{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.048458149779735685, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04153555695405916, 'mean_word_length': 4.932835820895522, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Meta-analysis of the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy

Abstract Objective:To compare the short-term outcomes of gastric cancer patients treated with robotic gastrectomy (RG) or laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Introduction:Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been used for gastric cancer since 2002. This meta-analysis evaluates the safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer. Material and methods: Pubmed, Embase and The Cochrane Library were searched, and manual searches were performed up to March 31, 2013. Five non-randomized control trials that reported RG and LG for gastric cancer were included. Outcomes evaluated were operation time, number of retrieved LN, blood loss, the length of the resection margin, complications, length of postoperative hospital stay. Results:Of 1796 patients in five studies, 551 were allocated to RG and 1245 to LG. Operation time was significantly shorter in the latter group (weighted mean difference 42.9; 95 % confidence interval 20.87 to 64.92 min; p < 0.05). Blood loss weighted mean difference was –16.07 (95 % confidence interval –32.78 to 0.64 mL; p < 0.05) and postoperative stay weighted mean difference was –1.98 (95 % confidence interval –3.66 to –0.3 days; p < 0·05); both were less in the RG group. LN, length of the resection margin, and postoperative complications were similar in both groups. Conclusion: It may be concluded that RG is a safe and comfortable alternative to LG and is justifiable in the light of clinical trials.