Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24202713›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2014

Robotically-enhanced surgical anatomy enables surgeons to perform distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer using electric cautery devices alone.

Hirokazu Noshiro, Osamu Ikeda, Masako Urata

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Clinical advantages of robotic gastrectomy for clinical stage I/II gastric cancer: a multi-institutional prospective single-arm study.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2019
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Reverse layout of the remnant esophagus and stomach during right transthoracic valvuloplastic esophagogastrostomy in robotic esophagogastric junctional cancer surgery.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hirokazu NoshiroDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Saga University, 5-1-1 Nabeshima, Saga, 849-8501, Japan, noshiro@cc.saga-u.ac.jp.
Osamu Ikeda
Masako Urata
Saga University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite recent advances in robotic urological surgery, the feasibility and clinical merit of robotic gastric surgery have not yet been fully documented. Therefore, we designed a prospective, non-randomized study to determine the feasibility and safety of robot-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) for gastric cancer using electric cautery devices, which are more familiar to open surgery.

methodsBetween April 2010 and December 2012, 181 patients treated by distal gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma were eligible for this study. According to their intent to undergo uninsured robotic surgery, 21 patients were treated with RADG (RADG group) while 160 patients were treated by conventional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG group). Under a basic working hypothesis that the superior visualization and unique movement of the robotic arms during dissection would be closely associated with reduced amount of blood loss, even though an equivalent extension of lymph node dissection was carried out, we prospectively collected data from patients in the RADG and LDG groups.

resultsAll patients were successfully treated without conversion except for one patient in the RADG group who underwent conversion to laparoscopic total gastrectomy. In comparison with the patient groups, the estimated blood loss in patients in the RADG group treated with electric cautery devices only was smaller, but not significantly, than patients in the LDG group treated with ultrasonic-activated devices, although the same extent of lymph node dissection was achieved. In contrast, there were four patients (2.5 %) in the LDG group who developed a pancreas fistula or intra-abdominal abscess, while no patients treated with RADG developed such complications.

conclusionsRADG using electric cautery instruments without ultrasonic-activated devices is feasible and safe. The robot enables particular surgical views, called robotically-enhanced surgical anatomy, and may contribute to reducing blood loss despite the fact that only electric cautery was used.

Indexed as

RoboticsAgedCatheter AblationEquipment DesignFeasibility StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGastrectomyHumansMaleProspective StudiesStomach NeoplasmsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24202713
OpenAlexW2131958167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.