Clinical efficacy and safety of robotic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundRobotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) is a new technique that is rapidly gaining popularity and may help overcome the limitations of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG); however, its safety and therapeutic efficacy remain controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RDG.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies that compared RDG and LDG and were published between the time of database inception and May 2021. We assessed the bias risk of the observational studies using ROBIN-I, and a random effect model was always applied.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 22 studies involving 5386 patients. Compared with LDG, RDG was associated with longer operating time (Mean Difference [MD] = 43.88, 95% CI = 35.17–52.60), less intraoperative blood loss (MD = − 24.84, 95% CI = − 41.26 to − 8.43), a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD = 2.41, 95% CI = 0.77–4.05), shorter time to first flatus (MD = − 0.09, 95% CI = − 0.15 to − 0.03), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = − 0.68, 95% CI = − 1.27 to − 0.08), and lower incidence of pancreatic fistula (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.07–0.79). Mean proximal and distal resection margin distances, time to start liquid and soft diets, and other complications were not significantly different between RDG and LDG groups. However, in the propensity-score-matched meta-analysis, the differences in time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups lost significance.ConclusionsBased on the available evidence, RDG appears feasible and safe, shows better surgical and oncological outcomes than LDG and, comparable postoperative recovery and postoperative complication outcomes.