Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Health Science Reports logoLink to Health Science Reports
. 2022 Aug 16;5(5):e746. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.746

Postoperative outcomes in robotic gastric resection compared with laparoscopic gastric resection in gastric cancer: A meta‐analysis and systemic review

Muhammad Ali 1,2,3, Yang Wang 1,3, Jianyue Ding 1,3, Daorong Wang 1,2,✉
PMCID: PMC9382053  PMID: 35989947

Abstract

Background

Robotic gastrectomy is a commonly used procedure for early gastric cancer and it also overcomes the limitation of laparoscopic. However, the complications of robotic gastrectomy (RG) still need to be assessed. Our study was designed to compare postoperative complications of RG with laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

Materials and Methods

A meta‐analysis and systemic review were prospectively collected using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE database of published studies by comparing the RG and LG with gastric cancer up to December 2021. To evaluate the postoperative outcomes, odds ratios were calculated for Dichotomous data and the mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for continuous data, and measured by the random‐effect model.

Results

Thirty‐two retrospective studies describing 13,585 patients (4484 RG and 9101 LG) satisfied the inclusion criteria. A statistically significant result was in blood loss (MD = −17.97, 95% Cl: −25.61 to 10.32, p < 0.001), Clavien−Dindo grade Ⅲ (odds ratio (OR) = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.48−0.76, p < 0.01), and harvested lymph node (MD = 2.62, 95% CI: 2.14−3.11, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between robotic gastrectomy surgery (RGS) and laparoscopic gastrectomy surgery (LGS) regarding distal resection margin (DRM), proximal resection margin (PRM), conversion rate, anastomotic leakage, and overall complications.

Conclusion

Having significant outcomes in Clavien–Dindo grade III, and blood loss, harvested lymph nodes are more common in RGS, and they also help in increasing the quality of life.

Keywords: gastric cancer, laparoscopic gastrectomy, robotic gastrectomy

1. INTRODUCTION

Gastric cancer at present is still a leading cause of health problems and death due to cancer and it is the 5th most regularly identified cancer around the globe. 1 The standard treatment for gastric cancer is surgical resection and open gastrectomy with lymph node dissection takes the main course in cancer treatment. Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) slowly spread worldwide and it was primarily informed in 1994 by Kitano et al. 2 The comparison between open and laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer of various clinical trials has shown similar outcomes. 3 , 4 , 5 However, laparoscopic surgery shows some sort of limitations such as the reduced sense of touch, lack of flexibility, two‐dimensional motion, and narrow movement range of the instrument. Also, LG requires a long learning pathway in lymph node dissection and causes physical stress. 6

In the meantime, Hashizume et al. were the first to perform robotic gastrectomy (RG) in 2003. 7 Recently, RG has got an attractive technique to cure gastric carcinoma. A study of nonrandomized trials and meta‐analysis has definite that robotic gastrectomy surgery (RGS) over laparoscopic gastrectomy surgery (LGS) for gastric carcinoma can recover short‐term and long‐term results and assuming, it will improve the operative and surgical results. 8 Distinguish studies between RG and LG have been informed of the patient's quality of life after minimal invasive surgery (MIS). 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 These studies were not randomized controlled trials, so there is still controversy between RG and LG.

RGS has been stated to overcome the limitation of LGS and offers new features like wide‐ranging tremor filtering, HD vision magnification with 3D stereoscopic, self‐determination of device motion, upgraded surgeon dexterity, and a shorter learning curve. 13 , 14 Robotic gastrectomy was testified to be correlated with a lesser extent of operative blood loss and shorter clinic stay than LG. 15 , 16

Therefore, the postoperative complication of RGS comparison to LGS management in early‐stage gastric carcinoma had not been evaluated yet.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Study strategy

We performed this study according to PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines as shown in Figure 1. The MINORS measure indicates the value of detailed studies that are meticulously satisfactory to little heterogeneity concerning their quality, with an average score of 22 (range: 19–23) as present in Table 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

PRISMA diagram of the data collection method

Table 1.

