Robotic gastrectomy for elderly gastric cancer patients

comparisons with robotic gastrectomy in younger patients and laparoscopic gastrectomy in the elderly

Naoki Okumura, Taeil Son, Yoo Min Kim, Hyoung Il Kim, Ji Yeong An, Sung Hoon Noh, WooJin Hyung

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Robotic surgery for gastric cancer has been adopted to overcome technical difficulties in performing laparoscopic gastrectomy. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of robotic gastrectomy in elderly gastric cancer patients. Methods: Patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy from 2003 to 2010 in a single high-volume center were included in this study. We retrospectively compared preoperative characteristics, perioperative factors, and oncological parameters among an elderly (≥70 years old) robotic gastrectomy group (n = 49), a younger (<70 years old) robotic gastrectomy group (n = 321), and an elderly laparoscopic gastrectomy group (n = 132). Results: The elderly robotic group presented with more comorbidities than the younger robotic group. Except for number of retrieved lymph nodes (36.5 vs. 41.5; P = 0.007), short-term operative outcomes including complications and pathological parameters were comparable between the two robotic groups. The elderly robotic group showed comparable disease-specific survival to the younger robotic group although overall survival was worse. Compared to their laparoscopic counterparts, the elderly robotic group showed longer mean operation time (227 vs. 174 min). Nevertheless, the incidence and severity of postoperative complications was not different between the two elderly groups. Overall and disease-specific survival were also comparable between the elderly groups. In multivariate analysis, age and surgical approach were not risk factors for overall and major complications. Conclusions: The outcomes of robotic gastrectomy in the elderly did not differ from those in younger robotic gastrectomy patients and were comparable to those in elderly patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy. Thus, robotic gastrectomy could be a safe and feasible approach in elderly patients.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1125-1134
Number of pages10
JournalGastric Cancer
Volume19
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016 Oct 1

Fingerprint

Robotics
Gastrectomy
Stomach Neoplasms
Survival
Comorbidity
Multivariate Analysis

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Oncology
  • Gastroenterology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Okumura, Naoki ; Son, Taeil ; Kim, Yoo Min ; Kim, Hyoung Il ; An, Ji Yeong ; Noh, Sung Hoon ; Hyung, WooJin. / Robotic gastrectomy for elderly gastric cancer patients : comparisons with robotic gastrectomy in younger patients and laparoscopic gastrectomy in the elderly. In: Gastric Cancer. 2016 ; Vol. 19, No. 4. pp. 1125-1134.
@article{9a9ad094de6e4d7696bd4a92967bafa3,
title = "Robotic gastrectomy for elderly gastric cancer patients: comparisons with robotic gastrectomy in younger patients and laparoscopic gastrectomy in the elderly",
abstract = "Background: Robotic surgery for gastric cancer has been adopted to overcome technical difficulties in performing laparoscopic gastrectomy. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of robotic gastrectomy in elderly gastric cancer patients. Methods: Patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy from 2003 to 2010 in a single high-volume center were included in this study. We retrospectively compared preoperative characteristics, perioperative factors, and oncological parameters among an elderly (≥70 years old) robotic gastrectomy group (n = 49), a younger (<70 years old) robotic gastrectomy group (n = 321), and an elderly laparoscopic gastrectomy group (n = 132). Results: The elderly robotic group presented with more comorbidities than the younger robotic group. Except for number of retrieved lymph nodes (36.5 vs. 41.5; P = 0.007), short-term operative outcomes including complications and pathological parameters were comparable between the two robotic groups. The elderly robotic group showed comparable disease-specific survival to the younger robotic group although overall survival was worse. Compared to their laparoscopic counterparts, the elderly robotic group showed longer mean operation time (227 vs. 174 min). Nevertheless, the incidence and severity of postoperative complications was not different between the two elderly groups. Overall and disease-specific survival were also comparable between the elderly groups. In multivariate analysis, age and surgical approach were not risk factors for overall and major complications. Conclusions: The outcomes of robotic gastrectomy in the elderly did not differ from those in younger robotic gastrectomy patients and were comparable to those in elderly patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy. Thus, robotic gastrectomy could be a safe and feasible approach in elderly patients.",
author = "Naoki Okumura and Taeil Son and Kim, {Yoo Min} and Kim, {Hyoung Il} and An, {Ji Yeong} and Noh, {Sung Hoon} and WooJin Hyung",
year = "2016",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10120-015-0560-6",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "1125--1134",
journal = "Gastric Cancer",
issn = "1436-3291",
publisher = "Springer Japan",
number = "4",

}

Robotic gastrectomy for elderly gastric cancer patients : comparisons with robotic gastrectomy in younger patients and laparoscopic gastrectomy in the elderly. / Okumura, Naoki; Son, Taeil; Kim, Yoo Min; Kim, Hyoung Il; An, Ji Yeong; Noh, Sung Hoon; Hyung, WooJin.

In: Gastric Cancer, Vol. 19, No. 4, 01.10.2016, p. 1125-1134.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Robotic gastrectomy for elderly gastric cancer patients

T2 - comparisons with robotic gastrectomy in younger patients and laparoscopic gastrectomy in the elderly

AU - Okumura, Naoki

AU - Son, Taeil

AU - Kim, Yoo Min

AU - Kim, Hyoung Il

AU - An, Ji Yeong

AU - Noh, Sung Hoon

AU - Hyung, WooJin

PY - 2016/10/1

Y1 - 2016/10/1

N2 - Background: Robotic surgery for gastric cancer has been adopted to overcome technical difficulties in performing laparoscopic gastrectomy. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of robotic gastrectomy in elderly gastric cancer patients. Methods: Patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy from 2003 to 2010 in a single high-volume center were included in this study. We retrospectively compared preoperative characteristics, perioperative factors, and oncological parameters among an elderly (≥70 years old) robotic gastrectomy group (n = 49), a younger (<70 years old) robotic gastrectomy group (n = 321), and an elderly laparoscopic gastrectomy group (n = 132). Results: The elderly robotic group presented with more comorbidities than the younger robotic group. Except for number of retrieved lymph nodes (36.5 vs. 41.5; P = 0.007), short-term operative outcomes including complications and pathological parameters were comparable between the two robotic groups. The elderly robotic group showed comparable disease-specific survival to the younger robotic group although overall survival was worse. Compared to their laparoscopic counterparts, the elderly robotic group showed longer mean operation time (227 vs. 174 min). Nevertheless, the incidence and severity of postoperative complications was not different between the two elderly groups. Overall and disease-specific survival were also comparable between the elderly groups. In multivariate analysis, age and surgical approach were not risk factors for overall and major complications. Conclusions: The outcomes of robotic gastrectomy in the elderly did not differ from those in younger robotic gastrectomy patients and were comparable to those in elderly patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy. Thus, robotic gastrectomy could be a safe and feasible approach in elderly patients.

AB - Background: Robotic surgery for gastric cancer has been adopted to overcome technical difficulties in performing laparoscopic gastrectomy. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of robotic gastrectomy in elderly gastric cancer patients. Methods: Patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy from 2003 to 2010 in a single high-volume center were included in this study. We retrospectively compared preoperative characteristics, perioperative factors, and oncological parameters among an elderly (≥70 years old) robotic gastrectomy group (n = 49), a younger (<70 years old) robotic gastrectomy group (n = 321), and an elderly laparoscopic gastrectomy group (n = 132). Results: The elderly robotic group presented with more comorbidities than the younger robotic group. Except for number of retrieved lymph nodes (36.5 vs. 41.5; P = 0.007), short-term operative outcomes including complications and pathological parameters were comparable between the two robotic groups. The elderly robotic group showed comparable disease-specific survival to the younger robotic group although overall survival was worse. Compared to their laparoscopic counterparts, the elderly robotic group showed longer mean operation time (227 vs. 174 min). Nevertheless, the incidence and severity of postoperative complications was not different between the two elderly groups. Overall and disease-specific survival were also comparable between the elderly groups. In multivariate analysis, age and surgical approach were not risk factors for overall and major complications. Conclusions: The outcomes of robotic gastrectomy in the elderly did not differ from those in younger robotic gastrectomy patients and were comparable to those in elderly patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy. Thus, robotic gastrectomy could be a safe and feasible approach in elderly patients.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84946430731&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84946430731&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10120-015-0560-6

DO - 10.1007/s10120-015-0560-6

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 1125

EP - 1134

JO - Gastric Cancer

JF - Gastric Cancer

SN - 1436-3291

IS - 4

ER -