• 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 / GASTRECTOMY FOR GASTROINTESTINAL STROMAL TUMORS: DOES ROBOTIC ASSISTANCE AFFECT PERIOPRATIVE AND ONCOLOGIC OUTCOMES?

GASTRECTOMY FOR GASTROINTESTINAL STROMAL TUMORS: DOES ROBOTIC ASSISTANCE AFFECT PERIOPRATIVE AND ONCOLOGIC OUTCOMES?

Patrick J Sweigert, MD1, Emanuel Eguia, MD, MHA1, Marc H Nelson, MD1, Haroon Janjua, MS2, Gerard J Abood, MD, FACS1, Bipan Chand, MD, FACS, FASMBS, FASGE1, Paul C Kuo, MD, MS, MBA, FACS2, Marshall S Baker, MD, MS, MBA1. 1Loyola University Medical Center, 2University of South Florida

Introduction: Laparoscopic (LG) approaches to gastrectomy for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) have been shown to provide clinical outcomes similar to open (OG) approaches. The safety and oncologic efficacy of robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RG) in the treatment of GIST has not been well studied. 

Methods: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing gastrectomy for GIST between 2010 and 2015. Patients with metastatic disease and tumor invasion into adjacent organs were excluded. Patients were stratified into OG, LG and RG cohorts in an intention-to-treat fashion. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare margin status, 90-day mortality, 30-day readmission rate and length of stay (LOS) while controlling for patient age, sex, race, comorbidity score, tumor size and pathologic stage, cancer facility type and gastric resection type. Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival functions and multivariable cox proportional hazard models were used to compare rates of overall survival (OS). 

Results: 22,665 (51.2%) patients under went OG; 2,192 (42.1%) LG, and 350 (6.7%) RG. On univariate analysis, RG was more likely to be performed at Academic/Integrated Cancer Centers than either LG or OG (61.7% vs 55.6%, p=0.01; vs 52.4% p<0.01). Patients undergoing RG and LG were more likely than those undergoing OG to have low grade/small tumors with 94.6% of RG, 89.8% of LG and 78.2% of OG cases done for stage I-II disease (p<0.01). The extent of resection was most often a partial gastrectomy (93.7% vs 98.0% vs 98.3%, p<0.01). RG was associated with a lower rate of conversion to OG than LG (5.1% vs 10.8%, p<0.01). Unadjusted KM analysis (Figure 1) demonstrated a survival advantage for RG and LG relative to OG (p<0.01, p<0.01) but no difference in OS between RG and LG (p=0.14). On adjusted analysis, patients undergoing RG had increased risk of having a margin positive resection than those undergoing either LG (OR 1.74; 95% CI[1.07-2.82]), or OG (OR 1.69; 95% CI[1.02-2.78]). RG (OR 0.32; 95% CI[0.23-0.43], p<0.01) and LG (OR 0.31; 95% CI[0.26-0.36], p<0.01) were associated with lower risk of prolonged LOS and LG with lower risk of readmission compared to OG (OR 0.69; 95% CI[0.49-0.97], p<0.05 ). There were no differences in adjusted OS.

Conclusion: Compared to the OG, robotic-assisted partial gastrectomy for nonmetastatic GIST is associated with increased risk of margin positive resection that is independent of tumor size and grade but affords a lower risk of prolonged hospitalization and similar patterns of overall survival. 


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

Abstract ID: 94587

Program Number: P473

Presentation Session: Poster Session (Non CME)

Presentation Type: Poster

View this 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