Studies elaboration in the meta‐analysis

n. Author Yr. Region Study period Study design Surgical extension Sample size MINOR Ref.
RG LG
1 Kim HI 2016 Korea 2011–2012 P D, T 185 185 23 9
2 Suda 2015 Japan 2009–2012 R D, T 88 438 22 10
3 Kim YW 2015 Korea 2009–2001 P D 87 288 20 11
4 Kim KM 2012 Korea 2005–2010 P D, T 436 861 23 12
5 Kang 2012 Korea 2008–2011 P D, T 100 282 22 13
6 Eom 2011 Korea 2009–2010 P D 30 62 22 17
7 Woo 2011 Japan 2005–2009 P D, T 236 591 23 18
8 Yoon 2011 Korea 2009–2011 R T 36 65 23 19
9 Son SY 2012 Korea 2007–2011 R D, P, T 21 42 19 20
10 Hyun 2013 Korea 2009–2010 P D, T 38 83 22 21
11 Kim HI 2013 Korea 2003–2009 P D, T 172 481 22 22
12 Huang 2014 Taiwan 2008–2014 P D, T 72 73 22 23
13 Junfeng 2014 China 2010–2013 R D, P, T 120 394 23 24
14 Son T 2014 Korea 2003–2010 P T 51 58 22 25
15 Han 2015 Korea 2008–2013 R PPG 68 68 23 26
16 Lee 2015 Korea 2003–2010 P D 133 267 21 27
17 Park 2015 Korea 2009–2011 P D, T 145 612 19 28
18 Cianchi 2016 Italy 2008–2015 P D 30 41 21 29
19 Hong 2016 Korea 2008–2015 P D 232 232 22 30
20 Nakauchi M 2016 Japan 2009–2012 R D, T 84 437 23 31
21 Okumura 2016 Japan 2003–2010 P D, T 370 132 22 32
22 Shen 2016 China 2011–2014 R D, T 93 330 21 33
23 Obama k 2017 Korea 2005–2009 P D, T 315 525 23 34
24 Parisi 2017 Italy 2015–2016 P D, T 151 151 21 35
25 Yang 2017 Korea 2009–2015 P D, T 173 511 21 36
26 Gao Y 2018 China 2011–2014 P D, P, T 163 339 21 37
27 Li Z 2018 China 2013–2017 P D, T 112 112 23 38
28 Liu 2018 China 2017–2017 R D, T 100 135 21 39
29 Lu 2018 China 2016–2017 P D, T 101 303 20 40
30 Wang WJ 2018 China 2016–2018 P D, T 223 223 23 41
31 Alhoassaini 2019 Korea 2005–2017 R T 25 30 23 42
32 Kong 2019 China 2016–2017 R D, P, T 294 750 23 43
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: D, distal gastrectomy; P, prospectively collected data; T, total gastrectomy; Yr, year.

2.2. PICO

2.2.1. Population

SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and PubMed database for articles available until December 2021.

2.2.2. Intervention

Having significant results in RGS, the Clavien–Dindo classification shows the most practicable and high‐quality approach for gastric cancer, with better surgical results due to the lesser number of patients in Clavien–Dindo grade Ⅲ.

2.2.3. Comparison

We considered studies that compared RGS with LGS for gastric cancer and focused on postoperative complications.

2.2.4. Outcome

Having significant outcomes in Clavien–Dindo grade III, and blood loss, harvested lymph nodes are more common in RGS, and they also help in increasing the quality of life.

2.2.5. Inclusion criteria

Retrospective studies involving the RGS comparison with LGS for gastric carcinoma. English language full‐text article containing at least one of the following postoperative complications; blood loss, conversion rate, DRM, PRM, Clavien–Dindo grade Ⅲ, HLN, anastomosis leakage, and overall complication.

2.2.6. Exclusion criteria

Articles about robotic or laparoscopic surgery that did not provide a comparison, evaluations that did not address complications, reviews, case reports, animal studies, and letters were all omitted.

2.3. Data collection and methodology

We systematically explored the literature by SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and PubMed database for articles available until December 2021. Our research work included the keywords “Robotic gastrectomy,” “laparoscopic gastrectomy,” and “gastric cancer.” Our search is limited to humans and English language articles.

