5.1 vs 6.5 vs 6.7 (RAG < LAG < OG)3 |
| Eom et al[37] | RAG vs LAG | I-II-III | 30 | 62 | - | 229.1 vs 189.4 (RAG > LAG)3 | 152.8 vs 88.3 (NS) | 30.2 vs 33.4 (NS) | 13.3 vs 6.6 (NS) | 0 vs 0 | 7.9 vs 7.8 (NS) |
| Woo et al[25] | RAG vs LAG | I-II-III | 236 | 591 | - | 219.5 vs 170.7 (RAG > LAG)3 | 91.6 vs 147.9 (RAG < LAG)3 | 39.0 vs 37.4 (NS) | 11 vs 13.7 (NS) | 0.4 vs 0.3 (NS) | 7.7 vs 7.0 (RAG > LAG)3 |
| Caruso et al[38] | RAG vs OG | All stages | 29 | - | 120 | 290 vs 222 (RAG > OG)3 | 197.6 vs 386.1 (RAG < OG)3 | 28.0 vs 31.7 (RAG~OG) | 10.34 vs 10.04 (NS) | 0 vs 3.3 (NS) | 9.6 vs 13.4 (RAG < OG)3 |
| Huang et al[39] | RAG vs LAG vs OG | I-II-III | 39 | 64 | 586 | 430 vs 350 vs 320 (RAG > LAG > OG)3 | 50 vs 100 vs 400 (RAG < LAG < OG)3 | 32 vs 26 vs 34 (RAG = OG > LAG)3 | 15.4 vs 15.6 vs 14.7 (NS) | 1.4 vs 1.6 vs 2.6 (NS) | 7 vs 11 vs 12 (RAG < LAG < OG)3 |
| Uyama et al[40] | RAG vs LAG | All stages | 25 | 225 | - | 361 vs 345 (NS) | 51.8 vs 81.0 (RAG < LAG)3 | 44.3 vs 43.2 (NS) | 11.2 vs 16.9 (NS) | 0 vs 0 | 12.1 vs 17.3 (RAG < LAG)3 |
| Kang et al[12] | RAG vs LAG | I-II-III | 100 | 282 | - | 202.05 vs 173.45 (RAG > LAG)3 | 93.25 vs 173.45 (RAG < LAG)3 | NR | 14.0 vs 10.3 (NS) | 0 vs 0 | 9.81 vs 8.11 (RAG > LAG)3 |
| Kim et al[41] | RAG vs LAG vs OG | 0-I-II-III | 436 | 861 | 4542 | 226 vs 176 vs 158 (RAG > LAG > OG)3 | 85 vs 112 vs 192 (RAG = LAG < OG)3 | 40.2 vs 37.6 vs 40.5 (RAG = OG > LAG)3 | 10.1 vs 10.4 vs 10.7 (NS) | 0.5 vs 0.3 vs 0.5 (NS) | 7.5 vs 7.8 vs 10.2 (RAG = LAG < OG)3 |
| Yoon et al[42] | RAG vs LAG | I-II-III | 36 | 65 | - | 305.8 vs 210.2 (RAG > LAG)3 | NR | 42.8 vs 39.4 (NS) | 16.7 vs 15.4 (NS) | 0 vs 0 | 8.8 vs 10.3 (NS) |
| Hyun et al[43] | RAG vs LAG | I-II-III | 38 | 83 | - | 234.4 vs 220.0 (NS) | 131.3 vs 130.48 (NS) | 32.8 vs 32.8 (NS) | 13.14 vs 16.84 (NS) | 0 vs 0 | 10.5 vs 11.9 (NS) |
| Kim et al[11] | RAG vs LAG | I-II-III | 172 | 481 | - | 206.4 vs 167.1 (RAG > LAG)3 | 59.8 vs 134.9 (RAG < OG)3 | 37.3 vs 36.8 (NS) | 5.2 vs 4.2 (NS) | 0 vs 0.6 (NS) | 7.1 vs 6.7 (NS) |
| Kim et al[44] | RAG vs LAG | I-II-III | 87 | 288 | - | 248.4 vs 230.0 (RAG > LAG)3 | NR | 37.1 vs 34.1 (RAG > LAG)3 | 5.7 vs 9.0 (RAG < LAG)3 | 1.1 vs 0.3 (NS) | 6.7 vs 7.4 (RAG < LAG)3 |
| Son et al[45] | RAG vs LAG | I-II-III | 51 | 58 | - | 264.1 vs 210.3 (RAG > LAG)3 | 163.4 vs 210.7 (NS) | 47.2 vs 42.8 (NS) | 16 vs 22 (NS) | 1.9 vs 0 (NS) | 8.6 vs 7.9 (NS) |
| Park et al[46] | RAG vs LAG | I-II-III | 30 | 120 | - | 218 vs 140 (RAG > LAG)3 | 75 vs 60 (NS) | 34 vs 35 (NS) | 17 vs 7.5 (NS) | 0 vs 0 | 7.0 vs 7.0 (NS) |
| Junfeng et al[24] | RAG vs LAG | I-II-III | 120 | 394 | - | 234.8 vs 221.3 (RAG > LAG)3 | 118.3 vs 137.6 (RAG < LAG)3 | 34.6 vs 32.7 (RAG > LAG)3 | 5.8 vs 4.3 (NS) | NR | 7.8 vs 7.9 (NS) |
| Seo et al[47] | RAG vs LAG | I-II-III | 40 | 40 | - | 243 vs 224 (NS) | 76 vs 227 (RAG < LAG)3 | 40.4 vs 35.4 (NS) | NR | NR | 6.75 vs 7.37 (RAG < LAG)3 |
| Shen et al[48] | RAG vs LAG | I-II-III | 93 | 330 | - | 257.1 vs 226.2 (RAG > LAG)3 | 176.6 vs 212.5 (RAG < LAG)3 | 33.0 vs 31.3 (RAG > LAG)3 | 9.8 vs 10.0 (NS) | NR | 9.4 vs 10.6 (NS) |
| Suda et al[49] | RAG vs LAG | All stages | 88 | 438 | - | 381 vs 361 (RAG > LAG)3 | 46 vs 34 (RAG > LAG)3 | 40 vs 38 (NS) | 2.3 vs 11.4 (RAG < LAG)3 | 1.1 vs 0.2 (NS) | 14 vs 15 (RAG < LAG)3 |
| Kim et al[50] | RAG vs LAG | I-II-III | 223 | 211 | - | 226 vs 180 (RAG > LAG)3 | 50 vs 60 (NS) | 33 vs 32 (NS) | 13.5 vs 14.2 (NS) | 0 vs 0 | 7.8 vs 7.9 (NS) |
1
Mean value;
2
The authors compared 20 gastric cancer patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy with 20 initial patients who underwent laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (iLAG) and 20 recent laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy performed during the same period as the 20 robotic gastrectomy (rLAG);
3
Difference statistically significant, P < 0.05;
4
Major complications rate base on Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ 3, such as anastomotic and duodenal leakage. RAG: Robot-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy; LAG: Laparoscopic assisted gastrectomy; OG: Open gastrectomy; NR: Not reported; NS: Not statistically significant difference.