Feasibility of robotic radical gastrectomy using a monopolar device for gastric cancer
- 28 Downloads
Laparoscopic gastrectomy using ultrasonic devices occasionally causes postoperative pancreatic fistula. Robotic gastrectomy using monopolar scissors may reduce intraoperative injury to the pancreas. We evaluated the safety and feasibility of robotic gastrectomy.
A multicenter prospective study was conducted to evaluate the surgical outcomes of robotic gastrectomy. The primary endpoints were the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications and operative mortality.
A total of 115 patients were enrolled. The clinical T stages were T1 in 68 patients and T2 or higher in 47 patients. The types of surgery included distal gastrectomy (n = 72), total gastrectomy (n = 39), and proximal gastrectomy (n = 4). Two patients developed intraoperative complications (1.7%), but no cases required conversion to open surgery. The amylase concentration in drainage fluid was higher in cases with pancreatic compression, especially in those with compression for longer than 20 min. Postoperative complications of Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ II occurred in 11 patients (9.6%). There was no mortality. A multivariate analysis indicated that a high body mass index and pancreatic compression by an assistant for longer than 20 min were independent risk factors for postoperative complications (P = 0.029 and P = 0.010).
Robotic gastrectomy using monopolar scissors is safe and feasible. Robotic dissection without compression of the pancreas may reduce postoperative complications.
KeywordsGastric cancer Robotic surgery Laparoscopic surgery Gastrectomy Pancreatic fistula
OH contributed to the conception, data acquisition, analysis, and writing the manuscript. OK contributed to the conception, data acquisition, analysis, interpretation of data, and revision. MK contributed to the data acquisition. TS, TE, HS, and SY contributed to the interpretation of data and revision.
This work was supported by operating support grants from Kyoto University.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest in association with the present study.
- 1.Kitano S, Iso Y, Moriyama M, Sugimachi K. Laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1994;4(2):146–8.Google Scholar
- 3.Kim W, Kim HH, Han SU, Kim MC, Hyung WJ, Ryu SW, et al. Decreased morbidity of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy compared with open distal gastrectomy for stage I gastric cancer: short-term outcomes from a multicenter randomized controlled trial (KLASS-01). Ann Surg. 2016;263(1):28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Association Japanese Gastric Cancer. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver.3). Gastric Cancer. 2011;14(2):112–23.Google Scholar
- 10.Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 3rd English edn., Gastric Cancer, vol 14, no 2; 2011. pp. 101–12.Google Scholar
- 13.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):673–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Etoh T, Honda M, Kumamaru H, Miyata H, Yoshida K, Kodera Y, et al. Morbidity and mortality from a propensity score-matched, prospective cohort study of laparoscopic versus open total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: data from a nationwide web-based database. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(6):2766–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar