• 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 / COMPARISON OF ROBOTIC AND LAPAROSCOPIC ASSISTED GASTRECTOMY IN ADVANCED GASTRIC CANCER: UPDATED SHORT- AND LONG-TERM RESULTS

COMPARISON OF ROBOTIC AND LAPAROSCOPIC ASSISTED GASTRECTOMY IN ADVANCED GASTRIC CANCER: UPDATED SHORT- AND LONG-TERM RESULTS

Lin Chen, Dr, Yunhe Gao, Jiyang Li, Kecheng Zhang, Hongqing Xi, Zhi Qiao, Tianyu Xie, Weising Shen, Jianxin Cui, Bo Wei. Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital

INTRODUCTION: Our previous report has demonstrated robotic assisted gastrectomy (RAG) is as acceptable as laparoscopic assisted gastrectomy in the perspective of short-term surgical and oncological outcomes. However, the long term survival and recurrence rate after RAG and LAG for advanced gastric cancer has seldom been reported. 

METHODS AND PROCEDURES: We retrospectively evaluated 215 and 407 advanced non-metastatic GC patients underwent RAG and LAG surgery between August 2011 and August 2014 in our institution, respectively. A comparative study was performed on short- and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS: RAG was associated with less blood loss (182.9±108.3 ml vs 221.2±129.1ml,p<0.001), more lymph nodes harvest(31.7±10.4 vs 29.5±11.3, p=0.022), longer operative time (249.5±63 vs 213.1±60.1 min, p<0.001) compared with LAG group, while R0 resection rate, conversion rate, postoperative complications, proximal and distal margin, hospital stay, days of first flatus and days of first liquid diet between two groups showed no significant differences. However, when comparing RAG and 3D (3 Dimensional) laparoscopic subgroup only, the difference of lymph nodes harvest became insignificant(31.7±10.4 vs 30.2±9.5, p=0.174). Moreover, the survival analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in 3-year overall survival (OS) (RAG vs LAG, 90.1% vs 92.8%, p=0.732) or recurrence-free survival (RFS) (RAG vs LAG, 85.2% vs 86.9%, p=0.671) between the two groups, either in the entire cohort or different stages.

CONCLUSIONS: RAG is an acceptable safe procedure as LAG in terms of the long-term oncological outcomes, while RAG might have some differences in terms of short-term surgical characteristics, such as less blood loss and longer operative time.


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

Abstract ID: 87207

Program Number: S100

Presentation Session: Robotics 2 Session

Presentation Type: Podium

43


  • Foundation
  • SAGES.TV
  • MyCME
  • Educational Activities

Copyright © 2025 Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons