ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
A retrospective case-control study of Da Vinci robotic versus laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer under an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the safety and short-term efficacy of radical gastrectomy using the Da Vinci fully robotic system versus laparoscopic surgery under a standardised enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol, with multivariate adjustment for baseline differences in tumour stage and nutritional status. Methods: A retrospective case-control analysis of 259 patients (RTG: n=121; LTG: n=138) undergoing gastric cancer radical surgery at Jiangsu Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine (August 2018-July 2022) under a uniform institutional ERAS protocol. Univariate comparisons were supplemented by multivariate regression analyses adjusting for pathological TNM stage, preoperative albumin, age, and BMI. Results: The RTG group had significantly earlier pathological TNM staging (Stage I: 40.5% vs. 21.7%, p=0.003) and higher preoperative albumin (40.8 vs. 39.05 g/L, p<0.001). In univariate analysis, the RTG group demonstrated shorter median postoperative hospital stay (6 vs. 9 days, p<0.001), a markedly lower rate of prolonged hospitalisation >14 days (1.7% vs. 14.5%, OR = 10.1, p=0.001), earlier first oral intake (6 vs. 42.75 h, p<0.001), earlier first ambulation (20 vs. 38 h, p<0.001), fewer ICU admissions (5.0% vs. 17.4%, p=0.002), a higher rate of adequate lymph node dissection (≥10 groups: 72.7% vs. 44.2%, p<0.001), a lower rate of clinically significant blood loss (>100 ml: 2.5% vs. 19.6%, p<0.001), and significantly better preservation of postoperative albumin on day 1 (Δ -2.0 vs. Δ -3.9 g/L, p=0.001) and day 5 (Δ -0.7 vs. Δ -3.2 g/L, p<0.001). The largest recovery gap was observed in total gastrectomy (7 vs. 11 days, p=0.002) despite equal operative time (285 vs. 288 min, p=0.969). In multivariate regression adjusting for all covariates, the robotic approach remained independently associated with all primary recovery outcomes (hospital stay β=-3.25 days, first liquid intake β=-41.71 h, first ambulation β=-16.45 h, drain duration β=-1.79 days; all p<0.001). The overall complication rate did not differ significantly (5.0% vs. 7.2%, OR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.24-1.94, p=0.606); Conclusion: Robotic radical gastrectomy within a uniform ERAS protocol is independently associated with superior short-term postoperative recovery - including shorter hospitalisation, earlier oral intake, better nutritional preservation, and higher-quality lymph node dissection - compared to laparoscopic surgery, an advantage that persists after multivariate adjustment for tumour stage and is consistent across all subgroups examined. Multi-centre prospective trials are required to confirm long-term oncological outcomes.
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.