Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29943067›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019

What are the reasons for a longer operation time in robotic gastrectomy than in laparoscopic gastrectomy for stomach cancer?

Heli Liu, Takahiro Kinoshita, Akiko Tonouchi, Akio Kaito, Masanori Tokunaga

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: systematic review and future directions.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Fluorescence-guided Two-port Robotic Gastrectomy Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Gastrectomy: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2023
    Article
  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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Heli LiuGastric Surgery Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba, 277-8577, Japan.
Takahiro KinoshitaGastric Surgery Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba, 277-8577, Japan. takkinos@east.ncc.go.jp.
Akiko TonouchiGastric Surgery Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba, 277-8577, Japan.
Akio KaitoGastric Surgery Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba, 277-8577, Japan.
Masanori TokunagaGastric Surgery Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba, 277-8577, Japan.
National Cancer Center Hospital East · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany studies have shown that robotic gastrectomy requires a longer operation time than laparoscopic gastrectomy. However, no study has analyzed the exact reason for this difference in detail. We therefore investigated the reasons why more time is needed in robotic gastrectomy.

methodsTen consecutive cases of robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) performed in our institution were selected to measure the operation time in detail. Ten cases of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) performed during the same period were chosen for comparison. The operation videos and electronic medical records of these 20 patients were retrospectively reviewed. The overall operation time, operation time in each step, and time required for instrument changes were measured. The number of intraoperative instrument changes and camera cleanings were also counted.

resultsThe overall operation time (including effective time and junk time) was 56.8 min longer for RDG than LDG (273.7 vs. 216.9 min, respectively; p = 0.000). The effective time was only 15.3 min longer for RDG than LDG (145.9 vs. 130.6 min, respectively; p = 0.094). The time needed for the six technical steps was also not significantly different between the two groups. However, the junk time (instrument setup and docking or positioning of surgical arms) was 41.5 min longer for RDG than LDG (127.8 vs. 86.2 min, respectively; p = 0.001). The number of instrument changes was not different between RDG and LDG (p = 0.277), but the time required for each was longer for RDG than LDG (p = 0.000). The number of camera cleanings was lower for RDG than LDG (10.7 vs. 15.5 times, respectively; p = 0.005).

conclusionsTo reduce the operation time in RDG, a smarter and simpler system for setup should be developed to reduce the junk time. Additionally, a system for swifter instrument changes and more sophisticated energy devices are warranted to reduce the effective time.

Indexed as

FemaleGastrectomyHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingOperative TimeRetrospective StudiesRobotic Surgical ProceduresStomach NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeVideo RecordingLaparoscopic distal gastrectomyOperation timeOperative stepsRobotic distal gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID29943067
OpenAlexW2811180310

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.