The application of robot-assisted technology in gastric cancer surgery is gradually gaining attention from surgeons. In this meta-analysis, our main objective was to assess whether robot-assisted techniques are more advantageous than laparoscopic-assisted technology in total gastrectomy.

We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for clinical studies published before October 2023 comparing robotic-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for gastric cancer. Non-clinical studies, data unavailability, or fewer than 50 included cases were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias by determining the quality of the observational studies. Statistical meta-analysis and drawing were performed using the Software Review Manager version 5.3 and Stata version 16.0. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Nine studies that included 1,864 patients with gastric cancer were included, published between 2012 and 2023. The results of the analysis showed that RATG has advantages in the following aspects: intraoperative blood loss was 17.69 ml lower in the RATG group than in the LATG group (WMD: -17.69,95% CI:-20.90 ∼ -14.49; P < 0.05); In terms of the number of resected lymph nodes, the RATG group had 2.65 more than the LATG group (WMD: 2.65,95% CI:0.88 ∼ -4.42); P < 0.05); the time to start liquid and postoperative hospital stays were 0.62 and 0.90 days shorter in the RATG group than in the LATG group, respectively (WMD: -0.62,95%CI: -1.06 ∼ -0.19; P < 0.05), (WMD: -0.90,95%CI: -1.43 ∼ -0.37; P < 0.05)); the incidence of major complications and pancreas fistula in the RATG group was 0.59% and 0.17% lower than in the LATG group, respectively (OR: 0.59,95% CI: 0.38 ∼ 0.93; P < 0.05), (OR: 0.17,95% CI: 0.03 ∼ 0.94; P < 0.05). However, the analysis showed that the operative time in the RATG group was 30.96 min longer than in the LATG group (WMD: 30.96,95% CI: 21.24 ∼ 40.69; P < 0.05).

Based on the results of this meta-analysis, we concluded that robotic-assisted technology may be a worthwhile technique to apply in the surgical treatment of total gastrectomy. However, this meta-analysis has the limitations that the included studies were all non-randomized controlled trials and published in Asian countries, and more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed for further validation in the future.

The study protocol for this meta-analysis is registered on the PROSPERO website under registration number CRD42024500512.

Nowadays, gastric cancer has become a significant issue in the global cancer burden, and its impact cannot be ignored. The rapid development of artificial intelligence technology is attempting to address this situation, aiming to change the clinical management landscape of gastric cancer fundamentally. In this transformative change, machine learning and deep learning, as two core technologies, play a pivotal role, bringing unprecedented innovations and breakthroughs in the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis evaluation of gastric cancer. This article comprehensively reviews the latest research status and application of artificial intelligence algorithms in gastric cancer, covering multiple dimensions such as image recognition, pathological analysis, personalized treatment, and prognosis risk assessment. These applications not only significantly improve the sensitivity of gastric cancer risk monitoring, the accuracy of diagnosis, and the precision of survival prognosis but also provide robust data support and a scientific basis for clinical decision-making. The integration of artificial intelligence, from optimizing the diagnosis process and enhancing diagnostic efficiency to promoting the practice of precision medicine, demonstrates its promising prospects for reshaping the treatment model of gastric cancer. Although most of the current AI-based models have not been widely used in clinical practice, with the continuous deepening and expansion of precision medicine, we have reason to believe that a new era of AI-driven gastric cancer care is approaching.

This review and meta-analysis evaluates the short-term surgical results of robot-assisted gastrectomy compared to 3D laparoscopic gastrectomy in individuals with gastric cancer. This study used scholarly articles from peer-reviewed articles of PubMed. Further, this study uses other sources, such as, Embase, CNKI, and the Cochrane Library, to gather relevant studies on gastrectomy for gastric cancer which are made public from the inception of these databases up to July 15, 2024. This study seeks to primarily draw similarities between the therapeutic efficacy of robot-assisted gastrectomy (RG) and the 3D laparoscopic gastrectomy (3D-LG). Similarly, this study will strictly adhere to the inclusion and exclusion guidelines, focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort research. A total of 1231 gastric cancer patients were involved in incorporating seven retrospective cohort studies as the final analysis in the study with 533 undergoing robot-assisted gastrectomy and 698 undergoing 3D-LG. The results showed that patients who received robotic-assisted gastrectomy experienced superior outcomes regarding EBL and time-to-first postoperative exhaust compared to those who underwent 3D-LG. However, the robotic-assisted approach was related to a reduced number of LNY. Besides, there were similarities between the two surgical techniques in relation to OT, LOHS, and post-surgery complications. In summary, robot-assisted gastrectomy is acknowledged as a secure and efficient treatment option for individuals with stomach cancer. This approach demonstrated notable benefits compared to 3D-LG, particularly with regard to estimated intraoperative blood loss and the timing of the first postoperative exhaust.

Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of gastric cancer, however, its comparative safety and efficacy against the laparoscopic approach (LDG), remains unclear, especially when accounting the reconstruction method as a confounder. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of RDG vs LDG In patIents with gastric cancer, undergoing Billroth I and II reconstruction. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We searched Pubmed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library, up to October 22nd, 2024. The primary outcomes analyzed were the blood loss, operative duration, and the number of harvested lymph nodes and the secondary outcomes included overall complications, time to oral intake, duration of hospitalization and time to first flatus. Random-effects models were used to calculate weighted mean differences (WMD) and Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. P values were also calculated. Sensitivity analysis was performed for outcomes with moderate to high heterogeneity. Five studies were included, involving 811 patients (RDG: n = 289, LDG: n = 522). RDG was associated with a significantly longer operative duration compared to LDG (WMD = 34.14 min, 95%CI 10.92 to 57.35, P = 0.004, I2 = 91%). RDG patients initiated oral intake earlier (WMD = -0.20 days, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.01, P = 0.03, I2 = 45%). RDG resulted in shorter hospital stays (WMD = -1.48 days, 95%CI -2.91 to -0.04, P = 0.04, I2 = 86%). RDG patients had a faster return to bowel function (time to first flatus) (WMD = -0.33 days, 95%CI -0.50 to -0.15, P = 0.00003, I2 = 57%). No statistically significant differences were observed regarding blood loss between RDG and LDG (WMD = -3.88 mL, 95%CI -21.63 to 13.87, P = 0.67, I2 = 78%). There was no statistically significant difference in complication rates (OR = 0.61, 95%CI 0.36 to 1.03, P = 0.06, I2 = 0%). No significant differences were observed regarding the number of lymph nodes harvested (WMD = -0.49, 95%CI -3.02 to 2.04, P = 0.70, I2 = 24%). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the findings of operative duration and time to first flatus. RDG with BI/ BII requires longer operative duration, but it associated with faster recovery compared to LDG. No differences were observed between RDG and LDG with regards to overall complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and blood loss, showing that RDG is as safe and oncological equivalent to LDG. Future studies particularly, multi-center randomized clinical trials, should have a longer follow up period and examine the type of reconstruction separately. PROSPERO registration: CRD42024605895.

Telesurgery has been made increasingly possible with the advancements in robotic surgical platforms and network connectivity. However, long-distance transnational complex robotic surgeries such as gastrectomy have yet to be attempted.

Multiple transnational network connections by Science Innovation Network (SINET), Japan Gigabit Network (JGN), and Arterial Research and Education Network in Asia-Pacific (ARENA-PAC) were established and tested by multiple surgeons in a dry box model. Surgeons' perceptions of the different networks were recorded. Three robotic radical D2 gastrectomies in live porcine models were performed at a hospital in Toyoake, Japan, by a surgical team in a hospital in Singapore ~5000 km away, using the hinotori Surgical Robot System (Medicaroid Corporation).

The live porcine robotic gastrectomies were all completed in under 205 min with no intraoperative complications. From the different networks that were tested, the differences in latency ranged from 107 to 132 ms and did not translate to any significant differences in surgeon timings and perceptions.

Transnational telesurgical radical D2 gastrectomy is feasible in a porcine model. There is no appreciable difference between surgeon performance and perception with network latencies of 107-132 ms. Long-range telesurgery as clinical practice may become possible in the future.

Following laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), one of the critical complications that can arise is a pancreatic fistula (PF). The inability to promptly prevent, diagnose, and manage this condition can lead to severe complications and potentially be life-threatening for the patient. The incidence of PF post-LG in gastric cancer treatment is related to factors such as surgical approach, surgical instruments, characteristics of the pancreas itself, tumor stage, and the surgeon's experience. Currently, the diagnosis of postoperative PF is mainly based on the definition and diagnostic criteria consensus established by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery. Gastrointestinal surgeons should be aware of the risk factors for PF, perform LG for gastric cancer with great care and precision, avoid pancreatic injury, and actively work to reduce the risk of postoperative PF.

