Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39375059›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastric cancer2024

Long-term Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Total Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer.

Jawon Hwang, Ki-Yoon Kim, Sung Hyun Park, Minah Cho, Yoo Min Kim, Hyoung-Il Kim, Woo Jin Hyung

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastric cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. [Robotic gastrectomy: Research progress and practical challenges].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jawon HwangDepartment of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0009-0008-6759-7426
Ki-Yoon KimDepartment of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-9222-1641
Sung Hyun ParkDepartment of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5116-728X
Minah ChoDepartment of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-3011-5813
Yoo Min KimDepartment of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-5176-804X
Hyoung-Il KimDepartment of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-6134-4523
Woo Jin HyungDepartment of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-8593-9214

Funding

GC Biopharma Corporation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAlthough laparoscopic distal gastrectomy has rapidly replaced open distal gastrectomy, laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) is less frequently performed owing to technical difficulties. Robotic surgery could be an appropriate minimally invasive alternative to LTG because it alleviates the technical challenges posed by laparoscopic procedures. However, few studies have compared the oncological safety of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) with that of LTG, especially for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Herein, we aimed to assess the oncological outcomes of RTG for AGC and compare them with those of LTG. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 147 and 204 patients who underwent RTG and LTG for AGC, respectively, between 2007 and 2020. Long-term outcomes were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).

resultsAfter IPTW, the 2 groups exhibited similar clinicopathological features. The 5-year overall survival was comparable between the 2 groups (88.5% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 79.4%-93.7%] after RTG and 87.3% [95% CI, 80.1%-92.0%]) after LTG; log-rank P=0.544). The hazard ratio (HR) for death after RTG compared with that after LTG was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.40-1.33; P=0.304). The 5-year relapse-free survival was also similar between the 2 groups (75.7% [95% CI, 65.2%-83.4%] after RTG and 76.4% [95% CI, 67.9%-83.0%] after LTG; log-rank P=0.850). The HR for recurrence after RTG compared with that after LTG was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.60-1.46; P=0.753).

conclusionsOur findings revealed that RTG and LTG for AGC had similar long-term outcomes. RTG is an oncologically safe alternative to LTG and has technical advantages.

Indexed as

GastrectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresStomach NeoplasmsAgedFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateTreatment OutcomeGastrectomyLaparoscopyPrognosisRobot surgeryStomach neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID39375059
PMCPMC11471327

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.