Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques · 2026
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Remnant Gastric Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kitadani Junya, Hayata Keiji, Goda Taro, Tominaga Shinta, Fukuda Naoki, Nakai Tomoki, Nagano Shotaro, Kawai Manabu
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This retrospective study compares the short-term safety and feasibility-related clinical outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) for remnant gastric cancer (RGC) (including various types of initial reconstruction) with those of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).
METHODS: Forty-five patients underwent minimally invasive gastrectomy for RGC at our hospital between June 2012 and December 2024. LG was performed for 33 patients, and RG was performed for 12 patients.
RESULTS: The median operation time was significantly longer in the RG group than in the LG group (346 min vs. 295 min, P =0.020). The RG group had significantly less blood loss than the LG group (27 mL vs. 100 mL, P =0.005). The median number of harvested lymph nodes was comparable between the two groups. Conversion to an alternative surgical approach occurred in three cases in the LG group, and not at all in the RG group. The overall incidence of postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥II) was comparable between the LG and RG groups (27.3% vs. 25.0%). The median postoperative hospital stay was similar between them. The median interval from the initial gastrectomy to surgery for RGC was significantly longer in the Billroth-II group than in the Billroth-I group (50 y vs. 10 y, P <0.001).
CONCLUSION: Robotic gastrectomy could be applied for various types of RGC without conversion to another approach. Robotic gastrectomy for RGC was considered a safe and feasible approach.
METHODS: Forty-five patients underwent minimally invasive gastrectomy for RGC at our hospital between June 2012 and December 2024. LG was performed for 33 patients, and RG was performed for 12 patients.
RESULTS: The median operation time was significantly longer in the RG group than in the LG group (346 min vs. 295 min, P =0.020). The RG group had significantly less blood loss than the LG group (27 mL vs. 100 mL, P =0.005). The median number of harvested lymph nodes was comparable between the two groups. Conversion to an alternative surgical approach occurred in three cases in the LG group, and not at all in the RG group. The overall incidence of postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥II) was comparable between the LG and RG groups (27.3% vs. 25.0%). The median postoperative hospital stay was similar between them. The median interval from the initial gastrectomy to surgery for RGC was significantly longer in the Billroth-II group than in the Billroth-I group (50 y vs. 10 y, P <0.001).
CONCLUSION: Robotic gastrectomy could be applied for various types of RGC without conversion to another approach. Robotic gastrectomy for RGC was considered a safe and feasible approach.