Distal gastrectomy (DG) with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer is routinely performed. In this meta-analysis, we present an updated overview of the perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic DG (LDG) and robotic DG (RDG) to compare their safety and overall outcomes in patients undergoing DG. An extensive search was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the establishment of the database to June 2023 for randomized clinical trials comparing RDG and LDG. The primary outcome was operative results, postoperative recovery, complications, adequacy of resection, and long-term survival. We identified twenty studies, evaluating 5,447 patients (1,968 and 3,479 patients treated with RDG and LDG, respectively). We observed no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the proximal resection margin, number of dissected lymph nodes, major complications, anastomosis site leakage, time to first flatus, and length of hospital stay. The RDG group had a longer operative time (P < 0.00001), lesser bleeding (P = 0.0001), longer distal resection margin (P = 0.02), earlier time to oral intake (P = 0.02), fewer overall complications (P = 0.004), and higher costs (P < 0.0001) than the LDG group. RDG is a promising approach for improving LDG owing to acceptable complications and the possibility of radical resection. Longer operative times and higher costs should not prevent researchers from exploring new applications of robotic surgery.

Minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is debated. The aim of this study was to execute a comprehensive assessment of principal surgical treatments for resectable distal gastric cancer.

Systematic review and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) network meta-analysis. Open (Op-DG), laparoscopic-assisted (LapAs-DG), totally laparoscopic (Lap-DG), and robotic distal gastrectomy (Rob-DG) were compared. Pooled effect-size measures were the risk ratio (RR), the weighted mean difference (WMD), and the 95% credible intervals (CrIs).

Ten RCTs (3823 patients) were included. Overall, 1012 (26.5%) underwent Lap-DG, 902 (23.6%) LapAs-DG, 1768 (46.2%) Op-DG, and 141 (3.7%) Rob-DG. Anastomotic leak, severe complications (Clavien-Dindo > 3), and in-hospital mortality were comparable. No differences were observed for reoperation rate, pulmonary complications, postoperative bleeding requiring transfusion, surgical-site infection, cardiovascular complications, number of harvested lymph nodes, and tumor-free resection margins. Compared to Op-DG, Lap-DG and LapAs-DG showed a significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss with a trend toward shorter time to first flatus and reduced length of stay.

LapAs-DG, Lap-DG, and Rob-DG performed in referral centers by dedicated surgeons have comparable short-term outcomes to Op-DG for locally AGC.

Prevention of pancreas-related complications after gastric cancer surgery is critical. Polyglycolic acid (PGA) mesh reduces postoperative pancreatic fistula formation following pancreatic resection. However, the clinical efficacy of PGA mesh in gastric cancer surgery has not been adequately investigated.

This retrospective study compared the short-term outcomes between two groups: patients who underwent minimally invasive R0 gastrectomy for gastric cancer with the use of a PGA mesh (PGA group) and those without the use of a PGA mesh (non-PGA group) at the Cancer Institute Hospital, Tokyo, between January 2019 and May 2023. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to adjust for the possible confounding factors.

A total of 834 patients were initially included, of whom 614 (307 in each group) remained after PSM. The amylase levels in the drained abdominal fluid on postoperative days 1 and 3 were similar between the PGA and non-PGA groups. The PGA group had a significantly lower incidence of pancreas-related complications of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥2 than that in the non-PGA group (6.8% vs. 2.9%, P=0.025). In subgroup analyses, the odds ratio for pancreas-related complications appeared to be better in the PGA group than in the non-PGA group in patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification score of 2 or 3, those operated via a laparoscopic approach, and those undergoing procedures other than proximal gastrectomy.

The use of PGA mesh significantly reduced pancreas-related complications after minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer and might thus benefit patients at risk of such complications.

Minimally invasive distal gastrectomy (MIDG) is non-inferior compared with open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. However, MIDG bears a learning curve (LC). This study aims to evaluate the number of cases required to surmount the LC (i.e. NLC) in MIDG.

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to August 2022 for studies which reported NLC in MIDG. NLC on reduced-port/single-port MIDG only were separately analysed. Poisson mean (95% confidence interval (CI)) was used to determine NLC. Negative binomial regression was used to compare NLC between laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) and robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG).

