Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31711530›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2019

Short- and long-term outcomes of totally robotic versus robotic-assisted radical distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a mono-institution retrospective study.

Rui Luo, Dongning Liu, Shanping Ye, Hechun Tang, Weiquan Zhu, Penghui He, Cheng Tang, Taiyuan Li

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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.

Rui LuoMedical College of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330000, China.
Dongning LiuDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330000, China.
Shanping YeDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330000, China.
Hechun TangDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330000, China.
Weiquan ZhuDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330000, China.
Penghui HeDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330000, China.
Cheng TangDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330000, China.
Taiyuan LiDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330000, China. jylitaiyuan@sina.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5559-3021
Nanchang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBy comparing short- and long-term outcomes following totally robotic radical distal gastrectomy (TRDG) and robotic-assisted radical distal gastrectomy (RADG), we aimed to assess in which modus operandi patients will benefit more.

methodsFrom January 2015 to May 2019, we included 332 patients undergone RADG (237) and TRDG (95). Based on the propensity score matching (PSM), inclusion and exclusion criteria, 246 patients were finally included in the propensity score-matched cohort including RADG group (164) and TRDG group (82). We then compared the short- and long-term outcomes following both groups.

resultsPropensity score-matched cohort revealed no significant differences in both groups. Intra-abdominal bleeding, time to pass flatus, postoperative activity time, length of incision hospital stays, and stress response were significantly less in TRDG group than in RADG group. We observed 30 complications in RADG group while 13 complications in TRDG group. There were no significant differences in TRDG group and RADG group in terms of operation time, time for anastomosis, proximal resection, distal resection margin, number of lymph node resection, and total hospitalization cost. Both 3-year overall survival and 3-year disease-free survival were comparable in both groups.

conclusionsTRDG is a safe and feasible modus operandi profiting from short- and long-term outcomes compared with RADG. As surgeons improving their professional skills, TRDG could serve as the standard procedure for distal locally advanced gastric cancer with D2 lymphadenectomy.

Indexed as

AdultAgedDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGastrectomyHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayLymph Node ExcisionMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsPrognosisAdvanced gastric cancerDistal gastric cancerPropensity score matchingRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID31711530
PMCPMC6849191
OpenAlexW2986816342

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.