Abstract
Despite high mortality rates from gastric cancer, surgical management remains critical for curative potential. Optimal outcomes of gastric cancer resection depend on a multitude of variables, including the extent of resection, scope of lymphadenectomy, method of reconstruction, and potential for a minimally invasive approach. Laparoscopic gastrectomy, compared with open gastrectomy, has been analyzed in numerous randomized control trials. Generally, those trials demonstrated statistically similar postoperative complication rates, mortality, and oncologic outcomes between the two approaches. Although laparoscopic gastrectomy requires longer operative times, significant improvements in estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay, and return of bowel function have been noted in patients who undergo laparoscopic gastrectomy. These short-term benefits, along with equivalent oncologic results, have influenced national guidelines in both Eastern and Western countries to recommend laparoscopy, especially for early stage disease. Although robotic gastrectomy has not been as widely validated in effective trials, studies have reported equivalent oncologic outcomes and similar or improved postoperative complication and recovery rates after robotic gastrectomy compared with open gastrectomy. Comparing the two minimally invasive gastrectomy approaches, robotic surgery was associated with improved estimated blood loss, incidence of pancreatic sequela, and lymph node harvests in some studies, whereas laparoscopy resulted in lower operative times and hospital costs. Ultimately, when applying outcomes from the literature to clinical patient care decisions, it is imperative to recognize these studies' range of inclusion criteria, delineating between patients originating from Eastern or Western countries, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the volume of surgeon experience, and the extent of gastrectomy, among others.