Reports in the field of robotic surgery for gastric cancer are increasing. However, studies only on patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) are lacking. This retrospective study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) and laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC. From December 2014 to November 2019, 683 consecutive patients with AGC underwent mini-invasive assisted distal gastrectomy. Propensityscore matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to reduce patient selection bias. Short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. The clinical features were well matched in the PSM cohort. Compared with the LADG group, the RADG group was associated with less operative blood loss, a lower rate of postoperative blood transfusion, less volume of abdominal drainage, less time to remove abdominal drainage tube, retrieved more lymph node, and lower rates of surgical complications and pancreatic fistula (P <0.05). However, the time to recovery bowel function, the length of postoperative stay, the rates of other subgroups of complications and unplanned readmission were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05). This study suggests that RADG is a safe and feasible technique with better short-term outcomes than LADG for AGC.Gastric cancer continues to be a major public health problem worldwide, especially in developing countries, such as China 1,2 . Every year, approximately 680,000 new patients are diagnosed with gastric cancer in China; among them, more than 80% of these patients have advanced-stage disease 1,3 . For patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC), multidisciplinary comprehensive treatment is usually required, and gastrectomy with lymph node dissection is currently considered to be the only curable treatment 4 .In the past few decades, with the development of science and technology, much advanced surgical equipment has been invented, particularly in the field of mini-invasive surgery (MIS). Since laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy was first reported in 1994, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for AGC is a safe and feasible technique with better short-term outcomes than and similar oncological outcomes to open gastrectomy [5][6][7][8][9] . Although LG has obtained greater acceptance among abdominal surgeons, because of the limitations of laparoscopic instruments, it is difficult to perform precisely, as is the case with D2 lymphadenectomy 10,11 .Robotic surgery systems, as another MIS method, were invented to overcome the drawbacks of laparoscopy and are becoming increasingly accepted by abdominal surgeons. Since Hashizume et al. first reported the use of robotic surgery for gastric cancer in 2002, a number of studies have shown the safety and advantages of robotic

Background Robotic-assisted surgery, a developed technology, is becoming more and more accepted by surgeons. However, the comparison between robotic-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) and conventional laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is seldom reported, or usually the sample sizes reported are small. The current research was designed to compare the short-term outcomes of RATG and LATG with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC in a mono-institution from China. Methods A total of 205 patients from June 2015 to October 2018 were included in this study. Among them, 106 patients underwent LATG, and 99 patients underwent RATG. The patients’ clinicopathological characteristics, surgical performance and short-term outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. Results The clinicopathological characteristics showed no difference between the LATG group and the RATG group. However, compared with the LATG group, the operation time was longer ( P = 0.000), and the operative blood loss ( P = 0.000) and the volume of abdominal drainage was less ( P = 0.000) in the RATG group. Moreover, the RATG took less time to remove abdominal drainage tube than LATG ( P = 0.000). The plasma levels of CRP at 72 h post-operation was lower ( P = 0.000), and the number of retrieved lymph nodes was more ( P = 0.000) in the RATG group. Nevertheless, the postoperative length of stay ( P = 0.890), the time to first flatus ( P = 0.448), the postoperative complication ( P = 0.915) and the visual analogue pain score at 24 h post-operation ( P = 0.457) were comparable between the two groups. Conclusions RATG with D2 lymphadenectomy shows safety and feasibility for AGC and could be served as an alternative treatment for AGC in the future.

BackgroundMetastasis is the main cause for gastric cancer (GC)-related deaths. Better understanding of GC metastatic mechanism would provide novel diagnostic markers and therapeutic targets. Though it has been reported that mammalian sterile-20-like kinase 4 (MST4) exerts the oncogenic role in other tumors, the prognostic value and biological role of MST4 in GC are still unknown.MethodsThe expression level of MST4 in GC was analyzed by using TCGA database. Then, Western blot and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were used to determine the MST4 expression in GC tissues and cell lines. Immunohistochemistry was performed to investigate the expression of proteins in human GC tissues, and its correlation with clinicopathologic parameters as well as the prognosis for patients with GC was analyzed. In addition, the biological function and its molecular mechanism of MST4 in GC were investigated by in vitro and in vivo assays.ResultsIt demonstrated that MST4 expression was significantly upregulated in GC tissues and cell lines. High expression of MST4 was correlated with aggressive clinicopathological parameters such as lymph node metastasis, lymphovascular invasion (all P < 0.05). GC patients with high MST4 expression had both shorter overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) than those with low MST4 expression (all P < 0.05). MST4 expression was an independent and significant risk factor for OS and DFS of GC patients (all P < 0.05). Results of functional experiments showed that MST4 could promote GC cells migration, invasion in vitro and metastasis in vivo. In terms of mechanism, MST4 promoted metastasis by facilitating epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) through activating Ezrin pathway in GC. Further studies indicate that down-regulated miR-124-3p expression contributes to upregulated MST4 expression in GC.ConclusionOur data showed that MST4 predicts poor prognosis and promotes metastasis by facilitating epithelial–mesenchymal transition in GC. Therefore, our study suggests that MST4 can be used as a valuable prognostic biomarker and a potential therapeutic target in GC.

