SynthesisJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2017
Robotic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy in the treatment of gastric cancer.
Synthesis in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews.BMJ open · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of Long-Term and Perioperative Outcomes of RoboticFrontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Should robotic gastrectomy become a standard surgical treatment option for gastric cancer?Surgery today · 2020Pooled it
- Long-term oncological outcomes in robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Pooled it
- Long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for clinical stage I gastric cancer: a single-center prospective phase II study.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Trial
- [Robotic gastrectomy: Research progress and practical challenges].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026Review
- Enhanced recovery and reduced opioid requirements following robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Risk of Open Conversion During Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Optimizing Patient Selection.Journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Introduction of day-case robotic liver surgery: a case series from a tertiary hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Open vs robotic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis on 1469 patients from the IMIGASTRIC prospective database.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Robotic total gastrectomy for carcinoma in the remnant stomach: a comparison with laparoscopic total gastrectomy.Gastroenterology report · 2021Article
- The long-term clinical outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a large-scale single institutional retrospective study.American journal of translational research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic gastrectomy (RG) has been developed to improve surgical quality and to overcome the limitations of conventional open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis is to comprehensively compare the safety and efficacy between robotic surgery and open surgery for treating gastric cancer.
methodsMajor databases were searched for retrospective case-matched studies comparing RG and OG for treating gastric cancer. A list of these studies, published in English from 1990 to 2016, was obtained independently by two reviewers from databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Web of Science. Intraoperative data, oncological outcomes and postoperative complications were compared using Review Manager 5.3.
resultsSeven studies involving 5970 patients with 606 cases of RG and 5364 cases of OG were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to OG, RG has a significantly longer operation time [weighted mean differences (WMD) = 63.72, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 33.83-93.61, P < 0.0001], lower blood loss (WMD: -129.74, 95 % CI -178.31 to -81.16, P < 0.00001) and shorter hospital stay (WMD = -2.39, 95 % CI -2.92 to -1.87; P < 0.00001). No statistical difference was noted based on the rate of overall postoperative complication, wound infection, bleeding, ileus and obstruction, abdominal collections and abscesses, and the rate of anastomotic leak in the RG versus OG. Postoperative oncological outcomes showed that there were also no statistical differences among the number of retrieved lymph nodes, proximal resection margin, distal resection margin except for tumor size (WMD = -1.60; 95 % CI -2.96 to -0.25; P = 0.02).
conclusionThe results of this meta-analysis suggest that RG will be more accessible than conventional OG for gastric cancer. However, more prospective, well-designed, multicenter, randomized controlled trials are necessary to further evaluate the safety and efficacy as well as the long-term outcome of this technology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.