• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • MIS Fellows Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • Search
    • Search the SAGES Site
    • Guidelines Search
    • Video Search
    • Search Images
    • Search Abstracts
  • OWLS/FLS
  • Login
You are here: Home / Abstracts / 3D laparoscopic versus robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparisons of short-term surgical outcomes

3D laparoscopic versus robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparisons of short-term surgical outcomes

Lin Chen, Xin Guo, Jiyang Li, Hongqing Xi, Yunhe Gao, Kecheng Zhang, Bo Wei. Chinese PLA General Hospital

Background: 3D laparoscopic (3D-LAG) and robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) are both new minimally invasive surgical therapies for gastric cancer. In this study, we aimed to compare the short-term surgical outcomes between 3D-LAG and RAG.

Methods: Between June 2015 and June 2017, 164 patients who underwent 3D-LAG (n=99) or RAG (n=65) for gastric cancer were enrolled. The clinicopathological factors and short-term surgical outcomes were compared with retrospectively analysis.

Results: The clinicopathological factors between the two groups were well matched. Postoperative recovery factors including the days of first flatus, days of eating liquid diet and hospital stay were similar. The rate of postoperative complications between the two groups were with no statistical differences (3D-LAG: 4.5% versus RAG: 5.3%, P=0.583). The rate of positive margins, rate of R0 resection and number of harvested lymph nodes were all similar (P=0.218, P=0.698 and P=0.556). However, 3D-LAG was associated with less blood loss (P=0.014) and shorter operative time (P<0.001). In the subgroups of patients with total gastrectomy, 3D-LAG had less blood loss and shorter operative time than RAG (P=0.006 and P<0.001), while for distal gastrectomy, blood loss and operative time showed no statistical differences. 

Conclusions: This study suggests that 3D-LAG is a novel and acceptable surgical technology in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes. 3D-LAG is a promising approach for gastric cancer therapy, with less blood loss, shorter operative time and satisfied postoperative complication rate.


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 87792

Program Number: P771

Presentation Session: iPoster Session (Non CME)

Presentation Type: Poster

46


  • Foundation
  • SAGES.TV
  • MyCME
  • Educational Activities

Copyright © 2025 Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons