BACKGROUND: This study aims to prove the feasibility and safety of robotic gastrectomy using the hinotori™ Surgical Robot System (Medicaroid Corporation, Kobe, Japan).
METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled the 16 patients who underwent gastrectomy by the hinotori™ Surgical Robot System for gastric cancer at our hospital between June 2023 and January 2024. Console surgeons performed almost all lymphadenectomies, including the clipping of vessels. Assistant surgeons supported the lymphadenectomy using vessel sealing devices and during reconstruction.
RESULTS: Thirteen patients were cStage I, one patient was cStage II, and two patients were cStage III. Distal gastrectomy, proximal gastrectomy, and total gastrectomy were performed in 11, 1, and 4 patients, respectively. D1+ and D2 lymphadenectomies were performed in 11 and 5 patients, respectively. Billroth-I, Billroth-II, Roux-en-Y, and esophagogastrostomy were performed in three, six, six, and one patients, respectively. The median operation time was 282 (245-338) min, and the median console time was 226 (185-266) min. The median blood loss was 28 (12-50) mL, and the median amylase levels in drainage fluid were 280 (148-377) U/L on postoperative day 1 and 74 (42-148) U/L on postoperative day 3. There was anastomotic leakage (Clavien-Dindo [CD] IIIa) in one patient who underwent proximal gastrectomy. The median postoperative hospital stay was 12.5 (12-14) days.
CONCLUSIONS: In this initial case series, the hinotori™ Surgical Robot System was found to be safe and feasible for patients with gastric cancer and is suggested to be appropriate for gastrectomy, including distal gastrectomy and total gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer is the fifth most prevalent malignancy globally and the fourth major contributor to cancer-related mortality. The comparative effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy (RG) versus laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) at different stages of gastric cancer is unclear regarding surgical and survival outcomes. We compared surgical and survival outcomes between RG and LG in early-stage (cStage I) and advanced (cStage II/III) gastric cancers to elucidate the difference in the efficacy of RG across various stages of gastric cancer.
METHODS: We identified 299 patients (LG, 170; RG, 129) with cStage II/III disease and 569 (LG, 455; RG, 114) with cStage I disease who underwent either LG or RG. Following propensity score matching for RG and LG, 118 pairs were selected for cStage II/II and 113 pairs for cStage I. Surgical and survival outcomes of LG and RG were separately compared for cStage II/III and cStage I.
RESULTS: In cStage II/III, RG showed significantly fewer intra-abdominal complications of Clavien-Dindo (C.D.) Grade ≥ III in the RG group than in the LG group (LG = 8.5 vs. RG = 1.7%, P = 0.033). Multivariate analysis identified LG as an independent risk factor for intra-abdominal complications of C.D. Grade ≥ III (OR 5.69, 95% CI 1.17-27.70, P = 0.031). However, in cStage I, no difference in surgical outcomes between LG and RG was observed. No differences were observed in survival outcomes between LG and RG in both cStage I or cStage II/III.
CONCLUSIONS: The real benefit of RG was demonstrated in surgical outcomes, especially for advanced-stage gastric cancer.

Gastric adenocarcinoma is an aggressive disease and a leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Surgery entails either a total or a subtotal gastrectomy. These complex operations carry elevated morbidity and mortality with an extended recovery time. As such, research has focused on minimizing these risks and enhancing postoperative care. Robotic surgery is a newer platform that helps overcome some of the limitations of laparoscopy through three-dimensional vision, better mobility, and improved surgeon dexterity. As such, many surgeons have embraced robotics and advocated for their implementation in cancer surgery. This review will discuss the technical considerations of performing a robotic gastrectomy.

