Purpose: Although laparoscopic distal gastrectomy has rapidly replaced open distal gastrectomy, laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) is less frequently performed owing to technical difficulties. Robotic surgery could be an appropriate minimally invasive alternative to LTG because it alleviates the technical challenges posed by laparoscopic procedures.However, few studies have compared the oncological safety of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) with that of LTG, especially for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Herein, we aimed to assess the oncological outcomes of RTG for AGC and compare them with those of LTG. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 147 and 204 patients who underwent RTG and LTG for AGC, respectively, between 2007 and 2020. Long-term outcomes were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Results: After IPTW, the 2 groups exhibited similar clinicopathological features. The 5-year overall survival was comparable between the 2 groups (88.5% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 79.4%–93.7%] after RTG and 87.3% [95% CI, 80.1%–92.0%]) after LTG; log-rank P=0.544).The hazard ratio (HR) for death after RTG compared with that after LTG was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.40–1.33; P=0.304). The 5-year relapse-free survival was also similar between the 2 groups (75.7% [95% CI, 65.2%–83.4%] after RTG and 76.4% [95% CI, 67.9%–83.0%] after LTG; logrank P=0.850). The HR for recurrence after RTG compared with that after LTG was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.60–1.46; P=0.753). Conclusions Our findings revealed that RTG and LTG for AGC had similar long-term outcomes. RTG is an oncologically safe alternative to LTG and has technical advantages.

Purpose: Although laparoscopic distal gastrectomy has rapidly replaced open distal gastrectomy, laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) is less frequently performed owing to technical difficulties. Robotic surgery could be an appropriate minimally invasive alternative to LTG because it alleviates the technical challenges posed by laparoscopic procedures.However, few studies have compared the oncological safety of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) with that of LTG, especially for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Herein, we aimed to assess the oncological outcomes of RTG for AGC and compare them with those of LTG. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 147 and 204 patients who underwent RTG and LTG for AGC, respectively, between 2007 and 2020. Long-term outcomes were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Results: After IPTW, the 2 groups exhibited similar clinicopathological features. The 5-year overall survival was comparable between the 2 groups (88.5% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 79.4%–93.7%] after RTG and 87.3% [95% CI, 80.1%–92.0%]) after LTG; log-rank P=0.544).The hazard ratio (HR) for death after RTG compared with that after LTG was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.40–1.33; P=0.304). The 5-year relapse-free survival was also similar between the 2 groups (75.7% [95% CI, 65.2%–83.4%] after RTG and 76.4% [95% CI, 67.9%–83.0%] after LTG; logrank P=0.850). The HR for recurrence after RTG compared with that after LTG was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.60–1.46; P=0.753). Conclusions Our findings revealed that RTG and LTG for AGC had similar long-term outcomes. RTG is an oncologically safe alternative to LTG and has technical advantages.

Purpose: Although laparoscopic distal gastrectomy has rapidly replaced open distal gastrectomy, laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) is less frequently performed owing to technical difficulties. Robotic surgery could be an appropriate minimally invasive alternative to LTG because it alleviates the technical challenges posed by laparoscopic procedures.However, few studies have compared the oncological safety of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) with that of LTG, especially for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Herein, we aimed to assess the oncological outcomes of RTG for AGC and compare them with those of LTG. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 147 and 204 patients who underwent RTG and LTG for AGC, respectively, between 2007 and 2020. Long-term outcomes were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Results: After IPTW, the 2 groups exhibited similar clinicopathological features. The 5-year overall survival was comparable between the 2 groups (88.5% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 79.4%–93.7%] after RTG and 87.3% [95% CI, 80.1%–92.0%]) after LTG; log-rank P=0.544).The hazard ratio (HR) for death after RTG compared with that after LTG was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.40–1.33; P=0.304). The 5-year relapse-free survival was also similar between the 2 groups (75.7% [95% CI, 65.2%–83.4%] after RTG and 76.4% [95% CI, 67.9%–83.0%] after LTG; logrank P=0.850). The HR for recurrence after RTG compared with that after LTG was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.60–1.46; P=0.753). Conclusions Our findings revealed that RTG and LTG for AGC had similar long-term outcomes. RTG is an oncologically safe alternative to LTG and has technical advantages.

Purpose: Although laparoscopic distal gastrectomy has rapidly replaced open distal gastrectomy, laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) is less frequently performed owing to technical difficulties. Robotic surgery could be an appropriate minimally invasive alternative to LTG because it alleviates the technical challenges posed by laparoscopic procedures.However, few studies have compared the oncological safety of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) with that of LTG, especially for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Herein, we aimed to assess the oncological outcomes of RTG for AGC and compare them with those of LTG. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 147 and 204 patients who underwent RTG and LTG for AGC, respectively, between 2007 and 2020. Long-term outcomes were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Results: After IPTW, the 2 groups exhibited similar clinicopathological features. The 5-year overall survival was comparable between the 2 groups (88.5% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 79.4%–93.7%] after RTG and 87.3% [95% CI, 80.1%–92.0%]) after LTG; log-rank P=0.544).The hazard ratio (HR) for death after RTG compared with that after LTG was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.40–1.33; P=0.304). The 5-year relapse-free survival was also similar between the 2 groups (75.7% [95% CI, 65.2%–83.4%] after RTG and 76.4% [95% CI, 67.9%–83.0%] after LTG; logrank P=0.850). The HR for recurrence after RTG compared with that after LTG was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.60–1.46; P=0.753). Conclusions Our findings revealed that RTG and LTG for AGC had similar long-term outcomes. RTG is an oncologically safe alternative to LTG and has technical advantages.