Cargando…

Reduced-port totally robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: 100 consecutive cases in comparison with conventional robotic and laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy

By overcoming technical difficulties with limited access faced when performing reduced-port surgery for gastric cancer, reduced-port totally robotic gastrectomy (RPRDG) could be a safe alternative to conventional minimally invasive gastrectomy. An initial 100 consecutive cases of RPRDG for gastric c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Seo, Won Jun, Son, Taeil, Shin, Hyejung, Choi, Seohee, Roh, Chul Kyu, Cho, Minah, Kim, Hyoung-Il, Hyung, Woo Jin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7524794/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32994484
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73118-9
_version_ 1783588616969125888
author Seo, Won Jun
Son, Taeil
Shin, Hyejung
Choi, Seohee
Roh, Chul Kyu
Cho, Minah
Kim, Hyoung-Il
Hyung, Woo Jin
author_facet Seo, Won Jun
Son, Taeil
Shin, Hyejung
Choi, Seohee
Roh, Chul Kyu
Cho, Minah
Kim, Hyoung-Il
Hyung, Woo Jin
author_sort Seo, Won Jun
collection PubMed
description By overcoming technical difficulties with limited access faced when performing reduced-port surgery for gastric cancer, reduced-port totally robotic gastrectomy (RPRDG) could be a safe alternative to conventional minimally invasive gastrectomy. An initial 100 consecutive cases of RPRDG for gastric cancer were performed from February 2016 to September 2018. Short-term outcomes for RPRDG with those for 261 conventional laparoscopic (CLDG) and for 241 robotic procedures (CRDG) over the same period were compared. Learning curve analysis for RPRDG was conducted to determine whether this procedure could be readily performed despite fewer access. During the first 100 cases of RPRDG, no surgeries were converted to open or laparoscopic surgery, and no additional ports were required. RPRDG showed longer operation time than CLDG (188.4 min vs. 166.2 min, p < 0.001) and similar operation time with CRDG (183.1 min, p = 0.315). The blood loss was 35.4 ml for RPRDG, 85.2 ml for CLDG (p < 0.001), and 41.2 ml for CRDG (p = 0.33). The numbers of retrieved lymph nodes were 50.5 for RPRDG, 43.9 for CLDG (p = 0.003), and 55.0 for CRDG (p = 0.055). Postoperative maximum C-reactive protein levels were 96.8 mg/L for RPRDG, 87.8 mg/L for CLDG (p = 0.454), and 81.9 mg/L for CRDG (p = 0.027). Learning curve analysis indicated that the overall operation time of RPRDG stabilized at 180 min after 21 cases. The incidence of major postoperative complications did not differ among groups. RPRDG for gastric cancer is a feasible and safe alternative to conventional minimally invasive surgery. Notwithstanding, this procedure failed to reduce postoperative inflammatory responses.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7524794
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75247942020-10-01 Reduced-port totally robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: 100 consecutive cases in comparison with conventional robotic and laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy Seo, Won Jun Son, Taeil Shin, Hyejung Choi, Seohee Roh, Chul Kyu Cho, Minah Kim, Hyoung-Il Hyung, Woo Jin Sci Rep Article By overcoming technical difficulties with limited access faced when performing reduced-port surgery for gastric cancer, reduced-port totally robotic gastrectomy (RPRDG) could be a safe alternative to conventional minimally invasive gastrectomy. An initial 100 consecutive cases of RPRDG for gastric cancer were performed from February 2016 to September 2018. Short-term outcomes for RPRDG with those for 261 conventional laparoscopic (CLDG) and for 241 robotic procedures (CRDG) over the same period were compared. Learning curve analysis for RPRDG was conducted to determine whether this procedure could be readily performed despite fewer access. During the first 100 cases of RPRDG, no surgeries were converted to open or laparoscopic surgery, and no additional ports were required. RPRDG showed longer operation time than CLDG (188.4 min vs. 166.2 min, p < 0.001) and similar operation time with CRDG (183.1 min, p = 0.315). The blood loss was 35.4 ml for RPRDG, 85.2 ml for CLDG (p < 0.001), and 41.2 ml for CRDG (p = 0.33). The numbers of retrieved lymph nodes were 50.5 for RPRDG, 43.9 for CLDG (p = 0.003), and 55.0 for CRDG (p = 0.055). Postoperative maximum C-reactive protein levels were 96.8 mg/L for RPRDG, 87.8 mg/L for CLDG (p = 0.454), and 81.9 mg/L for CRDG (p = 0.027). Learning curve analysis indicated that the overall operation time of RPRDG stabilized at 180 min after 21 cases. The incidence of major postoperative complications did not differ among groups. RPRDG for gastric cancer is a feasible and safe alternative to conventional minimally invasive surgery. Notwithstanding, this procedure failed to reduce postoperative inflammatory responses. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-09-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7524794/ /pubmed/32994484 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73118-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 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/.
spellingShingle Article
Seo, Won Jun
Son, Taeil
Shin, Hyejung
Choi, Seohee
Roh, Chul Kyu
Cho, Minah
Kim, Hyoung-Il
Hyung, Woo Jin
Reduced-port totally robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: 100 consecutive cases in comparison with conventional robotic and laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy
title Reduced-port totally robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: 100 consecutive cases in comparison with conventional robotic and laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy
title_full Reduced-port totally robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: 100 consecutive cases in comparison with conventional robotic and laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy
title_fullStr Reduced-port totally robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: 100 consecutive cases in comparison with conventional robotic and laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy
title_full_unstemmed Reduced-port totally robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: 100 consecutive cases in comparison with conventional robotic and laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy
title_short Reduced-port totally robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: 100 consecutive cases in comparison with conventional robotic and laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy
title_sort reduced-port totally robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: 100 consecutive cases in comparison with conventional robotic and laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7524794/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32994484
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73118-9
work_keys_str_mv AT seowonjun reducedporttotallyroboticdistalsubtotalgastrectomyforgastriccancer100consecutivecasesincomparisonwithconventionalroboticandlaparoscopicdistalsubtotalgastrectomy
AT sontaeil reducedporttotallyroboticdistalsubtotalgastrectomyforgastriccancer100consecutivecasesincomparisonwithconventionalroboticandlaparoscopicdistalsubtotalgastrectomy
AT shinhyejung reducedporttotallyroboticdistalsubtotalgastrectomyforgastriccancer100consecutivecasesincomparisonwithconventionalroboticandlaparoscopicdistalsubtotalgastrectomy
AT choiseohee reducedporttotallyroboticdistalsubtotalgastrectomyforgastriccancer100consecutivecasesincomparisonwithconventionalroboticandlaparoscopicdistalsubtotalgastrectomy
AT rohchulkyu reducedporttotallyroboticdistalsubtotalgastrectomyforgastriccancer100consecutivecasesincomparisonwithconventionalroboticandlaparoscopicdistalsubtotalgastrectomy
AT chominah reducedporttotallyroboticdistalsubtotalgastrectomyforgastriccancer100consecutivecasesincomparisonwithconventionalroboticandlaparoscopicdistalsubtotalgastrectomy
AT kimhyoungil reducedporttotallyroboticdistalsubtotalgastrectomyforgastriccancer100consecutivecasesincomparisonwithconventionalroboticandlaparoscopicdistalsubtotalgastrectomy
AT hyungwoojin reducedporttotallyroboticdistalsubtotalgastrectomyforgastriccancer100consecutivecasesincomparisonwithconventionalroboticandlaparoscopicdistalsubtotalgastrectomy