A total of 45 articles with 71 data sets (LDG n=47, RDG n=24) were analysed. There were 7776 patients in total (LDG n=5516, RDG n=2260). Majority of studies were conducted in East Asia (n=68/71). Majority (76.1%) of data sets used non-arbitrary methods of analyses. The overall NLC for RDG was significantly lower compared to LDG (RDG 22.4 (95% CI: 20.4-24.5); LDG 46.7 (95% CI: 44.1-49.4); incidence rate ratio 0.48, p<0.001). The median number of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) cases prior was 0 (interquartile range (IQR) 0-105) for LDG and 159 (IQR 101-305.3) for RDG. Meta-regression analysis did not show a significant impact prior experience in LG, extent of lymphadenectomy and intracorporeal vs extracorporeal anastomosis had on overall NLC for LDG and RDG.

NLC for RDG is shorter compared to LDG, but this may be due to prior experience in LG and ergonomic advantages of RDG.

Robotic gastrectomy has been gaining ground in the past 20 years. This study aims to (a) provide an updated and all-encompassing comprehensive review including post-operative outcomes, rate of complications, surgical efficiency and costs, pathology, overall survival, mortality and recurrence, and disease-free survival of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy, (b) report research gaps, and (c) identify ongoing or forthcoming clinical trials that could potentially shed light on underreported findings within the existing literature. Regarding the methodology, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses published between January 2012 and October 2023. ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for related clinical trials currently underway or recruiting. Robotic gastrectomy, when compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy, for the treatment of gastric cancer, performs equally well or shows superiority in terms of the length of hospitalization, overall complications rates, rate of conversion to open surgery, surgical complications, anastomotic leakage, pancreatic complications, blood loss, mortality rates, time to first flatus, time to oral intake, distal and proximal resection margins, recurrence rate, reoperation rates, and overall survival. However, it is associated with higher costs and longer operative time. Parameters such as duodenal stump leakage, anastomosis stenosis, intestinal obstruction, ileus, delayed gastric emptying, wound complications, acute pancreatitis, pancreatic fistula, direct costs, time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy, postoperative morbidity, recurrence, and disease-free survival are currently underreported in the literature and necessitate for further research. Lastly, four clinical trials are currently underway or recruiting that could possibly bridge the research gap.

Reducing or preventing postoperative morbidity in patients with gastric cancer (GC) is particularly important in perioperative treatment plans.

To identify risk factors for early postoperative complications of GC post-distal gastrectomy and to establish a nomogram prediction model.

This retrospective study included 131 patients with GC who underwent distal gastrectomy at the Second Hospital of Shandong University between January 2019 and February 2023. The factors influencing the development of complications after distal gastrectomy in these patients were evaluated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Based on the results obtained, a predictive nomogram was established. The nomogram was validated using internal and external (n = 45) datasets. Its sensitivity and specificity were established by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Decision curve (DCA) analysis was used to determine its clinical benefit and ten-fold overfitting was used to establish its accuracy and stability.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that hypertension, diabetes, history of abdominal surgery, and perioperative blood transfusion were independent predictors of postoperative complications of distal gastrectomy. The modeling and validation sets showed that the area under the curve was 0.843 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.746-0.940] and 0.877 (95%CI: 0.719-1.000), the sensitivity was 0.762 and 0.778, respectively, and the specificity was 0.809 and 0.944, respectively, indicating that the model had good sensitivity and specificity. The C-indexes of the modeling and validation datasets were 0.843 (95%CI: 0.746-0.940) and 0.877 (95%CI: 0.719-1.000), respectively. The calibration curve (Hosmer Lemeshow test: χ2 = 7.33) showed that the model had good consistency. The results of the DCA analysis indicated that this model offered good clinical benefits. The accuracy of 10-fold cross-validation was 0.878, indicating that the model had good accuracy and stability.

The nomogram prediction model based on independent risk factors related to postoperative complications of distal gastrectomy can facilitate perioperative intervention for high-risk populations and reduce the incidence of postoperative complications.

It is largely unclear whether robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) is cost-effective for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC).

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RDG, laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG), and open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for patients with LAGC.

Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline characteristics. A decision-analytic model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RDG, LDG, and ODG.

RDG, LDG, and ODG.

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

This pooled analysis of two randomized controlled trials included 449 patients: 117, 254, and 78 patients in the RDG, LDG, and ODG groups, respectively. After IPTW, RDG demonstrated its priority in terms of less blood loss, postoperative length, and complication rate (all P < 0.05). RDG also showed higher QOL with more cost, representing an ICER of $85,739.73 per QALY and $42,189.53 per QALY compared to LDG and ODG, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, RDG achieved the best cost-effectiveness for patients with LAGC only when the willingness-to-pay threshold was > $85,739.73 per QALY, which significantly exceeded 3 times Chinese per capita GDP. Furthermore, one of the most important factors was the indirect costs of robotic surgery in terms of the cost-effectiveness of RDG compared to that of LDG or ODG.

