ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy among malnourished patients with gastric cancer based on textbook outcome.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Textbook outcome in gastrectomy: useful metric or moving target? A scoping review.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2025Article
- Evolution from laparoscopic to robotic radical resection for gallbladder cancer: a propensity score-matched comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Association of the Number of Concurrent Metabolic Syndrome Risk Factors with Textbook Outcomes Following Liver Resection for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTextbook outcome (TO) has been widely employed as a comprehensive indicator to assess the short-term prognosis of patients with cancer. Preoperative malnutrition is a potential risk factor for adverse surgical outcomes in patients with gastric cancer (GC). This study aimed to compare the TO between robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) and laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) in malnourished patients with GC.
methodsAccording to the diagnostic consensus of malnutrition proposed by Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) and Nutrition Risk Index (NRI), 895 malnourished patients with GC who underwent RAG (n = 115) or LAG (n = 780) at a tertiary referral hospital between January 2016 and May 2021 were included in the propensity score matching (PSM, 1:2) analysis.
resultsAfter PSM, no significant differences in clinicopathological characteristics were observed between the RAG (n = 97) and LAG (n = 194) groups. The RAG group had significantly higher operative time and lymph nodes harvested, as well as significantly lower blood loss and hospital stay time compared to the LAG group. More patients in the RAG achieved TO. Logistic regression analysis revealed that RAG was an independent protective factor for achieving TO. There were more adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) cycles in the RAG group than in the LAG group. After one year of surgery, a higher percentage of patients (36.7% vs. 22.8%; P < 0.05) in the RAG group recovered from malnutrition compared to the LAG group.
conclusionsFor malnourished patients with GC, RAG performed by experienced surgeons can achieved a higher rate of TO than those of LAG, which directly contributed to better AC compliance and a faster restoration of nutritional status.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38512349What 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.