2.4. Statistical analysis

RevMan 5.4 was implemented for statistical meta‐analysis. Summative figures are arranged according to descriptive analysis and we set the confidence interval (Cl) at 95%. Outcomes are reported for dichotomous as odds ratios (OR) and 95% Cl through Mantel–Haenszel way and continuous variables as mean difference (MD) through generic inverse variance way. Continuous data, standard deviation (SD), and mean were reported in median and range. We set statistically significant at (p < 0.05), Q statistics were used to assess the treatment effects of heterogeneities, and I 2 was assessed for the total variation studies.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Studies and patient characteristics

A total of 645 articles were found from PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library with the search word “robotic gastrectomy,” “laparoscopic gastrectomy,” and “gastric cancer.” After screening articles, 307 were excluded because of doubling, screened titles, abstracts, and not in English 81 were removed, and a total of 257 full‐text articles were retrieved from which 257 articles with “no comparison between RG versus LG,” “proximal gastrectomy only,” “case reports,” “conference study,” “literature,” and “editorial” were removed. A flow illustration of the research course is shown in Figure 1. Thirty‐two retrospective studies were included, in which 13,585 patient descriptions are shown in Table 1 and postoperative complications are shown in Table 2. All the articles were nonrandomized trials, in which 4484 patients experienced RG for GC, while 9101 went through LG for GC.

Table 2.

Postoperative complications

Postoperative outcome Types of surgery Observation n. Studies involved
Blood loss RG 3921 103.6 27
LG 8539 120.5
Conversion rate RG 2899 0.857 21
LG 6415 2.62
Overall complication RG 4484 16.5 32
LG 9101 34
Anastomotic leakage RG 3275 2.375 24
LG 6890 5.83
Clavien–Dindo Grade ≥ Ⅲ RG 2851 5.9 19
LG 5022 16.84
DRM RG 1468 6.69 11
LG 3257 6.51
PRM RG 1519 4.51 12
LG 3315 4.35
HLN RG 3813 39.77 28
LG 7691 34.37
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: DRM, distal resection margin; HLN, harvested lymph node; LG, laparoscopic gastrectomy; n, mean; PRM, proximal resection margin; RG, robotic gastrectomy.

3.2. Postoperative outcomes

We set the statistical (p < 0.05), Q statistics were used to assess the treatment effects of heterogeneity, and I 2 was assessed for the total variation studies as shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Result of the meta‐analysis

Outcome No. of studies Sample size Heterogeneity Overall effect size 95% Cl of overall effect p value
LG RG I 2 (%) p value
Overall complications 32 9101 4484 33 0.04 OR = 0.87 0.77,0.98 0.02
Blood loss 27 8539 3921 89 <0.001 MD = −17.97 −25.61, −10.32 <0.001
Anastomosis leakage 24 6890 3275 0 0.98 OR = 0.86 0.63,1.18 0.35
Clavien–Dindo grade Ⅲ 19 5022 2851 29 0.12 OR = 0.60 0.48,0.76 <0.001
DRM 11 3257 1468 80 <0.001 MD = 0.13 −0.05,0.32 0.15
PRM 12 3315 1519 0 0.55 MD = 0.07 −0.07,0.22 0.30
HLN 28 7691 3813 77 <0.001 MD = 2.62 2.14,3.11 <0.001
Conversion rate 21 6415 2899 12 0.33 OR = 0.71 0.38,1.33 0.29
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: Cl, confidence interval; DRM, distal resection margin; HLN, harvested lymph node; LG, laparoscopy gastrectomy; MD, mean difference; OR, odds ratio; PRM, proximal resection margin; RG, robotic gastrectomy. 

3.3. Blood loss

Meta‐analysis results showed a marked rise in the total amount of blood loss following the LG group compared with RG (MD = −17.97, 95% Cl: −25.61 to 10.32, p < 0.001) as shown in Figure 2A,B.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

(A, B) Forest graph and funnel graph for blood loss

3.4. Conversion rate

The overall conversion rate was 0.6% (18/2899) to open surgery (OS) in the RG group and 0.86% (55/6415) in the LG group. In this study, the conversion rate following OS was statistically not significant in 21 different trials within the two groups (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.38–1.33, p = 0.29) as shown in Figure 3A,B.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

(A, B) Forest graph and funnel graph for conversion rate

3.5. Overall complication

An overall complication has been found in multiple 32 studies. The proportion rate for overall complications was 11.8% (529/4484) in the RG group and 11.9% (1086/9101) in the LG group. The result for this study proposed a statistically significant (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.77–0.98, p = 0.02) as shown in Figure 4A,B.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

