Comparison of Surgical,Clinical and Oncological Outcomes Between Robotic-assisted and Laparoscopic-assisted Gastrectomy

NCT ID: NCT02413476

Last Updated: 2015-05-19

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

UNKNOWN

Clinical Phase

PHASE2/PHASE3

Total Enrollment

120 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2015-05-31

Study Completion Date

2018-05-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The study aims to compare the clinical outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer,and evaluate the the feasibility and safety of robotic gastrectomy. Furthermore, the investigators can explore the patients who are more suitable for robotic gastrectomy.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

This is a prospective study lasting 36 months.

Minimally invasive gastrectomy is accepted widely in Asian countries. Laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy offers improved early postoperative outcomes and improved long-term oncologic outcomes,but it still has its own limitations.The advantages of robotic surgery include a 3D imagine, convenient movements of the robotic arm, no tremor, and ambidextrous capability.

This study therefore aimed to compare the clinical results between robotic-assisted gastrectomy(RAG) using the da Vinci Surgical System and conventional laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy(LAG) in gastric cancer patients.To evaluate the the feasibility and safety of robotic gastrectomy and explore the patients who are more suitable for robotic gastrectomy.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Gastric Cancer

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

NON_RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Robotic-assisted Gastrectomy(RAG)

Robotic-assisted Gastrectomy will be performed for the treatment of patients assigned to this group.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Robotic-assisted Gastrectomy(RAG)

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Surgical procedure will be performed with da vinci Surgical System.The type of reconstruction will be selected according to the surgeon's experience.

Laparoscopic-assisted Gastrectomy(LAG)

Laparoscopic-assisted Gastrectomy will be performed for the treatment of patients assigned to this group.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Laparoscopic-assisted Gastrectomy(LAG)

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Surgical procedure will be performed with laparoscopic techniques.The type of reconstruction will be selected according to the surgeon's experience.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Robotic-assisted Gastrectomy(RAG)

Surgical procedure will be performed with da vinci Surgical System.The type of reconstruction will be selected according to the surgeon's experience.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Laparoscopic-assisted Gastrectomy(LAG)

Surgical procedure will be performed with laparoscopic techniques.The type of reconstruction will be selected according to the surgeon's experience.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

1. Pathologically proven gastric cancer(early or advanced).
2. Age:older than 18 years old,younger than 80 years old.
3. cT1-4a(surgically resectable tumor),N0-3,M0 at preoperative evaluation according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer(AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual Seventh Edition
4. No obvious surgical contraindications.
5. American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score class I, II, or III
6. Written informed consent.

Exclusion Criteria

1. Severe mental disorder
2. Pregnancy
3. History of previous upper abdominal surgery (except laparoscopic cholecystectomy)
4. History of previous gastrectomy,endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection.
5. History of unstable angina or myocardial infarction within past six months
6. History of previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy
7. History of other malignant disease within past 5 years.
8. Enlarged or bulky regional lymph node diameter over 3cm by preoperative imaging
9. Any accompanying surgical condition needed to be performed in the same time
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

80 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

wei bo

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

wei bo

Vice Director of the general surgery department, Chinese PLA General Hospital

Responsibility Role SPONSOR_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Wei bo, MD

Role: STUDY_CHAIR

Vice director of the general surgery department, Chinese PLA General Hospital

Central Contacts

Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.

Wei bo, MD

Role: CONTACT

+8613910038055

Lv xiaoye, bachelor

Role: CONTACT

+8613573196560

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Park JY, Ryu KW, Reim D, Eom BW, Yoon HM, Rho JY, Choi IJ, Kim YW. Robot-assisted gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: is it beneficial in viscerally obese patients compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy? World J Surg. 2015 Jul;39(7):1789-97. doi: 10.1007/s00268-015-2998-4.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25670040 (View on PubMed)

Parisi A, Desiderio J. Establishing a multi-institutional registry to compare the outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery for gastric cancer. Surgery. 2015 Apr;157(4):830-1. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.12.007. Epub 2015 Jan 26. No abstract available.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25633739 (View on PubMed)

