Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33427913›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022

Short- and long-term comparison of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer by the same surgical team: a propensity score matching analysis.

Yulong Tian, Shougen Cao, Ying Kong, Shuai Shen, Zhaojian Niu, Jian Zhang, Dong Chen, Haitao Jiang, Liang Lv, Xiaodong Liu and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.5field-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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A systematic review on the effectiveness of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2024
    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. 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 · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yulong TianDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 16 Jiangsu Rd, Shinan District, Qingdao, 266003, China.
Shougen CaoDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 16 Jiangsu Rd, Shinan District, Qingdao, 266003, China.
Ying KongDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 16 Jiangsu Rd, Shinan District, Qingdao, 266003, China.
Shuai ShenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 16 Jiangsu Rd, Shinan District, Qingdao, 266003, China.
Zhaojian NiuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 16 Jiangsu Rd, Shinan District, Qingdao, 266003, China.
Jian ZhangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 16 Jiangsu Rd, Shinan District, Qingdao, 266003, China.
Dong ChenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 16 Jiangsu Rd, Shinan District, Qingdao, 266003, China.
Haitao JiangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 16 Jiangsu Rd, Shinan District, Qingdao, 266003, China.
Liang LvDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 16 Jiangsu Rd, Shinan District, Qingdao, 266003, China.
Xiaodong LiuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 16 Jiangsu Rd, Shinan District, Qingdao, 266003, China.
Zequn LiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 16 Jiangsu Rd, Shinan District, Qingdao, 266003, China.
Hao ZhongDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 16 Jiangsu Rd, Shinan District, Qingdao, 266003, China.
Yanbing ZhouDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 16 Jiangsu Rd, Shinan District, Qingdao, 266003, China. zhouyanbing999@aliyun.com.
Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University · CNQingdao University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch on short-term outcomes and oncology results after robotic gastrectomy (RG) is still limited, especially from a single surgical team. The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

methodsBetween October 2014 and September 2019, 1686 consecutive patients who underwent MIS gastrectomy were enrolled. The patients were divided into RG and LG groups according to surgical type. Groups were matched at a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores based on the following variables: age, sex, ASA score, primary tumor location, histologic type, pathological stage, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The primary outcomes were 3-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). The secondary outcomes were postoperative short-term outcomes.

resultsDemographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups after matching. Compared to the LG group, the RG group had a significantly higher retrieved lymph node (LN) number (32.15 vs 30.82, P = 0.040), more retrieved supra-pancreatic LNs (12.45 vs 11.61, P = 0.028), lower estimated blood loss (73.67 vs 98.08 ml, P < 0.001), but longer operation time (205.18 vs 185.27 min, P < 0.001) and higher hospitalization costs ($13,607 vs $10,928, P < 0.001) in the matched cohort. In the subgroup analysis, we observed that compared with LG, patients with advanced gastric cancer benefitted more from RG surgery. The matched cohort analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences for 3-year OS or RFS (log-rank, P = 0.648 and P = 0.951, respectively): 80.3% and 77.0% in LG vs. 81.2% and 76.6% in RG, respectively.

conclusionRG has certain technical advantages over LG, especially in patients with advanced gastric cancer. However, RG does not improve long-term oncology outcomes.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresStomach NeoplasmsGastrectomyHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeGastric cancerLaparoscopic gastrectomyRobotic gastrectomyShort-term outcomesSurvival

Identifiers

PMID33427913
OpenAlexW3118381231

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.