• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • 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
    • Why Should You Support SAGES?
    • SAGES Swag
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Annual Meeting
      • 2027 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2027 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
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Lead Up Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • Innovative Surgical Trends
    • 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
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Advanced Laparoscopy and Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development 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
    • Foregut Video Atlas
  • Opportunities
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • 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
  • Learning Hub
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Comparison Between Robotic and Laparoscopic Gastrectomy with Extraperigastric Lymphnode Dissection for Advanced Gastric Cancer

Comparison Between Robotic and Laparoscopic Gastrectomy with Extraperigastric Lymphnode Dissection for Advanced Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND: Gastrectomy with extraperigastric (D2) lymphnode dissection for advanced gastric cancer have been performed and recommended as the standard operation in Korea and Japan. Although laparoscopy gastrectomy is considered one of the minimally invasive surgeries, widespread use of this technique is limited because of the some technical difficulties. Robotic surgery was adopted to improve some technical disadvantage with laparoscopic surgery. Although there have been several reports of robotic gastrectomy, there is no reports to assess the surgical outcomes of robotic gastrectomy with D2 lymphnode dissection for advanced gastric cancer compared with those of laparoscopic gastrectomy.

Objectives: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate perioperative outcome of robotic gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for advanced gastric cancer (RG) compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for advanced gastric cancer (LG).

Methods: Between July 2005 and Apr 2009, robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymphnode dissection for advanced gastric cancer without combined operation was included as entry criteria. Within this period, 33 RG using the da Vinci Surgical System and 46 LG were consecutively performed in Yonsei University Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea. All operation was performed by one surgeon. We evaluated clinicopathologic and surgical characteristics, operative outcomes, and postoperative morbidities and mortalities between the RG group and the LG group from a prospectively designed computer database. As statistical analysis, Chi-square and independent t-tests were used to compare those two groups. P value less than 0.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS: Although the mean age and proportion of co morbid patients were lower in the RG group than the LG group (55.3±13.2 years versus 61.8±11.8 years; p=0.025 and 30.3% versus 54.3%, p=0.128), age, BMI, tumor size, and pathological stage was similar with two groups. Although operating time of the RG group was significantly longer than the LG group (231.8±42.1 minute versus 156.5±45.0 minute, p<0.001), blood loss of the RG group was marginally smaller than the LG group (74.2±71.2 ml versus 169.2±258.0 ml, p=0.261). The numbers of retrieved lymphnodes were similar with two groups. The morbidity rates of the RG group was marginally smaller than the LG group (15.2% versus 21.7%, p=0.462).There was no conversion to open surgery in two groups. The mean post hospital stay (without patients who were occurred postoperative complication) was marginally smaller than the LG group (5.7±1.4 days versus 6.6±3.6 days). There was one mortality patients in RG group. Regarding the level of serum C-reactive protein of the third postoperative days and those of peak levels (without patients who were occurred postoperative complication), the RG group was significantly lower than the LG group (68.7±41.0 versus 102.3±67.1; p=0.048 and 77.9±42.6 versus 112.2±67.2; p=0.032).

Conclusion: This study suggests that robotic gastrectomy with D2 lymphnodes dissection for gastric cancer can be performed with acceptable perioperative outcomes compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymphnodes dissection for gastric cancer.


Session: Poster

Program Number: P558

View Poster

Related



Hours & Info

15821 Ventura Blvd Ste 400
Encino, CA 91436

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals

Refine Search