Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33882906›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2021

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Taro Isobe, Naotaka Murakami, Taizan Minami, Yuya Tanaka, Hideaki Kaku, Yuki Umetani, Junya Kizaki, Keishiro Aoyagi, Fumihiko Fujita, Yoshito Akagi

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

Article in BMC surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
3.1field-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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Taro IsobeDepartment of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahi-machi, Kurume, Fukuoka, 830-0011, Japan. taro_isobe@yahoo.co.jp.
Naotaka MurakamiDepartment of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahi-machi, Kurume, Fukuoka, 830-0011, Japan.
Taizan MinamiDepartment of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahi-machi, Kurume, Fukuoka, 830-0011, Japan.
Yuya TanakaDepartment of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahi-machi, Kurume, Fukuoka, 830-0011, Japan.
Hideaki KakuDepartment of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahi-machi, Kurume, Fukuoka, 830-0011, Japan.
Yuki UmetaniDepartment of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahi-machi, Kurume, Fukuoka, 830-0011, Japan.
Junya KizakiDepartment of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahi-machi, Kurume, Fukuoka, 830-0011, Japan.
Keishiro AoyagiDepartment of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahi-machi, Kurume, Fukuoka, 830-0011, Japan.
Fumihiko FujitaDepartment of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahi-machi, Kurume, Fukuoka, 830-0011, Japan.
Yoshito AkagiDepartment of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahi-machi, Kurume, Fukuoka, 830-0011, Japan.
Kurume University · JP

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 (GC). However, whether RDG has a clinical advantage over laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) is yet to be determined. Thus, this study aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of RDG for the treatment of GC as compared with LDG.

methodsIn total, 157 patients were enrolled between February 2018 and August 2020 in this retrospective study. We then compared the surgical outcomes between RDG and LDG using propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis to reduce the confounding differences.

resultsAfter PSM, a clinicopathologically well-balanced cohort of 100 patients (50 in each group) was analyzed. The operation time for the RDG group (350.1 ± 58.1 min) was determined to be significantly longer than that for the LDG group (257.5 ± 63.7 min; P < 0.0001). Of interest, there was a decreased incidence of pancreatic fistulas and severe complications after RDG as compared with LDG (P = 0.092 and P = 0.061, respectively). In addition, postoperative hospital stay was statistically slightly shorter in the RDG group as compared with the LDG group (12.0 ± 5.6 vs. 13.0 ± 12.3 days; P = 0.038).

conclusionsOur study confirmed that RDG is a feasible and safe procedure for GC in terms of short-term surgical outcomes. A surgical robot might reduce postoperative severe complications and length of hospital stay.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresStomach NeoplasmsGastrectomyHumansPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeGCLaparoscopic gastrectomyRobotic gastrectomyShort‐term outcomes

Identifiers

PMID33882906
PMCPMC8059032
OpenAlexW3155894788

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.