Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29134310›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgery2018

Comparison of Surgical Outcomes Between Robotic and Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for cT1 Gastric Cancer.

Makoto Hikage, Masanori Tokunaga, Rie Makuuchi, Tomoyuki Irino, Yutaka Tanizawa, Etsuro Bando, Taiichi Kawamura, Masanori Terashima

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2025 (7th edition).Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. [Robotic gastrectomy: Research progress and practical challenges].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Makoto HikageDivision of Gastric Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-7641-5312
Masanori TokunagaDivision of Gastric Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan. mtokunag@east.ncc.go.jp.
Rie MakuuchiDivision of Gastric Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan.
Tomoyuki IrinoDivision of Gastric Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan.
Yutaka TanizawaDivision of Gastric Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan.
Etsuro BandoDivision of Gastric Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan.
Taiichi KawamuraDivision of Gastric Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan.
Masanori TerashimaDivision of Gastric Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan.
Shizuoka Cancer Center · JP

Funding

Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development Practical Research for Innovative Cancer Control (The National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, Japan. 26-A-4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasing numbers of patients are treated by robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG); however, it remains unclear whether RDG is clinically comparable with conventional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG). This study aimed to clarify the feasibility of RDG from safety aspects.

methodsThe study included 109 cT1 gastric cancer patients who underwent RDG at Shizuoka Cancer Center from January 2012 to April 2015. Short-term outcomes were compared with 160 cT1 gastric cancer patients who underwent LDG during the same period.

resultsPatient characteristics were well matched. The RDG patients experienced longer operative times (323 min) than LDG patients (285 min; P < 0.001), although all other surgical outcomes were comparable between the groups. Drain amylase levels on POD 1 were significantly lower in the RDG group compared to LDG cases (median 452 U/L and 892 U/L; P < 0.001). The incidence of all complications was similar across the study patients, although intra-abdominal infectious complications tended to be lower in the RDG group than in the LDG group (2.8 and 8.1%; P = 0.112).

conclusionsRDG was comparable to LDG in terms of feasibility for cT1 gastric cancer. RDG has the potential to reduce pancreas damage and thus to decrease intra-abdominal infectious complications.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGastrectomyHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeRobotic Surgical ProceduresStomach NeoplasmsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID29134310
OpenAlexW2769653382

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.