ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Three-year outcomes of robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for the treatment of clinical stage I/II gastric cancer: a multi-institutional retrospective comparative study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating safety and quality of robotic-assisted gastric cancer surgery: meta-analysis and meta-regression.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: The Largest Systematic Reviews of 68,755 Patients and Meta-analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for resectable gastric cancer: a randomized phase 2 trial.Nature communications · 2024Trial
- Clinical advantages of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer over conventional laparoscopic approach: a retrospective cohort study using a nationwide registry database in Japan.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026Article
- Comparison of oncological outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries for gastric cancer: a multi-institutional cohort study in Japan.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026Article
- Comparison of long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy and laparoscopic gastrectomy using the modified age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026Article
- Current Status and Future Perspectives of Robotic Surgery for Esophagogastric Cancer in Asia.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer: Prognostic Implications of Surgical Recovery and Oncologic Control in a Propensity Score-Matched Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Annual Report of the 2022 National Clinical Database: Decade-Long Trends and Current Status of Gastroenterological Surgery in Japan.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of the articulating robotic system on suprapancreatic lymphadenectomy in obese patients with gastric cancer: A comparative study with conventional laparoscopy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Influence of technical errors on short-term and one-year outcomes after intracorporeal delta-shaped Billroth I anastomosis following minimally invasive distal gastrectomy: a single-center retrospective study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Assessment of AI-driven anatomical recognition in robotic gastrectomy: A multicenter retrospective analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Article
- Escalation and de-escalation in surgery for gastric cancer.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparative insights into perioperative performance and three-year survival outcomes.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2025Article
- Predictive model for pancreatic fistula in minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluating the Role of Robotic Surgery Gastric Cancer Treatment: A Comprehensive Review by the Robotic Global Surgical Society (TROGSS) and European Federation International Society for Digestive Surgery (EFISDS) Joint Working Group.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
- Impact of the endoscopic surgical skill qualification system on the oncological safety of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A single-center retrospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Robotic gastrectomy is more beneficial for advanced than early-stage gastric cancer: a comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy using propensity score matching.Surgical endoscopy · 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
13 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOncological benefits of robotic gastrectomy (RG) remain unclear. We aimed to determine and compare the 3-year outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for the treatment of gastric cancer.
methodsThis was a multi-institutional retrospective study of patients who prospectively underwent RG in a previous study (UMIN000015388) and historical controls who underwent LG. Operable patients with cStage I/II primary gastric cancer were enrolled. The inverse probability of treatment weighting method based on propensity scores was used to balance patient demographic factors and surgeon volume between the RG and LG groups. The primary outcome measure was the 3-year overall survival rate (3yOS).
resultsOf the 1,127 patients in the previous study, 326 and 752 patients in the RG and LG groups, respectively, completed the study. The standardized difference of all confounding factors was reduced to 0.09 or less after weighting. In the weighted population, 3yOS was 96.3% and 89.6% in the RG and LG groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.34 [0.15, 0.76]; p = 0.009), whereas there was no difference in 3-year recurrence-free survival rate (3yRFS) between the two groups (HR 0.58 [0.32, 1.05]; p = 0.073). Sub-analyses showed that RG improved 3yOS (HR 0.05 [0.01, 0.38]; p = 0.004) and 3yRFS (HR 0.05 [0.01, 0.34]; p = 0.003) in patients with pStage IA disease. Recurrence rates and patterns were similar between the RG and LG groups. RG did not improve the morbidity rate, however, it attenuated some of the adverse events, including anastomotic leakage and intra-abdominal abscess. RG improved estimated blood loss and duration of postoperative hospitalization.
conclusionThis study showed surgical and oncological safety of RG for cStage I/II gastric cancer considering the 3-year outcomes, compared with those of LG.
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.