Want to take quizzes and track your credits?
Does robotic gastrectomy for resectable gastric cancer reduce the incidence of intra-abdominal infectious complications compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy?
In this randomized clinical trial of 241 patients with gastric cancer, the primary end point of reducing intra-abdominal infectious complications with robotic gastrectomy was not met. Secondary end point results showed good short-term surgical outcomes in both the laparoscopic gastrectomy group and the robotic gastrectomy group.
This study suggests that robotic gastrectomy for patients with gastric cancer is unable to reduce postoperative intra-abdominal complications.
Robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer may be associated with decreased incidence of intra-abdominal infectious complications, including pancreatic fistula, leakage, and abscess. Prospective randomized clinical trials comparing laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and RG are thus required.
To compare the short-term surgical outcomes of RG with those of LG for patients with gastric cancer.
Design, Setting, and Participants
In this phase 3, prospective superiority randomized clinical trial of RG vs LG regarding reduction of complications, 241 patients with resectable gastric cancer (clinical stages I-III) were enrolled between April 1, 2018, and October 31, 2020.
LG vs RG.
Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary end point was the incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications. Secondary end points were incidence of any complications, surgical results, postoperative courses, and oncologic outcomes. The modified intention-to-treat population excluded patients who had been randomized and met the postrandomization exclusion criteria. There was also a per-protocol population for analysis of postoperative complications.
This study enrolled 241 patients, with 236 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population (150 men [63.6%]; mean [SD] age, 70.8 [10.7] years). There was no significant difference in the incidence of intra-abdominal infectious complications (per-protocol population: 10 of 117 [8.5%] in the LG group vs 7 of 113 [6.2%] in the RG group). Of 241 patients, 122 were randomly assigned to the LG group, and 119 patients were randomly assigned to the RG group. Two of the 122 patients (1.6%) in the LG group converted from LG to open surgery, and 4 of 119 patients (3.4%) in the RG group converted from RG to open or laparoscopic surgery, with no significant difference. Finally, 117 patients in the LG group completed the procedure, and 113 in the RG group completed the procedure; these populations were defined as the per-protocol population. The overall incidence of postoperative complications of grade II or higher was significantly higher in the LG group (23 [19.7%]) than in the RG group (10 [8.8%]) (P = .02). Even in analysis limited to grade IIIa or higher, the complication rate was still significantly higher in the LG group (19 [16.2%]) than in the RG group (6 [5.3%]) (P = .01).
Conclusions and Relevance
This study found no reduction of intra-abdominal infectious complications with RG compared with LG for gastric cancer.
umin.ac.jp/ctr Identifier: UMIN000031536
Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates
JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC
CME Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships. If applicable, all relevant financial relationships have been mitigated.
Accepted for Publication: May 5, 2021.
Published Online: September 1, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2021.3182
Corresponding Author: Hiroki Yamaue, MD, PhD, Second Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Wakayama Medical University, 811-1, Kimiidera, Wakayama 641-8510, Japan (email@example.com).
Author Contributions: Dr Ojima had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Concept and design: Ojima, Nakamura, Kusunoki, Yamaue.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Ojima, Nakamura, Hayata, Kitadani, Katsuda, Takeuchi, Tominaga, Nakai, Nakamori, Ohi.
Drafting of the manuscript: Ojima, Nakamura, Kitadani, Katsuda, Takeuchi, Tominaga, Nakai, Nakamori.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Hayata, Ohi, Kusunoki, Yamaue.
Statistical analysis: Ojima, Nakamura, Katsuda.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Nakamura, Hayata, Kitadani, Katsuda, Takeuchi, Nakai, Nakamori, Ohi.
Supervision: Kusunoki, Yamaue.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 3.
Additional Information: Benjamin Phillis, Clinical Study Support Center, Wakayama Medical University, provided proofreading and editing of this article. He was not compensated for his contribution.
You currently have no searches saved.
You currently have no courses saved.