Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38990413›Full record

SynthesisGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2024

A systematic review on the effectiveness of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy.

L Triemstra, R B den Boer, M M Rovers, C E V B Hazenberg, R van Hillegersberg, J P C Grutters, J P Ruurda

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

L TriemstraDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, G04.228, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7057-0274
R B den BoerDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, G04.228, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M M RoversDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
C E V B HazenbergDepartment of Vascular Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
R van HillegersbergDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, G04.228, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J P C GruttersDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboudumc University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
J P RuurdaDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, G04.228, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. j.p.ruurda@umcutrecht.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy (RAMIG) is increasingly used as a surgical approach for gastric cancer. This study assessed the effectiveness of RAMIG and studied which stages of the IDEAL-framework (1 = Idea, 2A = Development, 2B = Exploration, 3 = Assessment, 4 = Long-term follow-up) were followed.

methodsThe Cochrane Library, Embase, Pubmed, and Web of Science were searched for studies on RAMIG up to January 2023. Data collection included the IDEAL-stage, demographics, number of participants, and study design. For randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and long-term studies, data on intra-, postoperative, and oncologic outcomes, survival, and costs of RAMIG were collected and summarized.

resultsOf the 114 included studies, none reported the IDEAL-stage. After full-text reading, 18 (16%) studies were considered IDEAL-2A, 75 (66%) IDEAL-2B, 4 (4%) IDEAL-3, and 17 (15%) IDEAL-4. The IDEAL-stages were followed sequentially (2A-4), with IDEAL-2A studies still ongoing. IDEAL-3 RCTs showed lower overall complications (8.5-9.2% RAMIG versus 17.6-19.3% laparoscopic total/subtotal gastrectomy), equal 30-day mortality (0%), and equal length of hospital stay for RAMIG (mean 5.7-8.5 days RAMIG versus 6.4-8.2 days open/laparoscopic total/subtotal gastrectomy). Lymph node yield was similar across techniques, but RAMIG incurred significantly higher costs than laparoscopic total/subtotal gastrectomy ($13,423-15,262 versus $10,165-10,945). IDEAL-4 studies showed similar or improved overall/disease-free survival for RAMIG.

conclusionDuring worldwide RAMIG implementation, the IDEAL-framework was followed in sequential order. IDEAL-3 and 4 long-term studies showed that RAMIG is similar or even better to conventional surgery in terms of hospital stay, lymph node yield, and overall/disease-free survival. In addition, RAMIG showed reduced postoperative complication rates, despite higher costs.

Indexed as

GastrectomyMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresRobotic Surgical ProceduresStomach NeoplasmsHumansLaparoscopyGastric CancerIDEAL-frameworkImplementationRAMIGRobot-assisted gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID38990413
PMCPMC11335791

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.