Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27646414›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2016

Robotic vs laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective comparative mono-institutional study.

Fabio Cianchi, Giampiero Indennitate, Giacomo Trallori, Manuela Ortolani, Beatrice Paoli, Giuseppe Macrì, Gabriele Lami, Beatrice Mallardi, Benedetta Badii, Fabio Staderini and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. [Robotic gastrectomy: Research progress and practical challenges].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

21 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Fabio CianchiDepartment of Surgery and Translational Medicine, Center of Oncological Minimally Invasive Surgery (COMIS), University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy. fabio.cianchi@unifi.it.
Giampiero IndennitateIFCA, Florence, Italy.
Giacomo TralloriUnit of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Manuela OrtolaniIFCA, Florence, Italy.
Beatrice PaoliIFCA, Florence, Italy.
Giuseppe MacrìUnit of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Gabriele LamiUnit of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Beatrice MallardiISPO, Florence, Italy.
Benedetta BadiiDepartment of Surgery and Translational Medicine, Center of Oncological Minimally Invasive Surgery (COMIS), University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy.
Fabio StaderiniDepartment of Surgery and Translational Medicine, Center of Oncological Minimally Invasive Surgery (COMIS), University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy.
Etleva QiriciDepartment of Surgery and Translational Medicine, Center of Oncological Minimally Invasive Surgery (COMIS), University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy.
Antonio TaddeiDepartment of Surgery and Translational Medicine, Center of Oncological Minimally Invasive Surgery (COMIS), University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy.
Maria Novella RingressiDepartment of Surgery and Translational Medicine, Center of Oncological Minimally Invasive Surgery (COMIS), University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy.
Luca MesseriniDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Luca NovelliDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Siro BagnoliUnit of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Andrea BonanomiUnit of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Caterina FoppaDepartment of Surgery and Translational Medicine, Center of Oncological Minimally Invasive Surgery (COMIS), University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy.
Ileana SkalameraDepartment of Surgery and Translational Medicine, Center of Oncological Minimally Invasive Surgery (COMIS), University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy.
Giulia FiorenzaDepartment of Surgery and Translational Medicine, Center of Oncological Minimally Invasive Surgery (COMIS), University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy.
Giuliano PerigliDepartment of Surgery and Translational Medicine, Center of Oncological Minimally Invasive Surgery (COMIS), University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy.
University of Florence · ITAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi · ITIstituto per lo Studio e la Prevenzione Oncologica · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic surgery has been developed with the aim of improving surgical quality and overcoming the limitations of conventional laparoscopy in the performance of complex mini-invasive procedures. The present study was designed to compare robotic and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in the treatment of gastric cancer.

methodsBetween June 2008 and September 2015, 41 laparoscopic and 30 robotic distal gastrectomies were performed by a single surgeon at the same institution. Clinicopathological characteristics of the patients, surgical performance, postoperative morbidity/mortality and pathologic data were prospectively collected and compared between the laparoscopic and robotic groups by the Chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney test, as indicated.

resultsThere were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups. Mean tumor size was larger in the laparoscopic than in the robotic patients (5.3 ± 0.5 cm and 3.0 ± 0.4 cm, respectively; P = 0.02). However, tumor stage distribution was similar between the two groups. The mean number of dissected lymph nodes was higher in the robotic than in the laparoscopic patients (39.1 ± 3.7 and 30.5 ± 2.0, respectively; P = 0.02). The mean operative time was 262.6 ± 8.6 min in the laparoscopic group and 312.6 ± 15.7 min in the robotic group (P < 0.001). The incidences of surgery-related and surgery-unrelated complications were similar in the laparoscopic and in the robotic patients. There were no significant differences in short-term clinical outcomes between the two groups.

conclusionsWithin the limitation of a small-sized, non-randomized analysis, our study confirms that robotic distal gastrectomy is a feasible and safe surgical procedure. When compared with conventional laparoscopy, robotic surgery shows evident benefits in the performance of lymphadenectomy with a higher number of retrieved and examined lymph nodes.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyLymph Node ExcisionRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChi-Square DistributionFemaleGastrectomyHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeRetrospective StudiesStomach NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeDistal gastrectomyGastric cancerLaparoscopyLymphadenectomyRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID27646414
PMCPMC5029040
OpenAlexW2521236926

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.