Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

机器人对比腹腔镜胃癌根治术后的复发结局:一项多中心倾向性评分匹配研究

Translated title of the contribution: Recurrence outcomes of robotic-versus laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a multi-center propensity score-matched cohort study
  • Jun Lu
  • , Taiyuan Li
  • , Li Zhang
  • , Junjun She
  • , Junyu Chen
  • , Qing Zhong
  • , Zukai Wang
  • , Changming Huang
  • , Chaohui Zheng
  • Fujian Medical University
  • Nanchang University
  • Tianjin Medical University
  • The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Objective To compare and evaluate recurrence patterns after robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) versus laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG). Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of 2915 consecutive patients with gastric adenocarcinoma confirmed by postoperative histology as T1-4aN0-3M0, who had undergone minimally invasive radical gastrectomy at four large gastric cancer treatment centers (Fujian Medical University Union Hospital: 1426 patients; the First Affiliated Hospital, Nanchang University: 1108; Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital: 196; and First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University: 185 cases) between 1 January 2015 and 30 June 2019. 930 patients had undergone RAG (RAG group) and 1985 had undergone LAG (LAG group). We assessed the following characteristics: age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, comorbidities, tumor size, extent of surgery, extent of lymph node dissection, pT, pN, year of surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy, after propensity score matching (1:1). There were no significant differences in baseline clinical characteristics between the two groups formed by propensity score matching (837 in each group) (all P>0.05). The 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS), recurrence pattern, and conditional RFS were compared. Results We detected no significant differences in the overall recurrence rate at 3 years (128/837 [15.3%] vs. 141/837 [16.8%], P=0.387) or time to recurrence (15.7±8.1 months vs. 16.4±8.4 months, P=0.449) between the RAG and LAG groups. Peritoneal recurrence was the most common type of recurrence in both groups (55 [6.6%] vs. 69 [8.2%], P=0.524). The difference in 3-year RFS between the RAG and LAG groups was not statistically significant (83.2% vs. 82.5%, P=0.781). We found that age > 60 years, total gastrectomy, and worse pT stage and pN stage were independent risk factors for recurrence in the study patients (all P<0.05), whereas the surgical procedure (RAG or LAG) was not an independent risk factor for RFS (P=0.242). The 3-year conditional RFS at various time points was comparable between the two groups (1 year postoperatively: 84.6% vs. 84.7%, P=0.793; 3 years postoperatively: 91.5% vs. 94.9%, P=0.647). Conclusions In this multicenter study of patients with locally resectable gastric cancer, we demonstrated that RAG performed by surgeons at large gastric cancer centers is not inferior to LAG in 3-year recurrence rate or recurrence patterns.

Translated title of the contributionRecurrence outcomes of robotic-versus laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a multi-center propensity score-matched cohort study
Original languageChinese (Traditional)
Pages (from-to)799-807
Number of pages9
JournalZhonghua wei chang wai ke za zhi = Chinese journal of gastrointestinal surgery
Volume27
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - 25 Aug 2024
Externally publishedYes

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Recurrence outcomes of robotic-versus laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a multi-center propensity score-matched cohort study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this