(A, B) Forest graph and funnel graph for overall complication

3.6. Clavien–Dindo classification grade Ⅲ

The frequency rate of complication in the nineteen retrospective studies reported that Clavien–Dindo grade > Ⅲ in the RG group was 3.9% (112/2851) and LG group was 6.3% (320/5022). The rate is lesser in RG as compared with LG (OR= 0.60, 95% CI: 0.48–0.76, p < 0.01) as shown in Figure 5A,B.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

(A, B) Forest graph and funnel graph for Clavien–Dindo grade Ⅲ

3.7. Anastomotic leakage

Overall anastomotic leakage was found in 24 studies. Therefore, the RG group was 1.7% (57/3275) and the LG group was 2.03% (140/6890). Our study did not show the most significant change in the anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.63–1.18, p = 0.35) as shown in Figure 6A,B.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

(A, B) Forest graph and funnel graph for anastomotic drip

3.8. Distal margin

Eleven out of 32 studies informed the DRM. The mean difference in the robotic gastrectomy was found at 6.69 while LG was 6.5. Our study indicated that there is no significant (MD = 0.13, 95% CI: −0.05 to 0.32, p = 0.15) as shown in Figure 7A,B.

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

(A, B) Forest graph and funnel graph for distal resection margin

3.9. Proximal margin

Following 32 studies the PRM was reported in 12. The mean distance in RG was 4.5 while LG was 4.4. There is no statistical difference seen in RG with comparison to LG group, a mean difference (MD = 0.07, 95% CI: −0.07 to 0.22, p = 0.30) as shown in Figure 8A,B.

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

(A, B) Forest graph and funnel graph for proximal resection margin

3.10. Harvested lymph node

Our study reported a raised number of the HLN in RG compared with LG (MD = 2.62, 95% CI: 2.14–3.11, p < 0.001). However, our data showed statistically significant as shown in Figure 9A,B.

Figure 9.

Figure 9

Open in a new tab

(A, B) Forest graph and funnel graph for the harvested lymph node

4. DISCUSSION

Over the past years, surgical resection has been the only quality treatment method for gastric cancer. Following the laparoscopic use for gastric carcinoma highly increased in the developing world. Because of certain limitations in laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery was developed to overcome the practical limitations of laparoscopy. However, robotic surgical resection is still slow due to technical problems, complications, and inefficient procedures. 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 A recent randomized clinical trial study also described that there is no significant reduction of infectious complications in RG compared with LG for gastric cancer. 47 Furthermore, fewer studies focus on robotic gastrectomy and LG postoperative complications. 22 , 48 , 49 Therefore, we performed a relevant meta‐analysis and compared the two approaches following the treatment of gastric cancer.

We analyzed the overall complication, blood loss, conversion rate, Clavien–Dindo grade Ⅲ, anastomotic leakage, DRM, PRM, and HLN. Specifically, we find a significant difference in blood loss, Clavien–Dindo grade Ⅲ, and harvested lymph nodes between the two approaches.

Our study informed that the practice of robotic surgery is related to a significant blood loss reduction. Therefore, intraoperative blood loss and the resultant reduced perioperative plasma transfusions are related to improved short‐term clinical management, which shows a correlation to upgraded long‐term oncological consequences. 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 46 , 47

Our meta‐analysis exposed that the conversion rate following OS was not significant concerning the necessity for reoperation and postsurgical mortality rate. At the same time, the MIS gastrectomy reported several adhesions, quality precisions to technical difficulties, and extensive damage to adjacent organs. 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34

Overall complications did not expose any statistically significant outcome. However, the robotic group showed 11.8%, and the laparoscopic group showed 11.9%. We also analyzed the complication according to Clavien–Dindo grade > Ⅲ. It allows us to evaluate the surgical outcomes in medical practice, and this is a simple, objective, reproducible, and good worldwide tool for evaluating postoperative progression. We examined grade Ⅲ postoperative complication as it is the most challenging following the quality of life, clinical assistance, and improved survival. However, our study showed a lower rate in RG of 3.9% compared with LG at 6.3%. 9 , 11 , 20 , 24 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42

This study showed that anastomosis leakage was almost the same in both groups, but our result's statistical value is not significant. In our meta‐analysis, laparoscopic and robotic approaches for DRM were 6.5% and 6.7% and in PRM were 4.4% and 4.5%, respectively. Furthermore, the previous meta‐analysis also described distal and proximal resection margins are not statistically significant but did not provide any specific bias study data. 50 So, our study concluded that it may be because of the fewer study data as shown in Figures 7B and 8B. Anyhow, still need more clinical studies on it.

