ReviewWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2025
Minimally invasive lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: Could the robotic approach provide any benefits than laparoscopy?
Review in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Surgical team configuration, technical errors, and workload in robotic distal gastrectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Validation of Textbook Outcome in Gastric Surgery (TOGS) for Primary Gastric Cancer in an Eastern High-Volume Center.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Analysis of medium-term prognostic factors for laparoscopic radical resection of serosal infiltrating (pT4a) gastric cancer: a retrospective cohort study.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery Compared to Conventional Approaches: An Umbrella Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gastrectomy is the cornerstone of treatment for gastric cancer. Since the introduction of minimally invasive techniques, the main challenge for surgeons has been to achieve the same surgical radicality, adequate lymphadenectomy, and negative resection margins as with the open approach. Previous Eastern trials showed non-inferiority of laparoscopic gastrectomy, whereas Western trials reported a higher number of complications. This may depend on the different eligibility criteria to select patients and surgeons. Currently, the increased availability of robotic systems has led to renewed enthusiasm. We present a critical review of published randomized control trials (up to October 2024) to investigate the real benefits of robotic compared to open and laparoscopic approaches. Robotic gastrectomy has shown similar oncological outcomes in survival and lymph node retrieval, particularly in suprapancreatic stations, with the advantage of a more acceptable rate of pancreatic fistula and feasible anastomotic reconstruction. Some clinical situations, such as postchemotherapy interstitial fibrosis and distortion of anatomical planes, may increase the technical difficulty. Only four published trials assessed the implications of a pre-operative therapy, with no robotic surgery cases. Robotic systems may reduce intraoperative blood loss, the risk of conversion and allow more extensive lymphadenectomies in cancers with a high risk of extraperigastric metastases, or with clinically proven para-aortic node metastases, although clinical trials evaluating robotic gastrectomy after neoadjuvant therapy have not yet been published.
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.