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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nishi, Masaaki, Wada, Yuma, Yoshikawa, Kozo, Takasu, Chie, Tokunaga, Takuya, Nakao, Toshihiro, Kashihara, Hideya, Yoshimoto, Toshiaki, Shimada, Mitsuo
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