Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27747472›Full record

ReviewPathology oncology research : POR2017

Advances in Laparoscopic and Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer.

Sheng-Han Tsai, Chien-An Liu, Kuo-Hung Huang, Yuan-Tzu Lan, Ming-Huang Chen, Yee Chao, Su-Shun Lo, Anna Fen-Yau Li, Chew-Wun Wu, Shih-Hwa Chiou and 3 more

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sheng-Han TsaiDepartment of Urology, Cheng Hsin General Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Chien-An LiuDepartment of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Kuo-Hung HuangDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, No. 201, Sec. 2, Shipai Rd, Beitou District, Taipei City, Taiwan, 11217.
Yuan-Tzu LanSchool of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Ming-Huang ChenSchool of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Yee ChaoSchool of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Su-Shun LoSchool of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Anna Fen-Yau LiSchool of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Chew-Wun WuDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, No. 201, Sec. 2, Shipai Rd, Beitou District, Taipei City, Taiwan, 11217.
Shih-Hwa ChiouInstitute of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Muh-Hwa YangInstitute of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Yi-Ming ShyrDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, No. 201, Sec. 2, Shipai Rd, Beitou District, Taipei City, Taiwan, 11217.
Wen-Liang FangDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, No. 201, Sec. 2, Shipai Rd, Beitou District, Taipei City, Taiwan, 11217. s821094@hotmail.com.
National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TWTaipei Veterans General Hospital · TWNational Taipei University · TWNational Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robot-assisted gastrectomy has been reported to be a safe alternative to both conventional laparoscopy and the open approach for treating early gastric carcinoma. Currently, there are a limited number of published reports on this technique in the literature. We assessed the current status of robotic and laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer and compared the operative outcomes, learning curves, and oncological outcome of the two approaches. Robotic gastrectomy offers benefits that include increased ease of performing D2 lymph node dissection and reduced blood loss compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy. However, the operative time is longer, and robotic gastrectomy is more costly for the patients. Regarding to the operative and oncological outcomes, there appears to be no significant differences between laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies after the surgeon overcomes the associated learning curves. Sharing the available knowledge regarding laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies could shorten these learning curves. For elder patients, minimally invasive surgery that decreases the postoperative recovery time should be considered the preferred treatment. Prospective randomized studies are required to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes among laparoscopic, robotic, and open surgeries for both early and advanced gastric cancer.

Indexed as

GastrectomyHumansLaparoscopyLymph Node ExcisionRoboticsStomachStomach NeoplasmsElderlyGastric cancerLaparoscopicLymph node dissectionRobotic

Identifiers

PMID27747472
OpenAlexW2535629269

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.