ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic total gastrectomy: a western high-volume tertiary referral center experience.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robot-assisted gastrectomy has been increasingly adopted as a standard of care, but comparative evidence in Western cohorts remains limited, particularly for total gastrectomy, where esophagojejunostomy and D2 lymphadenectomy are technically demanding. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes after robot-assisted and laparoscopic total gastrectomy at a European high-volume tertiary referral center. This retrospective single-center cohort study included all patients undergoing minimally invasive total gastrectomy (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) for gastric cancer or prophylaxis in CDH1-mutated patients at Karolinska University Hospital (Stockholm, Sweden) from 1 January 2015 to 31 August 2025. The primary outcome was any postoperative complication within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leak, intraoperative blood loss, severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3), length of stay (LOS), lymph node yield, and 90-day mortality. In total, 156 patients were included (robot-assisted, n=58; laparoscopic, n=98). Any complication occurred in 37.9% after robot-assisted surgery and 68.4% after laparoscopic surgery (P<0.001). Anastomotic leak occurred in 10.3% and 6.1%, respectively (P=0.364). Median blood loss was lower with robot-assisted surgery (50 vs 125 mL, P<0.001). Median LOS, lymph node yield, and 90-day mortality were comparable between groups. In multivariable analyses, robot-assisted surgery was associated with significantly lower odds of any complication (adjusted OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.56; P = 0.002). There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding anastomotic leak (adjusted OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.10-5.54; P = 0.761) or severe complications (adjusted OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.32-2.87; P = 0.933). In this Western single-center cohort from a high-volume tertiary referral center, robot-assisted total gastrectomy demonstrated reduced postoperative morbidity to laparoscopic surgery and was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss.
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.