J Gastric Cancer.  2019 Jun;19(2):165-172. 10.5230/jgc.2019.19.e13.

Similar Operative Outcomes between the da Vinci Xi® and da Vinci Si® Systems in Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. wjhyung@yuhs.ac
  • 2Gastric Cancer Center, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea.

Abstract

PURPOSE
The robotic system for surgery was introduced to gastric cancer surgery in the early 2000s to overcome the shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery. The more recently introduced da Vinci Xi® system offers benefits allowing four-quadrant access, greater range of motion, and easier docking through an overhead boom rotation with laser targeting. We aimed to identify whether the Xi® system provides actual advantages over the Si® system in gastrectomy for gastric cancer by comparing the operative outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy as treatment for gastric cancer from March 2016 to March 2017. Patients' demographic data, perioperative information, and operative and pathological outcomes were collected and analyzed.
RESULTS
A total of 109 patients were included in the Xi® group and 179 in the Si® group. Demographic characteristics were similar in both groups. The mean operative time was 229.9 minutes in the Xi® group and 223.7 minutes in the Si® group. The mean estimated blood loss was 72.7 mL in the Xi® group and 62.1 mL in the Si® group. No patient in the Xi® group was converted to open or laparoscopy, while 3 patients in the Si® group were converted, 2 to open surgery and 1 to laparoscopy, this difference was not statistically significant. Bowel function was resumed 3 days after surgery, while soft diet was initiated 4 days after surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
We found no difference in surgical outcomes after robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer between the da Vinci Xi® and da Vinci Si® procedures.

Keyword

Robot; Gastrectomy; Gastric cancer

MeSH Terms

Diet
Gastrectomy*
Humans
Laparoscopy
Operative Time
Range of Motion, Articular
Retrospective Studies
Stomach Neoplasms*

Reference

1. Ozben V, Cengiz TB, Atasoy D, Bayraktar O, Aghayeva A, Erguner I, et al. Is da Vinci Xi better than da Vinci Si in robotic rectal cancer surgery? Comparison of the 2 generations of da Vinci systems. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016; 26:417–423. PMID: 27636147.
Article
2. Lim SH, Lee HM, Son T, Hyung WJ, Kim HI. Robotic surgery for gastric tumor: current status and new approaches. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016; 1:28. PMID: 28138595.
Article
3. Kim HI, Han SU, Yang HK, Kim YW, Lee HJ, Ryu KW, et al. Multicenter prospective comparative study of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2016; 263:103–109. PMID: 26020107.
Article
4. Shen W, Xi H, Wei B, Cui J, Bian S, Zhang K, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison of short-term surgical outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2016; 30:574–580. PMID: 26208497.
Article
5. Song J, Oh SJ, Kang WH, Hyung WJ, Choi SH, Noh SH. Robot-assisted gastrectomy with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: lessons learned from an initial 100 consecutive procedures. Ann Surg. 2009; 249:927–932. PMID: 19474671.
6. Song J, Kang WH, Oh SJ, Hyung WJ, Choi SH, Noh SH. Role of robotic gastrectomy using da Vinci system compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy: initial experience of 20 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc. 2009; 23:1204–1211. PMID: 19263147.
Article
7. Abdel Raheem A, Sheikh A, Kim DK, Alatawi A, Alabdulaali I, Han WK, et al. Da Vinci Xi and Si platforms have equivalent perioperative outcomes during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: preliminary experience. J Robot Surg. 2017; 11:53–61. PMID: 27342870.
Article
8. Kim DH, Kim H, Kwak S, Baek K, Na G, Kim JH, et al. The settings, pros and cons of the new surgical robot da Vinci Xi system for transoral robotic surgery (TORS): a comparison with the popular da Vinci Si system. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016; 26:391–396. PMID: 27661201.
Article
9. Morelli L, Guadagni S, Di Franco G, Palmeri M, Caprili G, D'Isidoro C, et al. Use of the new da Vinci Xi® during robotic rectal resection for cancer: a pilot matched-case comparison with the da Vinci Si®. Int J Med Robot. 2017; 13:e1728.
Article
10. Goonewardene SS, Cahill D. The da Vinci Xi and robotic radical prostatectomy-an evolution in learning and technique. J Robot Surg. 2017; 11:111–113. PMID: 27542165.
Article
11. Morelli L, Di Franco G, Guadagni S, Rossi L, Palmeri M, Furbetta N, et al. Robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: case-matched comparison of short-term surgical and functional outcomes between the da Vinci Xi and Si. Surg Endosc. 2018; 32:589–600. PMID: 28733738.
Article
12. Patel MN, Aboumohamed A, Hemal A. Does transition from the da Vinci Si to Xi robotic platform impact single-docking technique for robot-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy? BJU Int. 2015; 116:990–994. PMID: 26123244.
Article
13. Protyniak B, Jorden J, Farmer R. Multiquadrant robotic colorectal surgery: the da Vinci Xi vs Si comparison. J Robot Surg. 2018; 12:67–74. PMID: 28275893.
Article
14. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240:205–213. PMID: 15273542.
15. Seo WJ, Son T, Roh CK, Cho M, Kim HI, Hyung WJ. Reduced-port totally robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: a modified technique using Single-Site® and two additional ports. Surg Endosc. 2018; 32:3713–3719. PMID: 29777355.
16. Kim YM, Son T, Kim HI, Noh SH, Hyung WJ. Robotic D2 lymph node dissection during distal subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: toward procedural standardization. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23:2409–2410. PMID: 26957501.
Article
17. Lee S, Kim JK, Kim YN, Jang DS, Kim YM, Son T, et al. Safety and feasibility of reduced-port robotic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a phase I/II clinical trial. Surg Endosc. 2017; 31:4002–4009. PMID: 28205030.
Article
18. Woo Y, Hyung WJ, Pak KH, Inaba K, Obama K, Choi SH, et al. Robotic gastrectomy as an oncologically sound alternative to laparoscopic resections for the treatment of early-stage gastric cancers. Arch Surg. 2011; 146:1086–1092. PMID: 21576595.
Article
19. 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; 40:1346–1354. PMID: 24080199.
20. Yang K, Bang HJ, Almadani ME, Dy-Abalajon DM, Kim YN, Roh KH, et al. Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction by intracorporeal anastomosis with linear staplers. J Am Coll Surg. 2016; 222:e39–e45. PMID: 26968319.
Article
21. Cho M, Son T, Kim HI, Noh SH, Choi S, Seo WJ, et al. Similar hematologic and nutritional outcomes after proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction in comparison to total gastrectomy for early upper gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2018; [In press]. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6448-x.
Article
Full Text Links
  • JGC
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr