See the published version of this preprint at BMC Cancer.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Pei-Wu Yu
Southwest Hospital,Army Medical University
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9717-0142
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Few studies have been designed to evaluate the short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) and laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The purpose of this study was to assess the short-term outcomes of RATG compared with LATG for AGC.
Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 126 and 257 patients who underwent RATG or LATG, respectively. In addition, we performed propensity score matching (PSM) analysis between RATG and LATG for clinicopathological characteristics to reduce bias and compared short-term surgical outcomes.
Results: After PSM, the RATG group had a longer mean operation time (291.14±59.18 vs. 270.34±52.22 min, p=0.003), less intraoperative bleeding (154.37±89.68 vs. 183.77±95.39 ml, p=0.004) and more N2 tier RLNs (9.07±5.34 vs. 7.56±4.50, p=0.016) than the LATG group. Additionally, the total RLNs of the RATG group were almost significantly different compared to that of the LATG group (34.90±13.05 vs. 31.91±12.46, p=0.065).Moreover, no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of the length of incision, proximal resection margin, distal resection margin, residual disease and postoperative hospital stay. There was no significant difference in the overall complication rate between the RATG and LATG groups after PSM (23.8% vs. 28.6%, p=0.390). Grade II complications accounted for most of the complications in the two cohorts after PSM. The conversion rates were 4.55% and 8.54% in the RATG and LATG groups, respectively, with no significant difference (p=0.145), and the ratio of splenectomy were 1.59% and 0.39% (p=0.253). The mortality rates were 0.8% and 0.4% for the RATG and LATG groups, respectively (p=1.000).
Conclusion: This study demonstrates that RATG is comparable to LATG in terms of short-term surgical outcomes.
Keywords
Advanced gastric cancer, Total gastrectomy, Robotic, Laparoscopic, Short-term outcomes
Figure 1
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Cancer.
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 09 Jul, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 09 Jul, 2020
Version 4
Posted 06 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 05 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 02 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 01 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 01 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 10 Jun, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 08 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 23 May, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 19 May, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 19 May, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 08 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 08 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 06 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 06 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 06 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 02 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 01 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 01 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 29 Jan, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 16 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 16 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 14 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 14 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 14 Jan, 2020
Editor assigned
On 03 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 02 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 02 Jan, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 04 Dec, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 18 Nov, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 14 Nov, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 07 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 07 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 07 Nov, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 29 Oct, 2019
Editor assigned
On 28 Oct, 2019
Editor invited
On 27 Oct, 2019
First submitted
On 26 Oct, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Cancer.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Pei-Wu Yu
Southwest Hospital,Army Medical University
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9717-0142
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Cancer.
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 09 Jul, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 09 Jul, 2020
Version 4
Posted 06 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 05 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 02 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 01 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 01 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 10 Jun, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 08 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 23 May, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 19 May, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 19 May, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 08 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 08 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 06 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 06 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 06 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 02 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 01 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 01 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 29 Jan, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 16 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 16 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 14 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 14 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 14 Jan, 2020
Editor assigned
On 03 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 02 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 02 Jan, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 04 Dec, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 18 Nov, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 14 Nov, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 07 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 07 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 07 Nov, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 29 Oct, 2019
Editor assigned
On 28 Oct, 2019
Editor invited
On 27 Oct, 2019
First submitted
On 26 Oct, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Cancer.
Background: Few studies have been designed to evaluate the short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) and laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The purpose of this study was to assess the short-term outcomes of RATG compared with LATG for AGC.
Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 126 and 257 patients who underwent RATG or LATG, respectively. In addition, we performed propensity score matching (PSM) analysis between RATG and LATG for clinicopathological characteristics to reduce bias and compared short-term surgical outcomes.
Results: After PSM, the RATG group had a longer mean operation time (291.14±59.18 vs. 270.34±52.22 min, p=0.003), less intraoperative bleeding (154.37±89.68 vs. 183.77±95.39 ml, p=0.004) and more N2 tier RLNs (9.07±5.34 vs. 7.56±4.50, p=0.016) than the LATG group. Additionally, the total RLNs of the RATG group were almost significantly different compared to that of the LATG group (34.90±13.05 vs. 31.91±12.46, p=0.065).Moreover, no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of the length of incision, proximal resection margin, distal resection margin, residual disease and postoperative hospital stay. There was no significant difference in the overall complication rate between the RATG and LATG groups after PSM (23.8% vs. 28.6%, p=0.390). Grade II complications accounted for most of the complications in the two cohorts after PSM. The conversion rates were 4.55% and 8.54% in the RATG and LATG groups, respectively, with no significant difference (p=0.145), and the ratio of splenectomy were 1.59% and 0.39% (p=0.253). The mortality rates were 0.8% and 0.4% for the RATG and LATG groups, respectively (p=1.000).
Conclusion: This study demonstrates that RATG is comparable to LATG in terms of short-term surgical outcomes.
Figure 1
Loading...