Lee J, Kim YM, Woo Y, Obama K, Noh SH, Hyung WJ. Robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer patients with high body mass index: comparison with conventional laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy. Surg Endosc. 2015 Nov;29(11):3251-60. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4069-1. Epub 2015 Jan 29.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25631106 (View on PubMed)

Chuan L, Yan S, Pei-Wu Y. Meta-analysis of the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2015 Jun;24(3):127-34. doi: 10.3109/13645706.2014.985685. Epub 2014 Dec 3.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25467019 (View on PubMed)

Suda K, Ishida Y, Uyama I. [Current status of robotic surgery for gastric cancer]. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2014 Nov;41(11):1358-61. Japanese.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25434438 (View on PubMed)

Huang KH, Lan YT, Fang WL, Chen JH, Lo SS, Li AF, Chiou SH, Wu CW, Shyr YM. Comparison of the operative outcomes and learning curves between laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. PLoS One. 2014 Oct 31;9(10):e111499. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111499. eCollection 2014.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25360767 (View on PubMed)

Zong L, Seto Y, Aikou S, Takahashi T. Efficacy evaluation of subtotal and total gastrectomies in robotic surgery for gastric cancer compared with that in open and laparoscopic resections: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014 Jul 28;9(7):e103312. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103312. eCollection 2014.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25068955 (View on PubMed)

Roviello F, Piagnerelli R, Ferrara F, Caputo E, Scheiterle M, Marrelli D. Assessing the feasibility of full robotic interaortocaval nodal dissection for locally advanced gastric cancer. Int J Med Robot. 2015 Jun;11(2):218-22. doi: 10.1002/rcs.1588. Epub 2014 Apr 15.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24737464 (View on PubMed)

Son T, Lee JH, Kim YM, Kim HI, Noh SH, Hyung WJ. Robotic spleen-preserving total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopic procedure. Surg Endosc. 2014 Sep;28(9):2606-15. doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3511-0. Epub 2014 Apr 3.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24695982 (View on PubMed)

Junfeng Z, Yan S, Bo T, Yingxue H, Dongzhu Z, Yongliang Z, Feng Q, Peiwu Y. Robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison of surgical performance and short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2014 Jun;28(6):1779-87. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3385-6. Epub 2014 Jan 3.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24385251 (View on PubMed)

Hyun MH, Lee CH, Kim HJ, Tong Y, Park SS. Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic and open resections for gastric carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2013 Nov;100(12):1566-78. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9242.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24264778 (View on PubMed)

Marano A, Choi YY, Hyung WJ, Kim YM, Kim J, Noh SH. Robotic versus Laparoscopic versus Open Gastrectomy: A Meta-Analysis. J Gastric Cancer. 2013 Sep;13(3):136-48. doi: 10.5230/jgc.2013.13.3.136. Epub 2013 Sep 30.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24156033 (View on PubMed)

Liao GX, Xie GZ, Li R, Zhao ZH, Sun QQ, Du SS, Ren C, Li GX, Deng HJ, Yuan YW. Meta-analysis of outcomes compared between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(8):4871-5. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2013.14.8.4871.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24083761 (View on PubMed)

Kim HI, Park MS, Song KJ, Woo Y, Hyung WJ. Rapid and safe learning of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: multidimensional analysis in a comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014 Oct;40(10):1346-54. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.09.011. Epub 2013 Sep 17.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24080199 (View on PubMed)

Hyun MH, Lee CH, Kwon YJ, Cho SI, Jang YJ, Kim DH, Kim JH, Park SH, Mok YJ, Park SS. Robot versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer by an experienced surgeon: comparisons of surgery, complications, and surgical stress. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Apr;20(4):1258-65. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2679-6. Epub 2012 Oct 19.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 23080320 (View on PubMed)

Ortiz-Oshiro E, Exposito PB, Sierra JM, Gonzalez JD, Barbosa DS, Fernandez-Represa JA. Laparoscopic and robotic distal gastrectomy for gastrointestinal stromal tumour: case report. Int J Med Robot. 2012 Dec;8(4):491-5. doi: 10.1002/rcs.1456. Epub 2012 Aug 29.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 22930489 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

sample20152018

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.