IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0103312.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Liang Zong
  • Yasuyuki Seto
  • Susumu Aikou
  • Takamasa Takahashi

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Liang Zong & Yasuyuki Seto & Susumu Aikou & Takamasa Takahashi, 2014. "Efficacy Evaluation of Subtotal and Total Gastrectomies in Robotic Surgery for Gastric Cancer Compared with that in Open and Laparoscopic Resections: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-11, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0103312
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103312
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103312
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103312&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0103312?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mircea Mănuc & Catalin Dutei & Matei R Bratu & Mircea Diculescu & Teodora Manuc & Mircea Mănuc & Matei R Bratu & Bogdan Cristea & Bogdan Berbescu & Mircea Diculescu & Catalin Vasilescu & Ioana Husar, 2019. "How to Decide about Robotic Surgery in Patients with Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer?," Cancer Therapy & Oncology International Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 15(1), pages 1-8, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0103312. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.