Major early complications following open, laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy
Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 250 Seongsanno, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-752, Korea. British Journal of Surgery
(Impact Factor: 5.54).
12/2012; 99(12). DOI: 10.1002/bjs.8924
Laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy have been adopted rapidly despite lack of evidence concerning technical safety and controversy regarding additional benefits. This study aimed to compare clinically relevant complications after open, laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy.
This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on surgical complications in patients undergoing gastrectomy with curative intent for histologically proven adenocarcinoma between 2005 and 2010 at the Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, Korea. Complications were categorized into wound infection, bleeding, anastomotic leak, obstruction, fluid collection and other.
In a total of 5839 patients (4542 open, 861 laparoscopic and 436 robotic gastrectomies), overall complication, reoperation and mortality rates were 10·5, 1·0 and 0·4 per cent respectively. There were no significant differences between the three groups. Ileus (P = 0·001) and intra-abdominal fluid collections (P = 0·013) were commoner after conventional open surgery. However, tumour stage was higher and more complex resections were performed in the open group. Anastomotic leak, the leading cause of death, occurred more often after a minimally invasive approach (P = 0·017).
Laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy had overall complication and mortality rates similar to those of open surgery, but anastomotic leaks were more common with the minimally invasive techniques. Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Available from: Guixiang Liao
- "The rate of anastomotic leakage was described in three studies [4,8,9]. No difference was observed in pooled analysis between 2.78% (14/504) for RG and 1.62% (85/5248) for OG (OR:1.72, "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Knowledge was performed. Systematic review was carried out to identify studies comparing robotic gastrectomy and open gastrectomy in gastric cancer. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were also analyzed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the surgery. A fixed effects model or a random effects model was utilized according to the heterogeneity.
Four studies involving 5780 patients with 520 (9.00%) cases of robotic gastrectomy and 5260 (91.00%) cases of open gastrectomy were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to open gastrectomy, robotic gastrectomy has a significantly longer operation time (weighted mean differences (WMD) =92.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 55.63 to 129.12, P<0.00001), lower blood loss (WMD: -126.08, 95% CI: -189.02 to -63.13, P<0.0001), and shorter hospital stay (WMD = -2.87; 95% CI: -4.17 to -1.56; P<0.0001). No statistical difference was noted based on the rate of overall postoperative complication, wound infection, bleeding, number of harvested lymph nodes, anastomotic leakage and postoperative mortality rate.
The results of this meta-analysis suggest that robotic gastrectomy is a better alternative technique to open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. However, more prospective, well-designed, multicenter, randomized controlled trials are necessary to further evaluate the safety and efficacy as well as the long-term outcome.
PLoS ONE 12/2013; 8(12):e81946. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0081946 · 3.23 Impact Factor
Available from: ocean.kisti.re.kr
- "Six of the included studies were published in English, and one published in Chinese (Zhang et al., 2012). Four studies were from Korea (Kim et al., 2012; Kang et al., 2012; Yoon et al., 2012; Hyun et al., 2013) and one from Turkey (Pugliese et al., 2010), and two from China (Zhang et al., 2012; Huang et al., 2012). The baseline characteristics and quality assessment of all included studies were listed in Table 1. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate and compare the outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for treating gastric cancer. A systematic literature search was carried out using the PubMed database, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library database to obtain comparative studies assessing the safety and efficiency between RG and LG in May, 2013. Data of interest were analyzed by using of Review Manager version 5.2 software (Cochrane Collaboration). A fixed effects model or random effects model was applied according to heterogeneity. Seven papers reporting results that compared robotic gastrectomy with laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer were selected for this meta-analysis. Our meta- analysis included 2,235 patients with gastric cancer, of which 1,473 had undergone laparoscopic gastrectomy, and 762 had received robotic gastrectomy. Compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy, robotic gastrectomy was associated with longer operative time but less blood loss. There were no significant difference in terms of hospital stay, total postoperative complication rate, proximal margin, distal margin, numbers of harvested lymph nodes and mortality rate between robotic gastrectomy and laparoscopic gastrectomy. Our meta-analysis showed that robotic gastrectomy is a safe technique for treating gastric cancer that compares favorably with laparoscopic gastrectomy in short term outcomes. However, the long term outcomes between the two techniques need to be further examined.
Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP 08/2013; 14(8):4871-4875. DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.8.4871 · 2.51 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Hintergrund: Anastomoseninsuffizienzen stellen die schwerwiegendste septische Komplikation nach viszeralchirurgischen Eingriffen dar. Neben der chirurgischen Therapie sind zunehmend endoskopische Behandlungsoptionen möglich. Methode: Literaturübersicht. Ergebnisse: Therapieoptionen von Anastomoseninsuffizienzen sind abhängig von der klinischen Symptomatik, der Art der Anastomose, der Defektgröße, den lokalen Gewebeverhältnissen sowie dem Zeitpunkt der Diagnose. Bei einer Nekrose oder Minderdurchblutung der Viszeralorgane müssen diese operativ reseziert werden. Prinzipiell sind alle operativen Revisionseingriffe auch laparoskopisch durchführbar. Bei erhaltener Gewebeperfusion können die Leckagen lokal übernäht oder endoskopisch verschlossen werden. Die Ergebnisse für die Stenttherapie nach Ösophagus- und Magenresektionen sind für moderne Stents sehr Erfolg versprechend. Im Gegensatz dazu sind die Ergebnisse der endoskopischen Stenttherapie bei Insuffizienz nach kolorektalen Eingriffen enttäuschend; dafür steht hier mit der Schwammtherapie eine vielversprechende endoskopische Alternative zur Verfügung. Schlussfolgerung: Die aktuellen Daten zeigen, dass neue laparoskopische und endoskopische Optionen zur Therapie von Anastomoseninsuffizienzen bestehen, die jedoch noch in prospektiven und randomisierten Studien evaluiert werden müssen.
Viszeralmedizin / Visceral Medicine 02/2013; 29(1):7-13. DOI:10.1159/000348266 · 0.10 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.