AIM: To compare the short-term clinical outcomes of robot-assisted gastrectomy(RAG) with laparoscopyassisted gastrectomy(LAG) in gastric cancer patients.METHODS: Articles were identified through a literature search of...AIM: To compare the short-term clinical outcomes of robot-assisted gastrectomy(RAG) with laparoscopyassisted gastrectomy(LAG) in gastric cancer patients.METHODS: Articles were identified through a literature search of Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and the Cochrane Library. Weighted mean differences(WMDs) and odds ratios(ORs) were selected as effect sizes for quantitative variables and qualitative variables, respectively. And 95%CIs were also calculated.RESULTS: A total of 13 studies with 3518 patients were included. RAG was associated with longer operative time(WMD = 46.26 min, 95%CI: 31.89-60.63, P < 0.00001), less blood loss [WMD =-37.19 m L, 95%CI:-60.16-(-14.23), P = 0.002] and shorter postoperative hospital stay [WMD =-0.65 d, 95%CI:-1.24-(-0.05), P = 0.03] than LAG. No significant difference in the numbers of retrieved lymph nodes was found between the two groups(WMD = 1.46, 95%CI:-0.19-3.10, P = 0.08). There was no significant difference in mortality(OR = 1.55, 95%CI: 0.49-4.94, P = 0.45), overall complications(OR = 1.00, 95%CI: 0.80-1.26, P = 0.98), anastomosis leakage(OR = 1.02, 95%CI: 0.62-1.65, P = 0.95) and anastomosis stenosis rates(OR = 0.54, 95%CI: 0.18-1.57, P = 0.25). CONCLUSION: RAG is effective and safe in the treatment of gastric cancer. RAG is a promising alternative to laparoscopic surgery. Long-term randomized controlled studies with large scale and improved designs are needed to further evaluate the long-term outcomes.展开更多
文摘AIM: To compare the short-term clinical outcomes of robot-assisted gastrectomy(RAG) with laparoscopyassisted gastrectomy(LAG) in gastric cancer patients.METHODS: Articles were identified through a literature search of Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and the Cochrane Library. Weighted mean differences(WMDs) and odds ratios(ORs) were selected as effect sizes for quantitative variables and qualitative variables, respectively. And 95%CIs were also calculated.RESULTS: A total of 13 studies with 3518 patients were included. RAG was associated with longer operative time(WMD = 46.26 min, 95%CI: 31.89-60.63, P < 0.00001), less blood loss [WMD =-37.19 m L, 95%CI:-60.16-(-14.23), P = 0.002] and shorter postoperative hospital stay [WMD =-0.65 d, 95%CI:-1.24-(-0.05), P = 0.03] than LAG. No significant difference in the numbers of retrieved lymph nodes was found between the two groups(WMD = 1.46, 95%CI:-0.19-3.10, P = 0.08). There was no significant difference in mortality(OR = 1.55, 95%CI: 0.49-4.94, P = 0.45), overall complications(OR = 1.00, 95%CI: 0.80-1.26, P = 0.98), anastomosis leakage(OR = 1.02, 95%CI: 0.62-1.65, P = 0.95) and anastomosis stenosis rates(OR = 0.54, 95%CI: 0.18-1.57, P = 0.25). CONCLUSION: RAG is effective and safe in the treatment of gastric cancer. RAG is a promising alternative to laparoscopic surgery. Long-term randomized controlled studies with large scale and improved designs are needed to further evaluate the long-term outcomes.
