Comparison of robotic gastrectomy and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background: The benefits of robotic gastrectomy (RG) over laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) remain controversial. This single-center, propensity score-matched study aimed to compare the outcomes of RG with those of LG for treating gastric cancer.

Methods: We searched the prospective gastric cancer database of our institute for patients with gastric cancer who underwent RG or LG between January 2014 and December 2019, excluding patients with remnant stomach cancer and those who underwent concurrent surgery for comorbid malignancies. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to reduce bias from confounding patient-related variables, and short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the groups.

Results: We identified 1189 patients who underwent LG (n = 979) or RG (n = 210). After propensity score matching, we selected 210 pairs of patients who underwent LG (distal gastrectomy, 138; total or proximal gastrectomy, 72) or RG (distal gastrectomy, 143; total or proximal gastrectomy, 67). RG was associated with a significantly shorter operative time (RG = 201 min vs. LG = 231 min, p = 0.0051), less blood loss (RG = 13 mL vs. LG = 42 mL, p < 0.0001), lower postoperative morbidity (RG = 1.0% vs. LG = 4.8%, p = 0.0066), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.0002) than LG. Drain amylase levels on postoperative Days 1 and 3 in the RG group were significantly lower than those in the LG group (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: RG is a safe and feasible treatment for gastric cancer, with a shorter operative time, less blood loss, and lower postoperative morbidity than LG. The application of robotics in minimally invasive gastric cancer surgery may offer an alternative to conventional surgery. Multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trials comparing RG with conventional LG are needed to establish the feasibility and efficacy of minimally invasive gastric cancer surgery.