ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2018
A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Oncological, Cost, and Surgical Stress Analysis.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating safety and quality of robotic-assisted gastric cancer surgery: meta-analysis and meta-regression.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: The Largest Systematic Reviews of 68,755 Patients and Meta-analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness and safety of robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of 12,401 gastric cancer patients.Updates in surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of Long-Term and Perioperative Outcomes of RoboticFrontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Long-term oncological outcomes of 3D versus 2D laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a randomized clinical trial.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2024Trial
- Does three-dimensional surgery affect recurrence patterns in patients with gastric cancer after laparoscopic R0 gastrectomy? Results from a 3-year follow-up phase III trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Trial
- Operative safety and oncologic outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic total gastrectomy for advanced middle-upper gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Recurrence outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: A multicenter study.iScience · 2025Article
- Comparison of partially extracorporeal versus totally intracorporeal Roux-en-Y reconstruction in robotic surgery for gastric cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Assessment of the safety and efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy in overweight patients with gastric cancer: a large-scale multicenter cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Enhanced recovery after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy using articulating laparoscopic instruments in older adults with gastric cancer: a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2025Article
- Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy among malnourished patients with gastric cancer based on textbook outcome.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Cost Analysis for Robotic and Open Gastrectomy.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024Article
- Postoperative outcomes in robotic gastric resection compared with laparoscopic gastric resection in gastric cancer: A meta-analysis and systemic review.Health science reports · 2022Review
- The impact of robotic technology on the learning curve for robot-assisted gastrectomy in the initial clinical application stage.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Anatomy and assessment of a modified technique during totally robotic distal gastrectomy: A retrospective cohort study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- Surgical and short-term outcomes in robotic and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer with enhanced recovery after surgery protocol: A propensity score matching analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Mega Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Current status of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy.Updates in surgery · 2021Review
- Robotic-assisted gastrectomy compared with open resection: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) has been rapidly adopted for gastric cancer (GC) treatment. However, whether RAG provides any significant outcome/cost advantages over laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for the experienced laparoscopist remains unclear.
methodsA retrospective review of a prospectively collected database identified 768 consecutive patients who underwent either RAG (n = 103) or LAG (n = 667) for GC between July 2016 and June 2017 at a large center. A 1:3 matched propensity score analysis was performed. The short-term outcomes and hospital costs between the two groups were compared.
resultsA well-balanced cohort of 404 patients was analyzed (RAG:LAG = 1:3 match). The mean operation times were 226.6 ± 36.2 min for the RAG group and 181.8 ± 49.8 min for the LAG group (p < 0.001). The total numbers of retrieved lymph nodes were similar in the RAG and LAG groups (means 38 and 40, respectively, p = 0.115). The overall and major complication rates (RAG, 13.9% vs. LAG, 12.5%, p = 0.732 and RAG, 3.0% vs. LAG, 1.3%, p = 0.373, respectively) were similar. RAG was much more costly than LAG (1.3 times, p < 0.001) mainly due to the amortization and consumables of the robotic system. According to cumulative sum (CUSUM), the learning phases were divided as follows: phase 1 (cases 1-21), phase 2 (cases 22-63), and phase 3 (cases 64-101), in the robotic group. The surgical stress (SS) was higher in the robotic group compared with the laparoscopic group in phase 1 (p < 0.05). However, the SS did not differ significantly between the two groups in phase 3.
conclusionsRAG is a feasible and safe surgical procedure for GC, especially in the post-learning curve period. However, further studies are warranted to evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes and to elucidate whether RAG is cost-effective when compared to LAG.
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.