Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40346431›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025

Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes for robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy in elderly patients with gastric cancer: a multicenter cohort study.

Ze-Ning Huang, Wen-Wu Qiu, Tai-Yuan Li, Li Zhang, Jun-Jun She, Bao-Qing Jia, Xin-Gan Qin, Shuang-Yi Ren, Hong-Liang Yao, Dong-Ning Liu and 10 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

20 authors.

Ze-Ning Huang *Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No. 29, Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China.
Wen-Wu QiuDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No. 29, Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China.
Tai-Yuan Li *Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Li ZhangDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Jun-Jun SheDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Bao-Qing JiaDepartment of General Surgery, The First Medical Centre, PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xin-Gan QinDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Shuang-Yi RenDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
Hong-Liang YaoDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Dong-Ning LiuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Han LiangDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Fei-Yu ShiDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Peng LiDepartment of General Surgery, The First Medical Centre, PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Bo-Pei LiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Xin-Sheng ZhangDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
Kui-Jie LiuDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Chao-Hui ZhengDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No. 29, Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China.
Chang-Ming HuangDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No. 29, Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China. hcmlr2002@163.com.
Jian-Xian LinDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No. 29, Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China. linjian379@163.com.
Ping LiDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No. 29, Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China. pingli811002@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9418-9339

Funding

Fujian Research and Training Grants for Young and Middle-aged Leaders in Healthcare No.【2022】954
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is limited evidence from large-scale multicenter studies regarding the short- and long-term efficacy of robotic gastrectomy (RG) in elderly patients diagnosed with gastric cancer (GC). As such, this retrospective investigation compared short-term outcomes and long-term oncological prognoses of RG versus (vs.) laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in a representative sample of this population.

methodsData from 1393 patients ≥ 65 years of age diagnosed with GC, who underwent radical gastrectomy at 8 large tertiary hospitals in China between August 2016 and June 2019, were analyzed. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to reduce confounding bias.

resultsAfter IPTW and PSM adjustments, baseline characteristics between the RG and LG groups were comparable (standardized mean difference < 0.10). After IPTW adjustment, mean blood loss in the RG group was significantly less than that in the LG group (89.36 vs. 103.39 mL; p = 0.046) as was mean length of hospital stay (9.62 vs. 10.47 days; p = 0.017). There were no statistical differences in postoperative complications between the RG and LG groups (p > 0.05), nor in 3y-DFS (IPTW-adjusted: 74.5% vs. 74.6%, p = 0.957; PSM-adjusted: 76.8% vs. 79.3%, p = 0.323) or 3y-OS (IPTW-adjusted: 75.9% vs. 77.0%, p = 0.640; PSM-adjusted: 77.9% vs. 80.9%, p = 0.235). Similarly, there were no significant differences in postoperative recurrence rates between the RG and LG groups (IPTW-adjusted: 21.1% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.640; PSM-adjusted: 77.9% vs. 80.9%, p = 0.235).

conclusionRG yielded superior short-term outcomes compared with LG in elderly patients diagnosed with GC, while achieving comparable long-term outcomes and demonstrating safety and effectiveness.

Indexed as

GastrectomyLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresStomach NeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overChinaFemaleHumansLength of StayMalePostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeElderly patientsGastric cancerLaparoscopic gastrectomyRobotic gastrectomy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.