Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopy-Assisted Proximal Gastrectomy for Early Gastric Cancer in the Upper Location : Comparison of Oncological Outcomes, Surgical Stress, and Nutritional Status

Abstract

Background:

An increasing amount of attention has been paid to minimally invasive function-preserving gastrectomy, with an increase in incidence of early gastric cancer in the upper stomach. This study aimed to compare oncological outcomes, surgical stress, and nutritional status between robot-assisted proximal gastrectomy (RAPG) and laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy (LAPG).

Methods:

Eighty-nine patients were enrolled in this retrospective study between November 2011 and December 2013. Among them, 27 patients underwent RAPG and 62 underwent LAPG. Perioperative parameters, surgical stress, nutritional status, disease-free survival, and overall survival were compared between the 2 groups.

Results:

Sex, age, and comorbidity were similar in the RAPG and LAPG groups. There were also similar perioperative outcomes regarding operation time, complications, and length of hospital stay between the groups. The reflux esophagitis rates following RAPG and LAPG were 18.5% and 14.5%, respectively ( P = .842). However, patients in the RAPG group had less blood loss ( P = .024), more harvested lymph nodes ( P = .021), and higher costs than those in the LAPG group ( P < .001). With regard to surgical stress, no significant differences were observed in C-reactive protein concentrations and white blood cell count on postoperative days 1, 3, and 7 between the groups ( Ps > .05). There appeared to be higher hemoglobin levels at 6 months ( P = .053) and a higher body mass index at 12 months ( P = .056) postoperatively in patients in the RAPG group compared with those in the LAPG group, but this difference was not significant. Similar disease-free survival and overall survival rates were observed between the groups.

Conclusions:

RAPG could be an alternative to LAPG for patients with early gastric cancer in the upper stomach with comparable oncological safety and nutritional status. Further well-designed, prospective, large-scale studies are needed to validate these results.