ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2023
Comparison of Short-Term Surgical Outcomes of Two Types of Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Ultrasonic Shears Method Versus the Maryland Bipolar Forceps Method.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safe Introduction of Robotic Gastrectomy Facilitated by ICG-Guided Lymphography.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of the application value of bipolar electrocoagulation and ultrasonic scalpel in robot-assisted thyroid carcinoma surgery: a single-center study based on perioperative indicator and short-term prognosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluation of thermal effects of surgical energy devices: ex vivo study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Impact of a robotic system on intra-abdominal infectious complications after minimally invasive gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer: A propensity score matching analysis regarding visceral obesity.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigated the impact and short-term surgical outcomes of two different main energy devices for robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The outcomes of robotic gastrectomy with ultrasonic shears and those of robotic gastrectomy with conventional forceps were compared.
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated 171 patients who underwent robotic distal gastrectomy or total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. We classified patients into the ultrasonic shears (US) and Maryland bipolar (MB) forceps groups according to the main energy device used for robotic gastrectomy.
resultsWe extracted 58 patients from the US group and 58 patients from the MB forceps groups using propensity score matching. The total console time (310 min [interquartile range (IQR), 253-369 min] and 332 min, [IQR, 294-429 min]; p = 0.022) and the console time to gastrectomy (222 min [IQR, 177-266 min] and 247 min [IQR, 208-321 min]; p = 0.004) were significantly shorter in the US group than in the MB forceps group. Less blood loss occurred in the US group than in the MB forceps group (20 mL [IQR, 10-40 mL] and 30 mL [IQR, 16-80 mL]; p = 0.014). The postoperative complication rate and postoperative hospital stay length were similar between groups. A multivariate multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated that the use of an ultrasonically activated device was one an independent factor that reduced the operative time of robotic gastrectomy.
conclusionUsing ultrasonic shears as the main energy device may contribute to better surgical outcomes after robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
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.