These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Systematic assessment of complications after robotic-assisted total versus distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A retrospective propensity score-matched study using Clavien-Dindo classification.
    Author: Wang WJ, Li R, Guo CA, Li HT, Yu JP, Wang J, Xu ZP, Chen WK, Ren ZJ, Tao PX, Zhang YN, Wang C, Liu HB.
    Journal: Int J Surg; 2019 Nov; 71():140-148. PubMed ID: 31568844.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Despite increasing evidence demonstrated robot-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) is safe and feasible for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC), robot-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) remains a challenging procedure due to its technical difficulties and possible postoperative complications (POCs). This study aimed to systematically evaluate POCs following RATG. METHODS: Between January 2017 and January 2019, 319 AGC patients with pathological stage T2-4aN0-3M0 who underwent RADG or RATG were enrolled. POCs were stratified using the Clavien-Dindo classification. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to reduce confounding differences. RESULTS: After matching, 266 patients met the criteria for further analysis. Ultimately, 64 patients (24.1%) who developed POCs had 126 clinical manifestation events. Overall the POCs rate was significantly greater after RATG in comparison with RADG (29.3% vs. 18.8%; P = 0.045), and more major POCs (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa) were observed in the RATG group (14.3% vs. 5.3%; P = 0.013). The POCs were then classified into local and systemic POCs. The rates of local POCs (35.3% vs. 19.5%; P = 0.004) and systemic POCs (24.8% vs. 15.0%; P = 0.046) were significantly higher in the RATG group than the RADG group. Subgroup analysis showed that the anastomotic leakage rate was higher after RATG (5.3% vs. 0.8%; P = 0.031), whereas the remaining POCs were similar between the two groups. Patients with higher POCs significantly had longer postoperative length of stay (R = 0.895, P = 0.003). Multivariate analysis confirmed age, extent of resection, and TNM stage were risk factors for all POCs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrated that RATG is technically feasible and safe for treatment of AGC with acceptable morbidity and mortality rates. The POCs rate of RATG was higher than RADG, especially for anastomotic leakage. More effective anastomotic techniques are needed in RATG to prevent leakage.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]