Although improved short-term outcomes and QOL were seen in patients underwent RDG, the economic burden should be considered in the clinical decision-making regarding robotic surgery use for patients with LAGC. Our findings may vary in different health care settings and affordability. Trial registration CLASS-01 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, CT01609309) and FUGES-011 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03313700).

This study investigated indocyanine green (ICG) as an intraoperative tool for improving lymph node dissection quality in radical robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) for gastric cancer by comparing the rate of lymph node (LN) noncompliance with or without use of the Firefly™ system.

Patients with potentially resectable gastric cancer including cT1-T4a, N0/ + , M0 were registered in a prospective nonrandomized cohort study at our institution between March 2019 and December 2022. Patients were assigned to the da Vinci surgical system with Firefly system (F group) or that without Firefly system (non-F group). F group patients received endoscopic peritumoral injection of ICG to the submucosa one day before surgery. Rate of LN noncompliance, number of harvested LNs, and short-term outcomes were compared.

Of the 94 patients in this study, 55 underwent Firefly system-guided RDG and 39 underwent conventional RDG. The mean [SD] total number of harvested lymph nodes in F group, 31.2 [10.2], was significantly higher than that harvested in non-F group (25.6 [12.6]; p = 0.026). The LN noncompliance rate in F group was lower than that in non-F group (32.7% vs. 61.5%, p = 0.006). The mean number of LNs harvested in F group was significantly higher than that harvested in non-F group (31.2 [10.2] vs. 25.7 [12.6], p = 0.02). Significant differences were found between the F vs. non-F groups in blood loss and postoperative hospital stay (83.9 [75.1] vs. 301.9 [766.7] mL; p = 0.003 and 13.4 vs. 17.4 days, p = 0.049).

The Firefly system-assisted ICG tracer improved LN dissection quality without compromising safety.

Background: Gastric cancer has the third highest cancer-related mortality worldwide. There is no consensus regarding the optimal surgical technique to perform curative resection surgery. Objective: Compare laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and robotic gastrectomy (RG) regarding short-term outcomes in patients with gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched the following topics: "Gastrectomy," "Laparoscopic," and "Robotic Surgical Procedures." The included studies compared short-term outcomes between LG and RG. Individual risk of bias was assessed with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) scale. Results: There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding conversion rate, reoperation rate, mortality, overall complications, anastomotic leakage, distal and proximal resection margin distances, and recurrence rate. However, mean blood loss (mean difference [MD] -19.43 mL, P < .00001), length of hospital stay (MD -0.50 days, P = .0007), time to first flatus (MD -0.52 days, P < .00001), time to oral intake (MD -0.17 days, P = .0001), surgical complications with a Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, P < .0001), and pancreatic complications (RR 0.51, P = .007) were significantly lower in the RG group. Furthermore, the number of retrieved lymph nodes was significantly higher in the RG group. Nevertheless, the RG group showed a significantly higher operation time (MD 41.19 minutes, P < .00001) and cost (MD 3684.27 U.S. Dollars, P < .00001). Conclusion: This meta-analysis supports the choice of robotic surgery over laparoscopy concerning relevant surgical complications. However, longer operation time and higher cost remain crucial limitations. Randomized clinical trials are required to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of RG.

Background: Three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy provides stereopsis and may reduce operating time (OT) and morbidity. However, there is a paucity of literature on its use in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). This study aims to compare outcomes between 3D and two-dimensional (2D) LLR. Materials and Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to November 2022. The inclusion criterion was studies comparing intraoperative characteristics and/or postoperative outcomes between 3D and 2D LLR. Studies on the use of 3D image reconstruction techniques for preoperative planning were excluded. Primary outcomes were OT, estimated blood loss (EBL), and overall morbidity. Secondary outcomes were other postoperative complications, need for reoperation, and in-hospital mortality. Results: Four studies with 361 patients (3D: n = 159, 2D: n = 202) were included. There were 65.3% males (overall: n = 236/361). Age, sex, body-mass index, incidence of diabetes mellitus, hepatitis B and/or C carrier, receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, tumor size, and incidence of multiple tumors were comparable between 3D and 2D LLR. No studies reported on Child-Pugh status. One study included only patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, two studies included patients with mixed histopathology, and one study did not report on histopathology. There was no significant difference in OT (mean difference [MD] -31.6 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -89.7 to 26.5), EBL (MD -454.1 mL, 95% CI: -978.8 to 70.6), need for reoperation (odds ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% CI: 0.18-4.61), and in-hospital mortality (OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.06-5.50) between 3D and 2D LLR. Overall morbidity was lower in 3D LLR (OR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.32-0.98, P = .04). However, the learning curve (LC) was not described in the included studies and may confound outcomes. Conclusions: 3D LLR may reduce overall postoperative morbidity compared with 2D LLR, but results may be confounded by the lack of standardization of surgeons' experience and the LC of 3D LLR.

