Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32780230›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021

Morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a large cohort study.

Li Zheng-Yan, Zhao Yong-Liang, Qian Feng, Shi Yan, Yu Pei-Wu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 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. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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.

Li Zheng-YanDepartment of General Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, No. 30 Gao Tan Yan Road, Chongqing, 400038, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9415-8690
Zhao Yong-LiangDepartment of General Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, No. 30 Gao Tan Yan Road, Chongqing, 400038, China. yongliang1666@126.com.
Qian FengDepartment of General Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, No. 30 Gao Tan Yan Road, Chongqing, 400038, China.
Shi YanDepartment of General Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, No. 30 Gao Tan Yan Road, Chongqing, 400038, China.
Yu Pei-WuDepartment of General Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, No. 30 Gao Tan Yan Road, Chongqing, 400038, China. yupeiwu01@sina.com.
Army Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of gastric cancer in recent year. However, whether RDG could reduce the morbidity when compared to laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes of RDG and LDG for gastric cancer and identify the related risk factors.

methodsBetween March 2010 and August 2019, consecutive patients undergoing RDG or LDG (519 and 957 patients, respectively) at our institution were included in this study. Postoperative complications were stratified according to the Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification. We performed one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, and evaluated postoperative morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes in PSM 1032 patients undergoing RDG or LDG.

resultsAfter PSM, the two groups were well-balanced. The mean blood loss of the RDG group was about 27 mL less than that of the LDG group (112.1 vs 139.0 mL, P < 0.001). The RDG group had more retrieved lymph nodes than that in the LDG group (32.7 v 30.2, P < 0.001). The RDG group showed a similar overall (9.9% vs 10.7%, P = 0.682), severe (2.7% vs 3.7%, P = 0.376), local (5.6% vs 5.2%, P = 0.783), and systemic complication rates (5.4% vs 6.0%, P = 0.688). There were no significant differences in mortality between the two groups (RDG 0% vs LDG 0.2%, P = 1.000). Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in most stratified parameters. Age > 65 years and ASA III were identified as two major risk factors for complications.

conclusionRDG could be a safe and feasible in treating gastric cancer compared to LDG. However, we did not observe significant reduction in postoperative complications of RDG compared with LDG, although the use of robotic system is assumed to provide a technically superior operative environment.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresStomach NeoplasmsCohort StudiesGastrectomyHumansInfant, NewbornMorbidityPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeClavien–Dindo classificationGastric cancerMorbidityRobotic distal gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID32780230
OpenAlexW3048827731

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.