Liu Qi, Meng Cheng, Cao Shougen, Liu Xiaodong, Tian Yulong, Li Zequn, Zhong Hao, Sun Yuqi, Yu Junjian, Zhou Yanbing
Department of General Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, 16# Jiangsu Road, Qingdao, 266000, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China.
Gastrointestinal Tumor Translational Medicine Research Institute of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong Province, China.
Surg Endosc. 2025 May;39(5):2814-2827. doi: 10.1007/s00464-025-11626-3. Epub 2025 Mar 10.
Although neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) can benefit patient survival, few studies have compared the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for AGC after NAT.
The clinical data of 321 AGC patients who received NATs and who underwent robotic gastrectomy (RG, n = 109) or laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG, n = 212) between May 2017 and September 2022 were collected and analyzed retrospectively at our center. After propensity score matching (PSM) for 1:1 matching to eliminate bias, both groups had 106 cases. Short-term clinical outcomes and long-term survival-related indicators were compared between the two groups of patients.
A total of 212 patients were included in the groups after matching. There were fewer overall complications (13.2% vs. 28.3%, P = 0.007) and surgical complications (8.5% vs. 17.9%, P = 0.043) in the RG group than in the LG group. Compared with the LG group, the RG group had more harvested overall lymph nodes (35.25 ± 4.99 vs. 31.45 ± 6.31, P < 0.001) and more suprapancreatic lymph nodes (13.12 ± 4.38 vs. 10.05 ± 4.13, P < 0.001). Patients in the RG group had significantly shorter surgery times (217.62 ± 47.49 vs. 267.25 ± 70.68, P < 0.001) and less blood loss (46.51 ± 27.02 vs. 70.75 ± 37.25, P < 0.001) than patients in the LG group. The RG group had significantly faster bowel function recovery, earlier liquid diet, and shorter hospital stay. Compared with LG, RG had a better 3-year RFS (75.5% vs. 62.3%, P = 0.017).
Compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery significantly increased the number of lymph node dissected, reduced intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative surgical complications rate. Although RG did not statistically improve 3-year overall survival, there was a significant improvement in RFS and could be an alternative surgical method for GC patients after NAC.
尽管晚期胃癌(AGC)的新辅助治疗(NAT)可使患者生存获益,但很少有研究比较NAT后AGC的机器人辅助与腹腔镜胃切除术的短期和长期结局。
回顾性收集并分析了2017年5月至2022年9月期间在本中心接受NAT且接受机器人辅助胃切除术(RG,n = 109)或腹腔镜胃切除术(LG,n = 212)的321例AGC患者的临床资料。在进行倾向评分匹配(PSM)以1:1匹配以消除偏差后,两组各有106例病例。比较两组患者的短期临床结局和长期生存相关指标。
匹配后两组共纳入212例患者。RG组的总体并发症(13.2%对28.3%,P = 0.007)和手术并发症(8.5%对17.9%,P = 0.043)少于LG组。与LG组相比,RG组切除的总淋巴结更多(35.25±4.99对31.45±6.31,P < 0.001),胰上淋巴结更多(13.12±4.38对10.05±4.13,P < 0.001)。RG组患者的手术时间明显短于LG组(217.62±47.49对267.25±70.68,P < 0.001),失血量也更少(46.51±27.02对70.75±37.25,P < 0.001)。RG组的肠功能恢复明显更快,流质饮食更早,住院时间更短。与LG相比,RG的3年无复发生存率更好(75.5%对62.3%,P = 0.017)。
与腹腔镜手术相比,机器人手术显著增加了淋巴结清扫数量,减少了术中失血量和术后手术并发症发生率。尽管RG在统计学上未改善3年总生存率,但无复发生存率有显著改善,可作为NAC后GC患者的替代手术方法。