ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Textbook oncological outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for locally advanced cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy using textbook oncologic outcome: a matched cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of Textbook Outcome (TO) and Textbook Oncological Outcome (TOO) on Survival Following Surgery for Esophagogastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical resection is essential for treating locally advanced gastric cancer. Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is minimally invasive but limited because it has no articulated forceps, no motion scale, and no tremor filtering; this has led to robotic gastrectomy (RG) being adopted. Although RG may offer technical advantages, its superiority over LG in surgical and survival outcomes remains unclear. The concept of the textbook oncological outcome (TOO) is a composite measure of surgical quality. In this study, RG and LG were compared in terms of surgical and survival outcomes using TOO as a measure.
methodsThis study included 339 patients with clinical stage II or III gastric cancer, 167 of whom underwent LG and 172 of whom underwent RG. After propensity score matching, data for 126 pairs were analyzed. Surgical and survival outcomes were assessed based on TOO achievement.
resultsThe overall TOO achievement rate was 40.1%. The RG group showed significantly better outcomes in no severe complications (98.4 vs. 89.7%, P = 0.006), no re-intervention (98.4 vs. 91.3%, P = 0.019), no ICU admission (99.2 vs. 92.9%, P = 0.019), and CRP ≤ 10 mg/dL on postoperative day 6 (84.1 vs. 66.7%, P = 0.002). Consequently, TOO achievement was significantly higher in the RG group (47.6 vs. 32.5%, P = 0.020). RG was an independent favorable factor for TOO achievement (OR 1.900, 95% CI 1.120-3.240, P = 0.018). Survival analysis showed significantly higher 3-year overall survival in the TOO-achieved group than in the non-achieved group (86.2 vs. 65.5%, P = 0.013). TOO achievement was an independent favorable prognostic factor for overall survival (HR 0.370, 95% CI 0.205-0.664, P < 0.01).
conclusionsRG contributed to higher TOO achievement, and achieving TOO significantly improved survival. Promoting RG may be an effective strategy to enhance oncological outcomes in locally advanced gastric cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41062761What 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.