ReviewAnnals of surgical treatment and research2026
Single-port robotic gastrectomy in gastric cancer: a narrative review on the state of the art and outlook.
Review in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 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 textbook outcomes and postoperative pain trajectories between reduced-port and conventional robotic distal gastrectomy: a cumulative sum (CUSUM)-adjusted propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gastric Cancer.Cancers · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer has progressed from conventional laparoscopy to reduced-port and single-incision techniques, and further to robotic systems that address ergonomic and technical constraints. Reduced-port laparoscopic gastrectomy and single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy demonstrated feasibility and cosmetic advantages but faced inherent limitations-restricted triangulation, instrument collisions, and unstable visualization-resulting in steep learning curves and selective adoption. Reduced-port robotic platforms, notably Single-Site (Intuitive Surgical)-based reduced-port totally robotic distal gastrectomy, mitigated some limitations and enabled complex tasks, including D2 lymphadenectomy and intracorporeal anastomosis, with acceptable short-term outcomes. The da Vinci Single-Port (SP) system (Intuitive Surgical) represents the latest step in this trajectory, introducing three fully-wristed instruments and a flexible 3-dimensional endoscope through a single multichannel cannula, restoring internal triangulation and reducing collisions. Early clinical experiences from high-volume centers report no or low conversion rates, minimal blood loss, adequate lymph node retrieval, and acceptable morbidity across distal and selected total gastrectomies. Practical considerations for safe adoption include optimized port placement, deliberate scope orientation, and close collaboration with an experienced bedside assistant. Nonetheless, the platform's current lack of integrated robotic staplers and advanced energy or suction devices limits console autonomy; most cases still require an assistant port. Evidence remains confined largely to small series without head-to-head trials against reduced-port multi-arm robotic approaches. Future priorities include SP-dedicated energy and stapling tools, careful expansion to complex procedures, and robust multicenter studies assessing long-term oncologic outcomes. Taken together, the SP platform can be regarded as the present pinnacle of reduced-port gastrectomy and a promising path toward a reproducible, cosmetically favorable, and ergonomically enhanced approach for gastric cancer surgery.
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.