ArticleBMC surgery2025
Comparative study of the outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with hand-sewn anastomosis in Billroth-I reconstruction.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTotal laparoscopic distal gastrectomy hand-sewn anastomosis (LDG-HA) for gastric cancer (GC) is safe and effective. The objectives of our study were to investigate the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic versus robotic distal gastrectomy hand-sewn anastomosis (RDG-HA) in Billroth-I reconstruction.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 95 patients treated with LDG-HA (n = 55) and RDG-HA (n = 40) for GC from 09/2018 to 06/2021. The effects on baseline, pathology, perioperative data, short-term outcomes, long-term outcomes and 5-year oncologic outcomes follow-up were analyzed.
resultsThe difference between the clinical-pathological characteristics of the two groups was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The RDG-HA group was associated with a shorter anastomosis time (20.80 min vs. 23.36 min, P = 0.001) but a longer operative time (176.55 vs. 151.86 min, P = 0.003) and a higher cost (97661.66 CNY vs. 71082.63 CNY, P = 0.000). The differences of complications, 5-year follow-up overall survival and disease-free survival rates between the two groups were not statistically significant.
conclusionRDG-HA is safe and effective with a faster procedure of reconstruction but much more expensive.
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.