Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36630065›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2023

Comparison of short-term efficacy and safety between total robotic and total 3D laparoscopic distal radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol: a propensity score matching study.

Yuan Tian, Yecheng Lin, Chenyu Sun, Scott Lowe, Rachel Bentley, Peigang Yang, Honghai Guo, Pingan Ding, Zhidong Zhang, Dong Wang and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Safety and feasibility of robot-assisted remote radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer based on 5G communication technology (FUTURE-04): a prospective, single-arm clinical trial.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Long-term oncological outcomes of 3D versus 2D laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a randomized clinical trial.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2024
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Research progress of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Yuan TianThird Surgery Department, The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No.12, Jian-Kang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050019, Hebei, China.
Yecheng LinThird Surgery Department, The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No.12, Jian-Kang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050019, Hebei, China.
Chenyu SunAMITA Health Saint Joseph Hospital Chicago, 2900 N. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL, 60657, USA.
Scott LoweCollege of Osteopathic Medicine, Kansas City University, 1750 Independence Ave, Kansas City, MO, 64106, USA.
Rachel BentleyCollege of Osteopathic Medicine, Kansas City University, 1750 Independence Ave, Kansas City, MO, 64106, USA.
Peigang YangThird Surgery Department, The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No.12, Jian-Kang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050019, Hebei, China.
Honghai GuoThird Surgery Department, The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No.12, Jian-Kang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050019, Hebei, China.
Pingan DingThird Surgery Department, The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No.12, Jian-Kang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050019, Hebei, China.
Zhidong ZhangThird Surgery Department, The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No.12, Jian-Kang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050019, Hebei, China.
Dong WangThird Surgery Department, The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No.12, Jian-Kang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050019, Hebei, China.
Xuefeng ZhaoThird Surgery Department, The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No.12, Jian-Kang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050019, Hebei, China.
Yong LiThird Surgery Department, The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No.12, Jian-Kang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050019, Hebei, China.
Qun ZhaoThird Surgery Department, The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No.12, Jian-Kang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050019, Hebei, China. zhaoqun@hebmu.edu.cn.
Hebei Medical University · CNFourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University · CNKansas City University · USSaint Joseph Hospital · US

Funding

Cultivating Outstanding Talents Project of Hebei Provincial Government Fund 2019012Hebei public health committee county-level public hospitals suitable health technology promotion and storage project 2019024Hebei University Science and Technology Research Project ZD2019139
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe application of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol in gastrointestinal surgery has been widely accepted. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of ERAS in total robotic distal gastrectomy (TRDG) versus 3D total laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (3D-TLDG) for gastric cancer.

methodsWe retrospectively evaluated 73 patients underwent TRDG and 163 patients who received 3D-TLDG. The propensity score was used for matching analysis according to a 1:1 ratio, so that there was no significant difference in the baseline data between the two groups. The short-term effect and safety of the two groups were compared.

resultsThe TRDG group had a less intraoperative bleeding (30.21 ± 13.78 vs. 41.44 ± 17.41 ml, P < 0.001), longer intraoperative preparation time (31.05 ± 4.93 vs. 15.48 ± 2.43 min, P < 0.001), shorter digestive tract reconstruction time (32.67 ± 4.41 vs. 39.78 ± 4.95 min, P < 0.001), shorter postoperative ambulation time (14.07 ± 8.97 vs. 17.49 ± 5.98 h, P = 0.007), shorter postoperative anal exhaust time (1.78 ± 0.79 vs. 2.18 ± 0.79 days, P = 0.003), shorter postoperative hospital stay (7.74 ± 3.15 vs. 9.97 ± 3.23 days, P < 0.001), lower postoperative pain score (P = 0.006) and higher hospitalization cost (89,907.15 ± 17,147.19 vs. 125,615.82 ± 11,900.80 RMB, P < 0.001) than the 3D-TLDG group.

conclusionTRDG and 3D-TLDG under ERAS protocol are safe and feasible. Compared with 3D-TLDG, the TRDG has better intraoperative bleeding control effect and greater advantages in digestive tract reconstruction. After the combination of ERAS protocol, TRDG also has certain advantages in the recovery process of patients after surgery.

Indexed as

Enhanced Recovery After SurgeryLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresStomach NeoplasmsGastrectomyHumansLength of StayPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome3D-laparoscopeDistal gastrectomyEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryRobot

Identifiers

PMID36630065
PMCPMC10209222
OpenAlexW4315567366

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.