Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25030478›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2015

Potential advantages of robotic radical gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in comparison with conventional laparoscopic approach: a single institutional retrospective comparative cohort study.

Koichi Suda, Mariko Man-I, Yoshinori Ishida, Yuichiro Kawamura, Seiji Satoh, Ichiro Uyama

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 130 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
130citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

130 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: systematic review and future directions.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2023
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. The quantification and clinical analysis of depression and anxiety in patients undergoing Da Vinci robot-assisted radical gastrectomy and open radical gastrectomy.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2021
    Trial
  16. 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
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

70 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Koichi SudaDivision of Upper GI, Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan, ko-suda@nifty.com.
Mariko Man-I
Yoshinori Ishida
Yuichiro Kawamura
Seiji Satoh
Ichiro Uyama

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe have previously reported that laparoscopic approach improved short-term postoperative courses even for advanced gastric adenocarcinoma, but not morbidity, in comparison with open approach. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of the use of the surgical robot, da Vinci Surgical System, in minimally invasive radical gastrectomy on short-term outcomes.

methodsA single institutional retrospective cohort study was performed (UMIN000011749). Five hundred twenty-six patients who underwent radical gastrectomy were enrolled. Eighty-eight patients who agreed to uninsured use of the surgical robot underwent robotic gastrectomy, whereas the remaining 438 patients who wished for laparoscopic (lap) approach with health insurance coverage underwent conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy.

resultsIn the robotic group, morbidity (robotic vs lap 2.3 vs 11.4 %, p = 0.009) and hospital stay following surgery (robotic vs lap 14 [2-31] vs 15 [8-136] days, p = 0.021) were significantly improved, even though operative time (p = 0.003) and estimated blood loss (p = 0.026) were slightly greater. In particular, local (robotic vs lap 1.1 vs 9.8 %, p = 0.007) rather than systemic (robotic vs lap 1.1 vs 2.5 %, p = 0.376) complication rates were attenuated using the surgical robot. Multivariate analyses revealed that non-use of the surgical robot (OR 6.174 [1.454-26.224], p = 0.014), total gastrectomy (OR 4.670 [2.503-8.713], p < 0.001), and D2 lymphadenectomy (OR 2.095 [1.124-3.903], p = 0.020) were the significant independent risk factors determining postoperative complications.

conclusionsThe use of the surgical robot might reduce surgery-related complications, leading to further improvement in short-term postoperative courses following minimally invasive radical gastrectomy.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGastrectomyHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeRetrospective StudiesRoboticsStomach NeoplasmsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID25030478

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.