ArticleGastroenterology report2021
Robotic total gastrectomy for carcinoma in the remnant stomach: a comparison with laparoscopic total gastrectomy.
Article in Gastroenterology report, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating safety and quality of robotic-assisted gastric cancer surgery: meta-analysis and meta-regression.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- The Evaluation of Short-Term Outcomes and Efficacy of Robotic Complementary Gastrectomy for Remnant Gastric Cancer: A Single-Institution Experience.World journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Current Status and Future Applications of Robotic Surgery in Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Safety and feasibility of minimally invasive gastrectomy after neoadjuvant immunotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis in China.Gastroenterology report · 2024Article
- Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Mega Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTotal gastrectomy for carcinoma in the remnant stomach (CRS) remains a technically demanding procedure. Whether robotic surgery is superior, equal, or inferior to laparoscopic surgery in patients with CRS is unclear. This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) and laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) for the treatment of CRS.
methodsIn this cohort study, we retrospectively analysed the data from patients who underwent RTG or LTG for CRS at Southwest Hospital (Chongqing, China) between May 2006 and October 2019. The surgical outcomes, post-operative complications, and survival outcomes between the two groups were compared.
resultsCompared with LTG, RTG was associated with similar effective operation time (272.0 vs 297.9 min,
conclusionsRTG is a safe and feasible procedure for the treatment of CRS and could serve as an optimal treatment for CRS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.