Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26511119›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2016

Late phase II study of robot-assisted gastrectomy with nodal dissection for clinical stage I gastric cancer.

Masanori Tokunaga, Rie Makuuchi, Yuiciro Miki, Yutaka Tanizawa, Etsuro Bando, Taiichi Kawamura, Masanori Terashima

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase II
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. 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
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. How to Decide Approaches and Procedures for Early and Advanced Gastric Cancer?Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Preoperative risk factors for postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complication after gastrectomy for gastric cancer using a Japanese web-based nationwide database.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2021
    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

7 authors.

Masanori TokunagaDivision of Gastric Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center, 1007 Shimonagakubo, Nagaizumi-cho, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan. m.tokunaga@scchr.jp.
Rie MakuuchiDivision of Gastric Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center, 1007 Shimonagakubo, Nagaizumi-cho, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan.
Yuiciro MikiDivision of Gastric Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center, 1007 Shimonagakubo, Nagaizumi-cho, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan.
Yutaka TanizawaDivision of Gastric Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center, 1007 Shimonagakubo, Nagaizumi-cho, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan.
Etsuro BandoDivision of Gastric Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center, 1007 Shimonagakubo, Nagaizumi-cho, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan.
Taiichi KawamuraDivision of Gastric Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center, 1007 Shimonagakubo, Nagaizumi-cho, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan.
Masanori TerashimaDivision of Gastric Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center, 1007 Shimonagakubo, Nagaizumi-cho, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe feasibility of robot-assisted gastrectomy (RG) in terms of safety is unclear due to a lack of prospective studies. We showed feasible surgical outcomes in our previous study. In this phase II study, we assessed feasibility of the procedure by recruiting a larger number of patients.

methodThis single-center, prospective phase II study included patients with clinical stage I gastric cancer undergoing RG. The primary end point was the incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications, including anastomotic leakage, pancreas-related infection, and intra-abdominal abscess. The secondary end points were overall survival, relapse-free survival, RG completion rate, and incidence of all surgical morbidities.

resultsA total of 120 patients were recruited between December 2012 and April 2015. The incidence of intra-abdominal infectious complications was 3.3 % (95 % CI 0.9-8.3 %), and all complications were successfully treated conservatively without re-operation. The incidence of overall adverse events was 14.2 % (95 % CI 8.5-21.7 %). Three patients required conversion to open gastrectomy according to the protocol due to advancement of disease.

conclusionOur data show that RG is safe in terms of the incidence and severity of postoperative complications.

Indexed as

Lymph Node ExcisionRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overConversion to Open SurgeryFemaleGastrectomyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesStomach NeoplasmsYoung AdultClinical trialda VinciGastrectomyGastric cancerRobot

Identifiers

PMID26511119

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.