The extent of lymph node recovery in the laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy's statistically significant, but we have seen an increased rate of the harvested lymph node in RGS as compared with LGS. 10 , 11 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 32 A previous meta‐analysis also concluded that lymph nodes are more harvested in RG as compared with LG but did not provide specific bias study data on it. 51 In our meta‐analysis, we concluded that it may be due to a biased study as shown in Figure 9B. as a result, additional clinical trials are required.

In our study, all the articles assessed the comparison between robotic and LG. To our knowledge, this is the first study that specifically compared postoperative outcomes. Though, there are many limitations. All the detailed studies are retrospective and nonrandomized. Variable quantity analysis showed heterogeneity owing to the retrospective analysis's characteristics and the different surgeons used altered surgical skills according to regional dissimilarity. Anyhow, more clinical research on a large scale in postoperative complications is required to know a better outcome for long‐term survival.

5. CONCLUSION

It concludes that the practice of robotic gastrectomy is the most feasible and quality technique for gastric carcinoma, with improved surgical outcomes due to harvested lymph nodes, Clavien–Dindo grade Ⅲ, and intraoperative blood loss as compared with LG. However, it still needs to be testified with additional clinical trials. Furthermore, long‐lived oncological consequences must be the main issue for further studies.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION

Conceptualization, literature review, protocol development, title, and abstract review, full‐text review, data extraction, manuscript writing, revision, and submission: Muhammad Ali. Data collection and revision: Yang Wang and Jianyue Ding. Study direction and final revision: Daorong Wang.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

TRANSPARENCY STATEMENT

The lead author (manuscript guarantor) affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Special thanks to Professor Daorong Wang from Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital for helpful statistical advice.

Ali M, Wang Y, Ding J, Wang D. Postoperative outcomes in robotic gastric resection compared with laparoscopic gastric resection in gastric cancer: a meta‐analysis and systemic review. Health Sci Rep. 2022;5:e746. 10.1002/hsr2.746

