Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28963583›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2017

Long-term oncological outcomes in robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis.

Jing-Hua Pan, Hong Zhou, Xiao-Xu Zhao, Hui Ding, Li Qin, Yun-Long Pan

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. [Robotic gastrectomy: Research progress and practical challenges].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. [Robots in visceral and thoracic surgery-Quo vadis?]Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023
    Review
  7. [Robot-assisted operations in visceral surgery].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2020
    Review
  8. Article
  9. [Evidence for robotic surgery in oncological visceral surgery].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2019
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors.

Jing-Hua PanDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, 510632, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3741-3397
Hong ZhouDepartment of Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, 510632, China.
Xiao-Xu ZhaoDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, 510632, China.
Hui DingDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, 510632, China.
Li QinDepartment of Histology and Embryology, Medical School of Jinan University, Guangzhou, 510632, China.
Yun-Long PanDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, 510632, China. tpanyl@jnu.edu.cn.

Funding

Guangdong High-level University Construction Fund for Jinan University 88016013034Guangdong Natural Science Research 2014A030313383National Natural Science Foundation of China 81472849
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic gastrectomy (RG) has been a new technical alternative for gastric cancer. However, the long-term oncological outcomes of RG still should be further evaluated. In this meta-analysis, the long-term oncological outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) are compared.

methodsComprehensive searches from various databases are compared in February 2017 to identify that the oncological outcomes of RG and LG are evaluated in gastric cancer patients. The pooled oncological outcomes of the overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and the recurrence rate were performed by adopting the meta-analysis to calculate the hazard ratio (HR) or the odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

resultsFive studies that concern retrospective design and prospective data collection and involve 1614 patients were included. All the five studies evaluated OS. Two studies evaluated DFS, while four studies reported the recurrence rate or recurrence cases in RG and LG groups with the long-term follow-up. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in OS and DFS between RG and LG, without significant between-study heterogeneity. Besides, the recurrence rate between RG and LG had no significant difference without heterogeneity.

conclusionsRG could provide comparable long-term oncological outcomes as well as LG for the treatment of gastric cancer. OS, DFS, and the recurrence rate by the long-time follow-up of RG were comparable with LG. Generally speaking, more randomized clinical trials and a larger patient cohort with longer follow-up are still essential to further demonstrate the value of the robotic surgery for gastric cancer.

Indexed as

GastrectomyLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresDatabases, FactualDisease-Free SurvivalHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalStomach NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeDisease-free survivalGastrectomyGastric cancerLaparoscopicMeta-analysisRecurrence rateRobotic

Identifiers

PMID28963583

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.