Oncological benefits of robotic gastrectomy (RG) remain unclear. We aimed to determine and compare the 3-year outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for the treatment of gastric cancer.

This was a multi-institutional retrospective study of patients who prospectively underwent RG in a previous study (UMIN000015388) and historical controls who underwent LG. Operable patients with cStage I/II primary gastric cancer were enrolled. The inverse probability of treatment weighting method based on propensity scores was used to balance patient demographic factors and surgeon volume between the RG and LG groups. The primary outcome measure was the 3-year overall survival rate (3yOS).

Of the 1,127 patients in the previous study, 326 and 752 patients in the RG and LG groups, respectively, completed the study. The standardized difference of all confounding factors was reduced to 0.09 or less after weighting. In the weighted population, 3yOS was 96.3% and 89.6% in the RG and LG groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.34 [0.15, 0.76]; p = 0.009), whereas there was no difference in 3-year recurrence-free survival rate (3yRFS) between the two groups (HR 0.58 [0.32, 1.05]; p = 0.073). Sub-analyses showed that RG improved 3yOS (HR 0.05 [0.01, 0.38]; p = 0.004) and 3yRFS (HR 0.05 [0.01, 0.34]; p = 0.003) in patients with pStage IA disease. Recurrence rates and patterns were similar between the RG and LG groups. RG did not improve the morbidity rate, however, it attenuated some of the adverse events, including anastomotic leakage and intra-abdominal abscess. RG improved estimated blood loss and duration of postoperative hospitalization.

This study showed surgical and oncological safety of RG for cStage I/II gastric cancer considering the 3-year outcomes, compared with those of LG.

Surgery still represents the mainstay of treatment of all stages of gastric cancer (GC). Surgical resections represent potentially curative options in the case of early GC with a low risk of node metastasis. Sentinel lymph node biopsy and indocyanine green fluorescence are novel techniques which may improve the employment of stomach-sparing procedures, ameliorating quality of life without compromising oncological radicality. Nonetheless, the diffusion of these techniques is limited in Western countries. Conversely, radical gastrectomy with extensive lymphadenectomy and multimodal treatment represents a valid option in the case of advanced GC. Differences between Eastern and Western recommendations still exist, and the optimal multimodal strategy is still a matter of investigation. Recent chemotherapy protocols have made surgery available for patients with oligometastatic disease. In this context, intraperitoneal administration of chemotherapy via HIPEC or PIPAC has emerged as an alternative weapon for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. In conclusion, the surgical management of GC is still evolving together with the multimodal strategy. It is mandatory for surgeons to be conscious of the current evolution of the surgical management of GC in the era of multidisciplinary and tailored medicine.

Background and Objectives: Gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard surgical treatment with curative intent for patients with gastric cancer (GC). Over the last three decades, surgeons have been increasingly adopting laparoscopic surgery for GC, due to its better short-term outcomes. In particular, laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been routinely used for early gastric cancer (EGC) treatment. However, LG suffers from technical limitations and drawbacks, such as a two-dimensional surgical field of view, limited movement of laparoscopic tools, unavoidable physiological tremors and discomfort for operating surgeon. Therefore, robotic surgery has been developed to address such limitations. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines in order to investigate the benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared to the LG. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Re-views, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL) and Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index) databases were used to search all related literature. Results: The 7 included meta-analyses covered an approximately 20 years-study period (2000-2020). Almost all studies included in the meta-analyses were retrospective ones and originated from Asian countries (China and Korea, in particular). Examined overall population ranged from 3176 to 17,712 patients. If compared to LG, RG showed both operative advantages (operative time, estimated blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes) and perioperative ones (time to first flatus, time to restart oral intake, length of hospitalization, overall complications, Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ III complications, pancreatic complications), in the absence of clear differences of oncological outcomes. However, costs of robotic approach appear significant. Conclusions: It is impossible to make strong recommendations, due to the statistical weakness of the included studies. Further randomized, possibly multicenter trials are strongly recommended, if we want to have our results confirmed.