ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
Comparison of robotic- and laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer: updated short- and long-term results.
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 40 papers, 10 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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Establishing the Learning Curve of Laparoscopic and Robotic Distal Gastrectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023Pooled it
- 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 · 2023Pooled 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
- [Evidence in minimally invasive oncological gastric surgery].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021Pooled it
- Comparison of Long-Term and Perioperative Outcomes of RoboticFrontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Should robotic gastrectomy become a standard surgical treatment option for gastric cancer?Surgery today · 2020Pooled it
- Comparative analysis of robotic gastrectomy and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in terms of their long-term oncological outcomes: a meta-analysis of 3410 gastric cancer patients.World journal of surgical oncology · 2019Pooled it
- Long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for clinical stage I gastric cancer: a single-center prospective phase II study.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Trial
- Comparison of oncological outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries for gastric cancer: a multi-institutional cohort study in Japan.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026Article
- Comparative benefits of robotic gastrectomy over laparoscopic surgery across different age and BMI groups.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Role of Robotic Surgery Gastric Cancer Treatment: A Comprehensive Review by the Robotic Global Surgical Society (TROGSS) and European Federation International Society for Digestive Surgery (EFISDS) Joint Working Group.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
- Current clinical trials on gastric cancer surgery in China.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Review
- The inflammation score predicts the prognosis of gastric cancer patients undergoing Da Vinci robot surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Risk factor analysis and nomogram construction of postoperative complications for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer who received neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemotherapy.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Five-year long-term comparison of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a large single-center cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Surgical starting time of the day and survival in gastric cancer.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Surgical and oncological outcomes of robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score‑matched analysis of 1164 patients.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmerging evidence has demonstrated that either laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) or robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) could be adopted as standard treatment for early gastric cancer. However, the long-term survival and recurrence rate after LAG or RAG for locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) has seldom been reported.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data from 339 patients who underwent LAG and 163 patients who underwent RAG from a prospectively established database in the Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital. We compared the short- and long-term oncological outcomes of the RAG group versus the LAG group in the entire cohort, and in a propensity score-matched cohort.
resultsBefore propensity score matching (PSM), the two groups revealed comparable 3-year overall survival rates (OS, RAG vs. LAG: 76.1 vs. 81.7%, p = 0.118), and recurrence-free survival rates (RFS, RAG vs. LAG: 73.0 vs. 67.6%, p = 0.297). Similar results were obtained in the propensity score-matched cohort; the respective overall survival rates in the propensity score-matched RAG and LAG groups were 76.1 and 79.8% (p = 0.552), and the respective RFS rates were 73.0 and 68.7% (p = 0.386). After PSM, RAG was still associated with a significantly longer mean operating time (249.46 ± 63.26 vs. 232.17 ± 65.39 min, p = 0.008) and higher total costs (133.38 ± 41.62 vs. 95.34 ± 29.39 10
conclusionAlthough there were some differences in the outcomes of RAG versus LAG in AGC patients, both RAG and LAG were similar in short-term recovery and long-term oncological outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30014325What 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.