ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Robotic gastrectomy was reliable option for overweight patients with gastric cancer: a propensity score matching study.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 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
- 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
- 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
- Assessment of the safety and efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy in overweight patients with gastric cancer: a large-scale multicenter cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic vs robot-assisted gastrectomy in gastric cancer patients with prior abdominal surgery: a propensity-matched analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Clinical Value of Nomograms Integrating Circulating Lipid and Inflammation Risk Score in Predicting Long-Term Outcomes After Radical Gastrectomy in Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Real-World Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Evolution from laparoscopic to robotic radical resection for gallbladder cancer: a propensity score-matched comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of minimally invasive surgery using robotics versus laparoscopy in resectable gastric cancer patients with a high body mass index (BMI) remains controversial.
methodsA total of 482 gastric adenocarcinoma patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m
resultsAfter PSM, 109 patients were included in each of the RG and LG groups, with balanced baseline characteristics. Compared with the LG group, the RG group had similar intraoperative estimated blood loss [median (IQR) 30 (20-50) vs. 35 (30-59) mL, median difference (95%CI) - 5 (- 10 to 0)], postoperative complications [13.8% vs. 18.3%, OR (95%CI) 0.71 (0.342 to 1.473)], postoperative recovery, total harvested lymph nodes [(34.25 ± 13.43 vs. 35.44 ± 14.12, mean difference (95%CI) - 1.19 (- 4.871 to 2.485)] and textbook outcomes [(81.7% vs. 76.1%, OR (95%CI) 1.39 (0.724 to 2.684)]. Among pathological stage II-III patients receiving chemotherapy, the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy in the RG group was similar to that in the LG group [median (IQR): 28 (25.5-32.5) vs. 32 (27-38.5) days, median difference (95%CI) - 3 (- 6 to 0)]. The 3-year OS (RG vs. LG: 80.7% vs. 81.7%, HR = 1.048, 95%CI 0.591 to 1.857) and DFS (78% vs. 76.1%, HR = 0.996, 95%CI 0.584 to 1.698) were comparable between the two groups.
conclusionRG conferred comparable lymph node dissection, postoperative recovery, and oncologic outcomes in a selected cohort of patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m
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.