ArticleJournal of gastric cancer2024
Long-term Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Total Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled 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
- [Robotic gastrectomy: Research progress and practical challenges].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026Review
- Long-Term Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Total Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Is Laparoscopic/Robotic Total Gastrectomy a Reasonable and Adequate Treatment for Proximal Advanced Gastric Cancer?Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Current status of treatment for esophagojejunostomy leakage after total gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective study in Korea.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2025Article
- Reply: Comment on Rethinking Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Critical Evaluation of Exclusion Criteria in Gastric Cancer Surgery Studies.Journal of gastric cancer · 2025Article
- Outcomes of Reduced-Port Robotic Gastrectomy Compared With the Conventional Laparoscopy in Korea (KLASS-13).Journal of gastric cancer · 2025Article
- Rethinking Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Critical Evaluation of Exclusion Criteria in Gastric Cancer Surgery Studies.Journal of gastric cancer · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic vs robot-assisted gastrectomy in gastric cancer patients with prior abdominal surgery: a propensity-matched analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.