Page 194 - Read Online

Tokunaga et al. J Cancer Metastasis Treat 2018;4:40 I http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2394-4722.2017.80 Page 5 of 9

Table 3. Comparison of operation time
Author Year Country/area Approach Number of patients Operation time
(n) (min)
Song et al. [9] 2009 Korea LDG (early) vs. RDG 20 vs. 20 a 290 vs. 203 **
LDG (later) vs. RDG 20 vs. 20 a 134 vs. 203 **
Kim et al. [30] 2010 Korea ODG vs. LDG vs. RDG 12 vs. 11 vs. 16 a 127 vs. 204 vs. 259 **
Caruso et al. [22] 2011 Italy OG vs. RG 120 vs. 29 a 222 vs. 290 **
Woo et al. [42] 2011 Korea LG vs. RG 591 vs. 236 a 171 vs. 220 **
Eom et al. [18] 2012 Korea LDG vs. RDG 62 vs. 30 a 189 vs. 229 **
Huang et al. [25] 2012 Korea OG vs. LG vs. RG 586 vs. 64 vs. 39 a 320 vs. 350 vs. 430 **
Kim et al. [29] 2012 Korea OG vs. LG vs. RG 4542 vs. 861 vs. 436 a 158 vs. 176 vs. 226 **
Park et al. [20] 2012 Korea LDG vs. RDG 120 vs. 30 a 140 vs. 218 *
Yoon et al. [44] 2012 Korea LTG vs. RTG 65 vs. 36 a 210 vs. 306 **
Huang et al. [19] 2014 Taiwan LG vs. RG 73 vs. 35 a 330 vs. 358 **
Junfeng et al. [27] 2014 America LG vs. RG 394 vs. 120 a 221 vs. 235 **
Kim et al. [28] 2014 Korea LDG vs. RDG 481 vs. 172 a 167 vs. 206 **
Noshiro et al. [33] 2014 Japan LDG vs. RDG 460 vs. 21 a 315 vs. 439 **
Son et al. [39] 2014 Korea LTG vs. RTG 58 vs. 51 a 210 vs. 264 **
Han et al. [24] 2015 Korea LPPG vs. RPPG 69 vs. 68 a 194 vs. 258 **
Lee et al. [32] 2015 Korea LDG vs. RDG 267 vs. 133 a 171 vs. 218 **
Park et al. [35] 2015 Korea LG vs. RG 622 vs. 148 a 189 vs. 255 **
Suda et al. [40] 2015 Japan LG vs. RG 438 vs. 88 a 361 vs. 381 *
Cianchi et al. [23] 2016 Italy LDG vs. RDG 41 vs. 30 a 262 vs. 323 **
Kim et al. [31] 2016 Korea LDG vs. RDG 288 vs. 87 a 230 vs. 248 **
Nakauchi et al. [17] 2016 Japan LG vs. RG 437 vs. 84 a 361 vs. 378 *
Okumura et al. [34] 2016 Korea OG vs. RG 132 vs. 49 a 174 vs. 227 **
Procopiuc et al. [36] 2016 Romania OG vs. RG 29 vs. 18 a 243 vs. 320 **
Shen et al. [38] 2016 China LG vs. RG 330 vs. 93 a 226 vs. 257 **
Yang et al. [43] 2017 Korea OG vs. LG vs. RG 241 vs. 511 vs. 173 a 193 vs. 174 vs. 202 **
Uyama et al. [41] 2012 Japan LDG vs. RDG 25 vs. 225 345 vs. 361 **
Hyun et al. [26] 2013 Korea LG vs. RG 83 vs. 38 220 vs. 234 **
Seo et al. [37] 2015 Korea LDG vs. RDG 40 vs. 40 224 vs. 243 **
a
*median; **mean. P < 0.05. LDG: laparoscopic distal gastrectomy; LG: laparoscopic gastrectomy; LTG: laparoscopic total gastrectomy;
LPPG: laparoscopic pylorus preservingl gastrectomy; RDG: robotic distal gastrectomy; RG: robotic gastrectomy; RTG: robotic total
gastrectomy; RPPG: robotic pylorus preservingl gastrectomy; ODG: open distal gastrectomy; OG: open gastrectomy

Considering the total medical expense of RG, long-term outcomes of RG need to be better than those of LG,
and should be confirmed by future prospective trials.

PROSPECTIVE STUDIES
Although quite a few retrospective studies already exist, the number of prospective studies, particularly that
of prospective comparative studies, is extremely limited so far [12-14,16] .

Kim et al. reported the results of a prospective non-randomized comparative study. In their study, a
[14]
total of 423 patients selected either RG or LG after they received a comprehensive explanation of each
procedure, and were matched according to surgeon, extent of gastric resection, and sex. Similar early
surgical outcomes including morbidity and mortality rate, except for longer operation time in the RG
group were reported.

The results of a single-center prospective randomized trial, in which patients were allocated to either open
(n = 153) or robotic (n = 158) gastrectomy groups, were reported by Wang et al. . Similar complication rates
[16]
between the groups, and less estimated blood loss, longer duration of surgery, and shorter postoperative
hospital stay in the robotic group than the open group were reported.