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data are available via referenced articles. Any further data regarding the article can be made available upon sensible request to the corresponding author.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Tabernero J, Hoff PM, Shen L, et al. Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab and chemotherapy for HER2‐positive metastatic gastric or gastro‐oesophageal junction cancer (JACOB): final analysis of a double‐blind, randomised, placebo‐controlled phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(10):1372‐1384. 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30481-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Seigo Kitano . Laparoscopy‐assisted Billroth I gastrectomy—PubMed. 2013. Accessed February 17, 2021. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8180768/
  • 3. Scatizzi M, Kröning KC, Lenzi E, Moraldi L, Cantafio S, Feroci F. Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a case‐control study. Updates Surg. 2011;63(1):17‐23. 10.1007/s13304-011-0043-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Roukos DH. Current status and future perspectives in gastric cancer management. Cancer Treat Rev. 2000;26(4):243‐255. 10.1053/ctrv.2000.0164 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Song J, Lee HJ, Cho GS, et al. Recurrence following laparoscopy‐assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective analysis of 1,417 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(7):1777‐1786. 10.1245/s10434-010-0932-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Kang SY, Lee SY, Kim CY, Yang DH. Comparison of learning curves and clinical outcomes between laparoscopy‐assisted distal gastrectomy and open distal gastrectomy. J Gastric Cancer. 2010;10(4):247‐253. 10.5230/jgc.2010.10.4.247 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Hashizume M, Sugimachi K. Robot‐assisted gastric surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2003;83(6):1429‐1444. 10.1016/S0039-6109(03)00158-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Chen L, Wang Q, Liu Y, et al. A meta‐analysis of robotic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy in gastric cancer treatment. Asian J Surg. 2022;45(2):698‐706. 10.1016/J.ASJSUR.2021.07.069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Kim HI, Han SU, Yang HK, et al. Multicenter prospective comparative study of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2016;263(1):103‐109. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001249 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Suda K, Man‐i M, Ishida Y, Kawamura Y, Satoh S, Uyama I. Potential advantages of robotic radical gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in comparison with conventional laparoscopic approach: a single institutional retrospective comparative cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(3):673‐685. 10.1007/s00464-014-3718-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Kim YW, Reim D, Park JY, et al. Role of robot‐assisted distal gastrectomy compared to laparoscopy‐assisted distal gastrectomy in suprapancreatic nodal dissection for gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(4):1547‐1552. 10.1007/s00464-015-4372-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Kim KM, An JY, Kim HI, Cheong JH, Hyung WJ, Noh SH. Major early complications following open, laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy. Br J Surg. 2012;99(12):1681‐1687. 10.1002/bjs.8924 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Kang BH, Xuan Y, Hur H, Ahn CW, Cho YK, Han SU. Comparison of surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: the learning curve of robotic surgery. J Gastric Cancer. 2012;12(3):156‐163. 10.5230/jgc.2012.12.3.156 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Ojima T, Nakamura M, Nakamori M, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2018;19:1. 10.1186/s13063-018-2810-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Yang K, Cho M, Roh CK, et al. Robotic spleen‐preserving splenic hilar lymph node dissection during total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(7):2357‐2363. 10.1007/s00464-019-06772-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Marano A, Young Choi Y, Hyung WJ, Min Kim Y, Kim J, Noh SH. Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy: a meta‐analysis. J Gastric Cancer. 2013;13(3):136‐148. 10.5230/jgc.2013.13.3.136 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Eom BW, Yoon HM, Ryu KW, et al. Comparison of surgical performance and short‐term clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic surgery in distal gastric cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38(1):57‐63. 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Woo Y, Hyung WJ, Pak KH, et al. Robotic gastrectomy as an oncologically sound alternative to laparoscopic resections for the treatment of early‐stage gastric cancers. Arch Surg. 2011;146(9):1086‐1092. 10.1001/archsurg.2011.114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Yoon HM, Kim YW, Lee JH, et al. Robot‐assisted total gastrectomy is comparable with laparoscopically assisted total gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(5):1377‐1381. 10.1007/s00464-011-2043-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Son S‐Y, Lee CM, Ahn S‐H, Lee JH, Park DJ, Kim H‐H. Clinical outcome of robotic gastrectomy in gastric cancer in comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy: a case‐control study. J Minim Invasive Surg. 2012;15(2):27. 10.7602/jmis.2012.15.2.27 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Hyun MH, Lee CH, Kwon YJ, et al. Robot versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer by an experienced surgeon: comparisons of surgery, complications, and surgical stress. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(4):1258‐1265. 10.1245/s10434-012-2679-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Kim HI, Park MS, Song KJ, Woo Y, Hyung WJ. Rapid and safe learning of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: multidimensional analysis in a comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(10):1346‐1354. 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.09.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Huang KH, Lan YT, Fang WL, et al. Comparison of the operative outcomes and learning curves between laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):111499. 10.1371/journal.pone.0111499 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Junfeng Z, Yan S, Bo T, et al. Robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison of surgical performance and short‐term outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(6):1779‐1787. 10.1007/s00464-013-3385-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Son T, Ho J, Yoo L, Kim M. Robotic spleen‐preserving total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopic procedure. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:2606‐2615. 10.1007/s00464-014-3511-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Han DS, Suh YS, Ahn HS, et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes of robot‐assisted and laparoscopy‐assisted pylorus‐preserving gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(7):2323‐2328. 