ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Appraisal of surgical outcomes and oncological efficiency of intraoperative adverse events in robotic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technical Skills Assessment in Robotic Surgery: A Review of Recent Methods.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal · 2025Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurgical quality control is a crucial determinant of evaluating the tumor efficacy.
objectiveTo assess the ClassIntra grade for quality control and oncological outcomes of robotic radical surgery for gastric cancer (GC).
methodsData of patients undergoing robotic radical surgery for GC at a high-volume center were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were categorized into two groups, the intraoperative adverse event (iAE) group and the non-iAE group, based on the occurrence of intraoperative adverse events. The iAEs were further classified into five sublevels (ranging from I to V according to severity) based on the ClassIntra grade. Surgical performance was assessed using the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (OSATS) and the General Error Reporting Tool.
resultsThis study included 366 patients (iAE group: n = 72 [19.7%] and non-iAE group: n = 294 [80.3%]). The proportion of ClassIntra grade II patients was the highest in the iAE group (54.2%). In total and distal gastrectomies, iAEs occurred most frequently in the suprapancreatic area (50.0% and 54.8%, respectively). In total gastrectomy, grade IV iAEs were most common during lymph node dissection in the splenic hilum area (once for bleeding [grade IV] and once for injury [grade IV]). The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival of the non-iAE group were significantly better than those of the iAE group (Log rank P < 0.001). Uni- and multi-variate analyses showed that iAEs were key prognostic indicators, independent of tumor stage and adjuvant chemotherapy (P < 0.001).
conclusioniAEs in patients who underwent robotic radical gastrectomy significantly correlated with the occurrence of postoperative complications and a poor long-term prognosis. Therefore, utilization and inclusion of ClassIntra grading as a crucial surgical quality control and prognostic indicator in the routine surgical quality evaluation system are recommended.
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.