• J Y Park, M J Jo, B-H Nam, Y Kim, B W Eom, H M Yoon, K W Ryu, Y-W Kim, and J H Lee.
• Gastric Cancer Branch, National Cancer Centre, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea.
• Br J Surg. 2012 Nov 1;99(11):1554-61.

BackgroundThere is a lack of reports evaluating the outcomes of robotic gastrectomy and conventional laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical stress response and costs of robot-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) with those of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG).MethodsThis prospective study compared a cohort of patients who had RADG with a cohort that underwent conventional LADG for early gastric cancer between March 2010 and May 2011. The surgical outcomes including Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and complications, surgical stress response and overall costs were compared between the two groups.ResultsThirty patients were enrolled in the RADG group and 120 in the LADG group. There were no conversions. Median duration of operation was longer in the RADG group (218 (interquartile range 200-254) versus 140 (118-175) min; P < 0·001). Postoperative abdominal drain production was less (P = 0·001) and postoperative performance status was worse (P < 0·001) in the RADG group. C-reactive protein (CRP) levels on postoperative days 1 and 3, and interleukin (IL) 6 level on the third postoperative day, were lower in the LADG compared with the RADG group (CRP: P = 0·002 and P = 0·014 respectively; IL-6: P < 0·001). Costs for robotic surgery were much higher than for laparoscopic surgery (difference €3189).ConclusionRADG did not reduce surgical stress compared with LADG. The substantial RADG costs due to robotic system expenses may not be justified.Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

27 keywords...

hide…