Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31512060›Full record

SynthesisSurgery today2020

Should robotic gastrectomy become a standard surgical treatment option for gastric cancer?

Susumu Shibasaki, Koichi Suda, Kazutaka Obama, Masahiro Yoshida, Ichiro Uyama

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgery today, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 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
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  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. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Cost Analysis for Robotic and Open Gastrectomy.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Susumu ShibasakiDepartment of Surgery, Fujita Health University, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2454-5083
Koichi SudaDepartment of Surgery, Fujita Health University, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan. ko-suda@nifty.com.
Kazutaka ObamaDepartment of Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Shogoin-Kawahara-cho, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Masahiro YoshidaDepartment of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic and Gastrointestinal Surgery, International University of Health and Welfare, 6-1-14 Konodai, Ichikawa, Chiba, 272-0827, Japan.
Ichiro UyamaDepartment of Surgery, Fujita Health University, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan.
Fujita Health University Hospital · JPInternational University of Health and Welfare · JPKyoto University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) using the da Vinci Surgical System for gastric cancer was approved for national medical insurance coverage in Japan in April, 2018, and has been used increasingly since. We reviewed the current evidence on RG, open gastrectomy (OG), and conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) to identify differences in surgical outcomes between Japan and other countries. Briefly, three independent reviewers systematically reviewed the data collected from a comprehensive literature search by an independent organization and focused on the following nine endpoints: mortality, morbidity, operative time, estimated volume of blood loss, length of postoperative hospital stay, long-term oncologic outcome, quality of life, learning curve, and cost. Overall, the mortality rate of the three approaches did not differ, but RG and LG had less intraoperative blood loss and resulted in a shorter postoperative hospital stay than OG. RG had longer operative times and incurred higher costs than LG and OG. However, in Japan, RG may be more effective than LG and OG for decreasing morbidity. Further studies are needed to establish the specific indications for RG, optimal robotic setup, and dissection methods to best utilize the surgical robot.

Indexed as

Blood Loss, SurgicalEndoscopy, GastrointestinalGastrectomyHumansJapanLaparoscopyLength of StayOperative TimeRobotic Surgical ProceduresStomach NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeGastrectomyMinimally invasive surgical proceduresRoboticsStomach neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID31512060
OpenAlexW2972710884

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.