Cargando…
Utility of robotic surgery for Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction: transhiatal robotic versus laparoscopic approach
BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery (RS) has been rapidly adopted for gastric cancer and adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG). However, the utility of RS for Siewert type II/III AEG remains unclear. METHODS: Forty-one patients who underwent either transhiatal RS (n = 15) or laparoscopic surg...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10186781/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37194030 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-023-02045-z |
_version_ | 1785042627937173504 |
---|---|
author | Nishi, Masaaki Wada, Yuma Yoshikawa, Kozo Takasu, Chie Tokunaga, Takuya Nakao, Toshihiro Kashihara, Hideya Yoshimoto, Toshiaki Shimada, Mitsuo |
author_facet | Nishi, Masaaki Wada, Yuma Yoshikawa, Kozo Takasu, Chie Tokunaga, Takuya Nakao, Toshihiro Kashihara, Hideya Yoshimoto, Toshiaki Shimada, Mitsuo |
author_sort | Nishi, Masaaki |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery (RS) has been rapidly adopted for gastric cancer and adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG). However, the utility of RS for Siewert type II/III AEG remains unclear. METHODS: Forty-one patients who underwent either transhiatal RS (n = 15) or laparoscopic surgery (LS) (n = 26) for Siewert type II/III AEG were enrolled in this study. The surgical outcomes of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: In the entire cohort, there were no significant intergroup differences in the operative time, blood loss volume, or number of retrieved lymph nodes. The length of the postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the RS group than in the LS group (14.20 ± 7.10 days vs. 18.73 ± 17.82 days, respectively; p = 0.0388). The morbidity rate (Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ 2) was similar between the groups. In the Siewert II cohort, there were no significant intergroup differences in short-term outcomes. In the entire cohort, there was no significant difference between the RS and LS groups in the 3-year overall survival rate (91.67% vs. 91.48%, N.S.) or 3-year disease-free survival rate (91.67% vs. 91.78%, N.S.), respectively. Likewise, in the Siewert type II cohort, there was no significant difference between the RS and LS groups in the 3-year overall survival rate (80.00% vs. 93.33%, N.S.) or 3-year disease-free survival rate (80.00% vs. 94.12%, N.S.), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Transhiatal RS for Siewert II/III AEG was safe and contributed to similar short-term and long-term outcomes compared with LS. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10186781 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101867812023-05-17 Utility of robotic surgery for Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction: transhiatal robotic versus laparoscopic approach Nishi, Masaaki Wada, Yuma Yoshikawa, Kozo Takasu, Chie Tokunaga, Takuya Nakao, Toshihiro Kashihara, Hideya Yoshimoto, Toshiaki Shimada, Mitsuo BMC Surg Research BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery (RS) has been rapidly adopted for gastric cancer and adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG). However, the utility of RS for Siewert type II/III AEG remains unclear. METHODS: Forty-one patients who underwent either transhiatal RS (n = 15) or laparoscopic surgery (LS) (n = 26) for Siewert type II/III AEG were enrolled in this study. The surgical outcomes of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: In the entire cohort, there were no significant intergroup differences in the operative time, blood loss volume, or number of retrieved lymph nodes. The length of the postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the RS group than in the LS group (14.20 ± 7.10 days vs. 18.73 ± 17.82 days, respectively; p = 0.0388). The morbidity rate (Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ 2) was similar between the groups. In the Siewert II cohort, there were no significant intergroup differences in short-term outcomes. In the entire cohort, there was no significant difference between the RS and LS groups in the 3-year overall survival rate (91.67% vs. 91.48%, N.S.) or 3-year disease-free survival rate (91.67% vs. 91.78%, N.S.), respectively. Likewise, in the Siewert type II cohort, there was no significant difference between the RS and LS groups in the 3-year overall survival rate (80.00% vs. 93.33%, N.S.) or 3-year disease-free survival rate (80.00% vs. 94.12%, N.S.), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Transhiatal RS for Siewert II/III AEG was safe and contributed to similar short-term and long-term outcomes compared with LS. BioMed Central 2023-05-16 /pmc/articles/PMC10186781/ /pubmed/37194030 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-023-02045-z Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Nishi, Masaaki Wada, Yuma Yoshikawa, Kozo Takasu, Chie Tokunaga, Takuya Nakao, Toshihiro Kashihara, Hideya Yoshimoto, Toshiaki Shimada, Mitsuo Utility of robotic surgery for Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction: transhiatal robotic versus laparoscopic approach |
title | Utility of robotic surgery for Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction: transhiatal robotic versus laparoscopic approach |
title_full | Utility of robotic surgery for Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction: transhiatal robotic versus laparoscopic approach |
title_fullStr | Utility of robotic surgery for Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction: transhiatal robotic versus laparoscopic approach |
title_full_unstemmed | Utility of robotic surgery for Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction: transhiatal robotic versus laparoscopic approach |
title_short | Utility of robotic surgery for Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction: transhiatal robotic versus laparoscopic approach |
title_sort | utility of robotic surgery for siewert type ii/iii adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction: transhiatal robotic versus laparoscopic approach |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10186781/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37194030 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-023-02045-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nishimasaaki utilityofroboticsurgeryforsiewerttypeiiiiiadenocarcinomaofesophagogastricjunctiontranshiatalroboticversuslaparoscopicapproach AT wadayuma utilityofroboticsurgeryforsiewerttypeiiiiiadenocarcinomaofesophagogastricjunctiontranshiatalroboticversuslaparoscopicapproach AT yoshikawakozo utilityofroboticsurgeryforsiewerttypeiiiiiadenocarcinomaofesophagogastricjunctiontranshiatalroboticversuslaparoscopicapproach AT takasuchie utilityofroboticsurgeryforsiewerttypeiiiiiadenocarcinomaofesophagogastricjunctiontranshiatalroboticversuslaparoscopicapproach AT tokunagatakuya utilityofroboticsurgeryforsiewerttypeiiiiiadenocarcinomaofesophagogastricjunctiontranshiatalroboticversuslaparoscopicapproach AT nakaotoshihiro utilityofroboticsurgeryforsiewerttypeiiiiiadenocarcinomaofesophagogastricjunctiontranshiatalroboticversuslaparoscopicapproach AT kashiharahideya utilityofroboticsurgeryforsiewerttypeiiiiiadenocarcinomaofesophagogastricjunctiontranshiatalroboticversuslaparoscopicapproach AT yoshimototoshiaki utilityofroboticsurgeryforsiewerttypeiiiiiadenocarcinomaofesophagogastricjunctiontranshiatalroboticversuslaparoscopicapproach AT shimadamitsuo utilityofroboticsurgeryforsiewerttypeiiiiiadenocarcinomaofesophagogastricjunctiontranshiatalroboticversuslaparoscopicapproach |