10.1245/s10434-014-4204-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Lee J, Kim YM, Woo Y, Obama K, Noh SH, Hyung WJ. Robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer patients with high body mass index: comparison with conventional laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(11):3251‐3260. 10.1007/s00464-015-4069-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Park JY, Ryu KW, Reim D, et al. Robot‐assisted gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: is it beneficial in viscerally obese patients compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy? World J Surg. 2015;39(7):1789‐1797. 10.1007/s00268-015-2998-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Cianchi F, Indennitate G, Trallori G, et al. Robotic vs laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective comparative mono‐institutional study. BMC Surg. 2016;16(1):1‐6. 10.1186/s12893-016-0180-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Hong SS, Son SY, Shin HJ, Cui LH, Hur H, Han SU. Can robotic gastrectomy surpass laparoscopic gastrectomy by acquiring long‐term experience? A propensity score analysis of a 7‐year experience at a single institution. J Gastric Cancer. 2016;16(4):240‐246. 10.5230/jgc.2016.16.4.240 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Nakauchi M, Suda K, Susumu S, et al. Comparison of the long‐term outcomes of robotic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer and conventional laparoscopic approach: a single institutional retrospective cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(12):5444‐5452. 10.1007/s00464-016-4904-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Okumura N, Son T, Kim YM, et al. Robotic gastrectomy for elderly gastric cancer patients: comparisons with robotic gastrectomy in younger patients and laparoscopic gastrectomy in the elderly. Gastric Cancer. 2016;19(4):1125‐1134. 10.1007/s10120-015-0560-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Shen W, Xi H, Wei B, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison of short‐term surgical outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(2):574‐580. 10.1007/s00464-015-4241-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Obama K, Kim YM, Kang DR, et al. Long‐term oncologic outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy. Gastric Cancer. 2018;21(2):285‐295. 10.1007/s10120-017-0740-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Parisi A, Reim D, Borghi F, et al. Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: a comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23(13):2376‐2384. 10.3748/wjg.v23.i13.2376 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Yang SY, Roh KH, Kim YN, et al. Surgical outcomes after open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(7):1770‐1777. 10.1245/s10434-017-5851-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Gao Y, Xi H, Qiao Z, et al. Comparison of robotic‐ and laparoscopic‐assisted gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer: updated short‐ and long‐term results. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(2):528‐534. 10.1007/s00464-018-6327-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Li Z, Li J, Li B, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score‐matched analysis. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:705‐714. 10.2147/CMAR.S161007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Liu HB, Wang WJ, Li HT, et al. Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2018;55(April):15‐23. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.05.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Lu J, Zheng HL, Li P, et al. A propensity score‐matched comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: oncological, cost, and surgical stress analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22(7):1152‐1162. 10.1007/s11605-018-3785-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Wang WJ, Li HT, Yu JP, et al. Severity and incidence of complications assessed by the Clavien–Dindo classification following robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a retrospective and propensity score‐matched study. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(10):3341‐3354. 10.1007/s00464-018-06624-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Alhossaini RM, Altamran AA, Cho M, et al. Lower rate of conversion using robotic‐assisted surgery compared to laparoscopy in completion total gastrectomy for remnant gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(2):847‐852. 10.1007/s00464-019-06838-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Kong Y, Cao S, Liu X, et al. Short‐term clinical outcomes after laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2020;24(3):531‐539. 10.1007/s11605-019-04158-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Gutt CN, Oniu T, Mehrabi A, Kashfi A, Schemmer P, Büchler MW. Robot‐assisted abdominal surgery. Br J Surg. 2004;91(11):1390‐1397. 10.1002/bjs.4700 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC. Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg. 2004;239(1):14‐21. 10.1097/01.sla.0000103020.19595.7d [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Liu H, Kinoshita T, Tonouchi A, Kaito A, Tokunaga M. What are the reasons for a longer operation time in robotic gastrectomy than in laparoscopic gastrectomy for stomach cancer. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(1):192‐198. 10.1007/S00464-018-6294-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Ojima T, Nakamura M, Hayata K, et al. Short‐term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy vs laparoscopic gastrectomy for patients with gastric cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(10):954‐963. 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.3182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Zong L, Seto Y, Aikou S, Takahashi T. Efficacy evaluation of subtotal and total gastrectomies in robotic surgery for gastric cancer compared with that in open and laparoscopic resections: a meta‐analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:7. 10.1371/journal.pone.0103312 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Chen K, Pan Y, Zhang B, Maher H, Wang XF, Cai XJ. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and updated meta‐analysis. BMC Surg. 2017;17(1). 10.1186/S12893-017-0290-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Ma J, Li X, Zhao S, Zhang R, Yang D. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2020;18(1):1‐14. 10.1186/s12957-020-02080-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Guerrini GP, Esposito G, Magistri P, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: the largest meta‐analysis. Int J Surg. 2020;82(August):210‐228. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.07.053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available via referenced articles. Any further data regarding the article can be made available upon sensible request to the corresponding author.

Articles from Health Science Reports are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES