ArticleCancer medicine2023
Intraoperative performance and outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A high-volume center retrospective propensity score matching study.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 6 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in overweight patients, with obesity, or high visceral adiposity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of East Asian Cohorts.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating safety and quality of robotic-assisted gastric cancer surgery: meta-analysis and meta-regression.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- Short-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched or baseline-balanced retrospective studies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- A comparison of postoperative outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy: a comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating the safety of robotic total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer against the conventional laparoscopic approach: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
- Comparison of a submucosal and subserosal approach in ICG-guided laparoscopic lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer patients: long-term outcomes of a phase 3 randomized clinical trial.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Trial
- Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy: a single-center propensity score matched study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Operative safety and oncologic outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic total gastrectomy for advanced middle-upper gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- [Robotic gastrectomy: Research progress and practical challenges].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026Review
- Is Laparoscopic/Robotic Total Gastrectomy a Reasonable and Adequate Treatment for Proximal Advanced Gastric Cancer?Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Review
- Prognostic significance of metastatic lymph node ratio in gastric cancer: a Western-center analysis.BMC surgery · 2023Article
- Intraoperative performance and outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A high-volume center retrospective propensity score matching study.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies on robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) are currently limited. This study aimed to compare the intraoperative performance as well as short- and long-term outcomes of RTG and laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG).
methodsA total of 969 patients underwent robotic (n = 161) or laparoscopic (n = 636) total gastrectomy between October 2014 and October 2021. The two groups of patients were matched 1:3 using the propensity score matching (PSM) method. The intraoperative performance as well as short- and long-term outcomes of the robotic (n = 147) and the laparoscopic (n = 371) groups were compared.
resultsAfter matching, the estimated intraoperative blood loss was lower (80.51 ± 68.77 vs. 89.89 ± 66.12, p = 0.008), and the total number of lymph node dissections was higher (34.74 ± 12.44 vs. 29.83 ± 12.22, p < 0.001) in the RTG group compared with the LTG group. More lymph node dissections at the upper edge of the pancreas were performed in the RTG group than in the LTG (12.59 ± 4.18 vs. 10.33 ± 4.58, p = 0.001). Additionally, postoperative recovery indicators and laboratory data were greater in the RTG group than those in the LTG group, while postoperative complications were comparable between the two groups (19.0% vs. 18.9%, p = 0.962). For overweight or obese patients with body mass indexes (BMIs) ≥25, certain clinical outcomes of the RTG remained advantageous, and no significant differences in three-year overall survival (OS) or relapse-free survival (RFS) were observed.
conclusionsRobotic total gastrectomy demonstrated better intraoperative performance, could improve the short-term clinical outcomes of patients, and was more conducive to patient recovery. However, the long-term efficacies of the two approaches were similar. Robotic surgical systems may reduce surgical stress responses in patients, allowing them to receive postoperative chemotherapy sooner.
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.