BACKGROUND The safety and feasibility of the simultaneous resection of primary colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous colorectal liver metastases (SCRLM) have been demonstrated in some studies. Combined resection is expected to be the optimal strategy for patients with CRC and SCRLM. However, traditional laparotomy is traumatic, and the treatment outcome of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is still obscure. AIM To compare the treatment outcomes of MIS and open surgery (OS) for the simultaneous resection of CRC and SCRLM. METHODS A systematic search through December 22, 2018 was conducted in electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library). All studies comparing the clinical outcomes of MIS and OS for patients with CRC and SCRLM were included by eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software. The quality of the pooled study was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The publication bias was evaluated by a funnel plot and the Begg’s and Egger’s tests. Fixed- and random-effects models were applied according to heterogeneity. RESULTS Ten retrospective cohort studies involving 502 patients (216 patients in the MIS group and 286 patients in the OS group) were included in this study. MIS was associated with less intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -130.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): -210.95 to -49.23, P = 0.002] and blood transfusion [odds ratio (OR) = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.29 to 0.95, P = 0.03], faster recovery of intestinal function (WMD = -0.88 d, 95%CI: -1.58 to -0.19, P = 0.01) and diet (WMD = -1.54 d, 95%CI: -2.30 to -0.78, P < 0.0001), shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD = -4.06 d, 95%CI: -5.95 to -2.18, P < 0.0001), and lower rates of surgical complications (OR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.37 to 0.99, P = 0.04). However, the operation time, rates and severity of overall complications, and rates of general complications showed no significant differences between the MIS and OS groups. Moreover, the overall survival and disease-free survival after MIS were equivalent to those after OS. CONCLUSION Considering the studies included in this meta-analysis, MIS is a safe and effective alternative technique for the simultaneous resection of CRC and SCRLM. Compared with OS, MIS has less intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion and quicker postoperative recovery. Furthermore, the two groups show equivalent long-term outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract

Robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction is a recently developed minimally invasive surgery used in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. However, its safety and feasibility remain undiscussed and controversial. this study reported the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors pertaining to traditional robotic assisted rectal cancer resection alone against that of robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction to provide a discussion on this issue. 49 patients who underwent robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction and 49 matched patients who underwent conventional robotic assisted rectal cancer resection were systematically analyzed in this study. Regarding the baseline characteristics, after matching, no significant differences were observed between the natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) group and the robotic assisted rectal cancer resection (RARC) group. Patients in the NOSE group had a reduced visual analog scale (p < 0.001), passed flatus more quickly (p = 0.002) and suffered less surgical stress than those in the RARC group. Moreover, 4 complications were observed in the NOSE group and 7 complications in the RARC group with no significant difference (p = 0.337) in terms of complications. The two groups had a similar survival outcomes, where the 3-year overall survival (p = 0.738) and 3-year progression-free survival (p = 0.986) were all comparable between the two groups. Histological differentiation and T stage could be regarded as independent prognostic factors for 3-year overall survival and 3-year progression-free survival. Robotic rectal cancer resection with natural orifice extraction is a safe and feasible minimally invasive surgery for patients suffering from rectal cancer as it encompasses considerable several advantages. Histological differentiation and T stage may serve as independent prognostic factors for 3-year overall survival and 3-year progression-free survival. Colorectal cancer is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer and the fifth leading cause of cancer death with nearly 3,763,000 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer in China in 2015. This number is estimated to increase annually according to the latest cancer statistics in China 1. Surgical treatment modalities are a major role in the treatment of rectal cancer and is the cornerstone of curative treatment 2. With total mesorectal excision serving as the standard oncological approach, surgical methods for rectal cancer are gradually becoming enriched and more minimally invasive, and they are roughly divided into laparotomy, laparoscopic surgery, transanal endoscopic microsurgery and robotic surgery 3. By being able to filter physiological tremors, robotic rectal cancer surgery can distinctly reduce vascular nerve injury 4. However, the abdominal incision to extract the specimen

PurposeBy comparing short- and long-term outcomes following totally robotic radical distal gastrectomy (TRDG) and robotic-assisted radical distal gastrectomy (RADG), we aimed to assess in which modus operandi patients will benefit more.MethodsFrom January 2015 to May 2019, we included 332 patients undergone RADG (237) and TRDG (95). Based on the propensity score matching (PSM), inclusion and exclusion criteria, 246 patients were finally included in the propensity score-matched cohort including RADG group (164) and TRDG group (82). We then compared the short- and long-term outcomes following both groups.ResultsPropensity score-matched cohort revealed no significant differences in both groups. Intra-abdominal bleeding, time to pass flatus, postoperative activity time, length of incision hospital stays, and stress response were significantly less in TRDG group than in RADG group. We observed 30 complications in RADG group while 13 complications in TRDG group. There were no significant differences in TRDG group and RADG group in terms of operation time, time for anastomosis, proximal resection, distal resection margin, number of lymph node resection, and total hospitalization cost. Both 3-year overall survival and 3-year disease-free survival were comparable in both groups.ConclusionsTRDG is a safe and feasible modus operandi profiting from short- and long-term outcomes compared with RADG. As surgeons improving their professional skills, TRDG could serve as the standard procedure for distal locally advanced gastric cancer with D2 lymphadenectomy.