UNASSIGNED: Intra-abdominal infectious complications (IAICs) following minimally invasive gastrectomy (MIG) for cancer sometimes worsen short- and long-term outcomes. In this study, we focused on the minimum umbilicus-vertebra diameter (MUVD) in preoperative computed tomography (CT) images and robotic surgery to prevent severe IAIC occurrence.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 400 patients with gastric cancer who underwent 204 laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and 196 robotic gastrectomy (RG) procedures were enrolled in this study. We retrospectively investigated the significance of the MUVD and robotic surgery for preventing severe IAICs following MIG using multivariate and propensity score matching analysis.
UNASSIGNED: The MUVD cutoff value was 84 mm by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve using severe IAICs as the end point. The MUVD and visceral fat area (VFA) had significantly higher area under the curve (AUC) than BMI (MUVD vs. BMI, p = 0.032; VFA vs. BMI, p < 0.01). In the multivariate analysis, high MUVD (HR, 9.46; p = 0.026) and laparoscopic surgery (HR, 3.35; p = 0.042) were independent risk factors for severe IAIC occurrence. In the propensity matching analysis between robotic and laparoscopic surgery in the high MUVD group, the RG group tended to have a lower severe IAIC rate than the LG group (0% vs. 9.8%, p = 0.056).
UNASSIGNED: The MUVD was a novel and easy-measuring predictor of severe IAICs following MIG. Robotic surgery should be considered first in patients with gastric cancer having an MUVD value of 84 mm or higher from the perspective of severe IAIC occurrence.

UNASSIGNED: Despite the increasing use of robotic gastrectomy (RG) as an alternative to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in treating gastric cancer, controversy remains over the advantages of RG compared to LG and there is a paucity of studies comparing the two techniques regarding patient survival.
UNASSIGNED: In this retrospective cohort study, 675 patients undergoing minimally invasive gastrectomy were recruited from January 2016 to January 2018 (LG: n = 567; RG: n = 108). A one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was applied to minimize the selection bias due to confounding factors, yielding 104 patients in each of the RG and LG groups. After matching, the short-term outcomes and 3-year overall survival were compared in the two groups.
UNASSIGNED: The PSM cohort analysis showed a similar 3-year overall survival between RG and LG groups (p = .249). Concerning the short-term outcomes, the RG compared to LG resulted in lower blood loss (p = .01), lower postoperative complications (p = .001), lower postoperative pain (p = .016), earlier initiation of soft diet (p = .011), shorter hospital stay ‌(p = .012), but higher hospitalization expenses (p = .001).
UNASSIGNED: Our findings suggest that RG may offer advantages in terms of blood loss, surgical complications, recovery time, and pain management compared to LG while maintaining similar overall survival rates. However, RG is associated with higher hospital costs, potentially limiting its wider adoption. Further research, including large, multi-center randomized controlled trials with longer patient follow-up, particularly for advanced gastric cancer, is needed to confirm these findings.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RG) has been shown to be safe and feasible in the treatment of gastric cancer (GC). However, it is unclear whether RG is equivalent to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), especially in the Western world. Our objective was to compare the outcomes of RG and LG in GC patients.
METHODS: We reviewed all gastric adenocarcinoma patients who underwent curative gastrectomy by minimally invasive approach in our institution from 2009 to 2022. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to reduce selection bias. DaVinci Si platform was used for RG.
RESULTS: A total of 156 patients were eligible for inclusion (48 RG and 108 LG). Total gastrectomy was performed in 21.3% and 25% of cases in LG and RG, respectively. The frequency of stage pTNM II/III was 48.1%, and 54.2% in the LG and RG groups (p = 0.488). After PSM, 48 patients were matched in each group. LG and RG had a similar number of dissected lymph nodes (p = 0.759), operative time (p = 0.421), and hospital stay (p = 0.353). Blood loss was lower in the RG group (p = 0.042). The major postoperative complications rate was 16.7% for LG and 6.2% for RG (p = 0.109). The 30-day mortality rate was 2.1% and 0% for LG and RG, respectively (p = 1.0). There was no significant difference between the LG and RG groups for disease-free survival (79.6% vs. 61.2%, respectively; p = 0.155) and overall survival (75.9% vs. 65.7%, respectively; p = 0.422).
CONCLUSIONS: RG had similar surgical and long-term outcomes compared to LG, with less blood loss observed in RG.

