Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34622300›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022

The impact of robotic technology on the learning curve for robot-assisted gastrectomy in the initial clinical application stage.

Bo Yi, Juan Jiang, Shaihong Zhu, Jianmin Li

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 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Article
  4. Basic performance of domestic surgical robot and the safety and effectiveness of integrated energy equipment.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2023
    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

4 authors.

Bo YiCentral South University Third Xiangya Hospital, 138 Tongzipo Street, Changsha, Hunan, People's Republic of China.
Juan JiangCentral South University Third Xiangya Hospital, 138 Tongzipo Street, Changsha, Hunan, People's Republic of China.
Shaihong ZhuCentral South University Third Xiangya Hospital, 138 Tongzipo Street, Changsha, Hunan, People's Republic of China. 1459082987@qq.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2296-150X
Jianmin LiTianjin University, Nankai District Wei Jin Road No. 92, Tianjin, People's Republic of China. mjli@tju.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the impact of robotic technology on the learning curve for robot-assisted gastrectomy in the initial clinical application stage and to compare RAG with laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy using a short-term evaluation.

methodsBetween September 2016 and December 2018, 111 consecutive distal gastric cancer patients who were candidates for RAG or LAG were prospectively enrolled. Operative findings, morbidity, oncological findings, and the learning curve were analyzed.

resultsThirty patients underwent RAG with the da Vinci Si robot system, and eighty-one patients underwent LAG. Blood loss was lower during RAG than during LAG (133.80 ± 95.28 vs. 178.83 ± 98.37, P = 0.046). The operative time for RAG was significantly longer (304.45 ± 42.08 vs. 281.17 ± 32.69, P = 0.015). The number of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) was greater (37.33 ± 8.25 vs. 32.78 ± 5.98, P = 0.003) with RAG. Notably, RAG had an advantage in the dissection of No. 9 and 11p LNs (3.56 ± 1.76 vs. 2.78 ± 1.30, P = 0.038; 2.48 ± 0.93 vs. 1.99 ± 0.84, P = 0.015, respectively). Severe complications were less frequent in the RAG group (7 (8.6%) vs. 1 (3.3%), P = 0.003). No significant differences in terms of postoperative recovery were found between the two groups. The learning curve for RAG showed that the cumulative sum value decreased from the 10th case, while it decreased from the 28th case in the LAG group.

conclusionBy means of robotic technology, RAG is better than LAG for the dissection of No. 9 and 11p LNs and for the alleviation of surgical trauma, and the technique is learned more rapidly during the preliminary stage than the LAG technique.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresStomach NeoplasmsGastrectomyHumansLearning CurveLymph Node ExcisionRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeDa Vinci surgical robot systemFeasibilityGastric cancerLymphadenectomy (D2)Robot-assisted gastrectomySafety

Identifiers

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.