Efficacy Evaluation of Subtotal and Total Gastrectomies in Robotic Surgery for Gastric Cancer Compared with that in Open and Laparoscopic Resections: A Meta-Analysis

Liang Zong, Yasuyuki Seto, Susumu Aikou and Takamasa Takahashi

PLOS ONE, 2014, vol. 9, issue 7, 1-11

Abstract: Purposes: Robotic gastrectomy (RG), as an innovation of minimally invasive surgical method, is developing rapidly for gastric cancer. But there is still no consensus on its comparative merit in either subtotal or total gastrectomy compared with laparoscopic and open resections. Methods: Literature searches of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were performed. We combined the data of four studies for RG versus open gastrectomy (OG), and 11 studies for robotic RG versus laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Moreover, subgroup analyses of subtotal and total gastrectomies were performed in both RG vs. OG and RG vs. LG. Results: Totally 12 studies involving 8493 patients met the criteria. RG, similar with LG, significantly reduced the intraoperative blood loss than OG. But the duration of surgery is longer in RG than in both OG and LG. The number of lymph nodes retrieved in RG was close to that in OG and LG (WMD = −0.78 and 95% CI, −2.15−0.59; WMD = 0.63 and 95% CI, −2.24−3.51). And RG did not increase morbidity and mortality in comparison with OG and LG (OR = 0.92 and 95% CI, 0.69−1.23; OR = 0.72 and 95% CI, 0.25−2.06) and (OR = 1.06 and 95% CI, 0.84−1.34; OR = 1.55 and 95% CI, 0.49−4.94). Moreover, subgroup analysis of subtotal and total gastrectomies in both RG vs. OG and RG vs. LG revealed that the scope of surgical dissection was not a positive factor to influence the comparative results of RG vs. OG or LG in surgery time, blood loss, hospital stay, lymph node harvest, morbidity, and mortality. Conclusions: This meta-analysis highlights that robotic gastrectomy may be a technically feasible alternative for gastric cancer because of its affirmative role in both subtotal and total gastrectomies compared with laparoscopic and open resections.

Date: 2014
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103312 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 03312&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0103312

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103312

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().