BACKGROUND: The role of minimally invasive surgery using robotics versus laparoscopy in resectable gastric cancer patients with a high body mass index (BMI) remains controversial.
METHODS: A total of 482 gastric adenocarcinoma patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 who underwent minimally invasive radical gastrectomy between August 2016 and December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed, including 109 cases in the robotic gastrectomy (RG) group and 321 cases in the laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) group. Propensity score matching (PSM) with a 1:1 ratio was performed, and the perioperative outcomes, lymph node dissection, and 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were compared.
RESULTS: After PSM, 109 patients were included in each of the RG and LG groups, with balanced baseline characteristics. Compared with the LG group, the RG group had similar intraoperative estimated blood loss [median (IQR) 30 (20-50) vs. 35 (30-59) mL, median difference (95%CI) - 5 (- 10 to 0)], postoperative complications [13.8% vs. 18.3%, OR (95%CI) 0.71 (0.342 to 1.473)], postoperative recovery, total harvested lymph nodes [(34.25 ± 13.43 vs. 35.44 ± 14.12, mean difference (95%CI) - 1.19 (- 4.871 to 2.485)] and textbook outcomes [(81.7% vs. 76.1%, OR (95%CI) 1.39 (0.724 to 2.684)]. Among pathological stage II-III patients receiving chemotherapy, the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy in the RG group was similar to that in the LG group [median (IQR): 28 (25.5-32.5) vs. 32 (27-38.5) days, median difference (95%CI) - 3 (- 6 to 0)]. The 3-year OS (RG vs. LG: 80.7% vs. 81.7%, HR = 1.048, 95%CI 0.591 to 1.857) and DFS (78% vs. 76.1%, HR = 0.996, 95%CI 0.584 to 1.698) were comparable between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: RG conferred comparable lymph node dissection, postoperative recovery, and oncologic outcomes in a selected cohort of patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2.

Introduction: The use of robotic platform for gastrectomy for gastric cancer is rapidly increasing. This study aimed to describe the perioperative outcomes of 12 patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer using the hinotori™ surgical robot system (hinotori), a novel robot-assisted surgical platform, and compare the outcomes with the existing system, the da Vinci® Surgical System (DVSS). Methods: This study included 12 consecutive patients with gastric cancer who underwent robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer using the hinotori between March 2023 and September 2023 at our institution. The comprehensive perioperative outcomes of these patients were retrospectively analyzed and compared to 11 patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy using the DVSS during the same period. Results: The median age and body mass index were 71 years (range: 56-86) and 22.7 kg/m2 (range: 16.1-26.7). Distal and total gastrectomy were performed in 8 and 4 patients, respectively. The median console time and operation times were 187 (range: 112-270) and 252 minutes (range: 173-339), respectively. The median blood loss was 3 mL (range: 2-5). No intra- or postoperative complications were observed. There were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes between the hinotori and the DVSS. Conclusions: Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer using the hinotori is a feasible procedure and achieved perioperative outcomes similar to that using the DVSS. Clinical Trial Registration number: 114167-1.

UNASSIGNED: The efficacy of robotic gastrectomy (RG) on postoperative complications in patients with gastric cancer (GC) is unclear in terms of the volume of intra-abdominal fat tissue.
UNASSIGNED: We enrolled 403 patients with GC who had minimally invasive surgery between January 2015 and July 2022. During this time, 197 RG and 206 laparoscopic gastrectomies (LG) were performed on the study participants. According to the computed tomography scan, patients were defined as having or not having visceral obesity based on the visceral fatty area (VFA). In each high and low VFA group, we compared short-term outcomes between the RG group and LG group.
UNASSIGNED: After PS matching for patients with high VFA, the two groups were well matched, with 71 cases in both the RG and LG groups. The median surgical time in the RG group was significantly longer (420 vs. 365 min, p < 0.001). However, the RG group had a significantly lower rate of severe intra-abdominal infectious complications (IAIC), such as anastomotic leakage, pancreatic fistula, and intra-abdominal abscess (1.4% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.004). However, among the 77 patients with low VFA values, we found no significant difference in the rate of severe IAIC between the two groups (1.1% in the RG group vs. 2.6% in the LG group, p = 1.00).
UNASSIGNED: RG may be a viable alternative to LG because of the lower postoperative IAIC for patients with visceral obesity and GC. However, RG may not benefit non-obese patients.

The goal of a gastric cancer operation is a microscopically negative resection margin and D2 lymphadenectomy. Minimally invasive techniques (laparoscopic and robotic) have been proven to be equivalent for oncologic care, yet with faster recovery. Endoscopic mucosal resection can be used for T1a N0 tumor resection. Better understanding of hereditary gastric cancer and molecular subtypes has led to specialized recommendations for MSI-high tumors and patients with pathogenic CDH1 mutations. In the future, surgical management will support minimally invasive approaches and personalized cancer care based on subtype.