Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33834323›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2021

Surgical Merits of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Gastrectomy Techniques with D2 Lymphadenectomy in Obese Patients with Gastric Cancer.

Seohee Choi, Jeong Ho Song, Sejin Lee, Minah Cho, Yoo Min Kim, Woo Jin Hyung, Hyoung-Il Kim

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes of roboticChinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Seohee ChoiDepartment of Surgery, Eulji General Hospital, Eulji University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Jeong Ho SongDepartment of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sejin LeeDepartment of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Minah ChoDepartment of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Yoo Min KimDepartment of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Woo Jin HyungDepartment of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hyoung-Il KimDepartment of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. cairus@yuhs.ac.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6134-4523
Yonsei University · KREulji University · KRYonsei University Health System · KR

Funding

the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) 2019R1H1A2079953
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic surgery has been widely adopted for complex procedures to overcome technical limitations of open or laparoscopic methods. However, evidence of any subsequent benefit is lacking. This study was undertaken to compare open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy in technically demanding procedure-D2 dissection in obese patients with gastric cancer.

methodsData collected between 2010 and 2018 on D2 gastrectomy in obese patients with gastric cancer were used to conduct retrospective analysis, comparing short- and long-term outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic techniques.

resultsIn a total of 185 patients, there were 69 open, 62 laparoscopic, and 54 robotic gastrectomy procedures. Median ages for respective surgical groups were 66 (interquartile range [IQR]: 61-64 years), 63 (IQR: 59-63), and 59 years (IQR: 56-60 years) (p = 0.009). Early-stage gastric cancer ranked proportionately higher in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.005), but operative times were similar among groups. Estimated blood loss (p < 0.001) and drainage volumes (p = 0.001) were higher in the open group, relative to others. Although a robotic approach performed best in overall compliance and in mean number of retrieved lymph node, observed rates of early or late complications did not differ by technique. The open group experienced significantly poorer overall (p = 0.039) and relapse-free (p < 0.001) survival compared with the laparoscopic or robotic group. Robotic surgery emerged from multivariable Cox regression as a protective factor for relapse-free survival (HR = 0.314, 95% CI 0.116-0.851).

conclusionsIn obese patients with gastric cancer, robotic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy proved comparable to open or laparoscopic technique short-term, yielding better long-term outcomes.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresStomach NeoplasmsGastrectomyHumansLymph Node ExcisionMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalObesityRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID33834323
OpenAlexW3140065920

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.