ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare textbook outcome (TO) and postoperative pain trajectories between reduced-port robotic distal gastrectomy (rpRDG) and conventional robotic distal gastrectomy (cRDG) for gastric cancer (GC). This retrospective cohort study analyzed patients who underwent robotic distal gastrectomy for GC between September 2022 and March 2026 at a single tertiary center. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was applied to exclude 30 cases representing the initial learning curve, yielding 107 patients (cRDG, n = 60; rpRDG, n = 47). Following 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), 39 matched pairs were analyzed. The primary endpoint was TO achievement; secondary endpoints included operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), retrieved lymph nodes, and postoperative pain assessed by numeric rating scale (NRS) from postoperative day (POD) 1 to 3. The two groups were well-balanced after PSM (all absolute standardized mean differences < 0.1). TO achievement rates were comparable between groups (cRDG: 79.49% vs. rpRDG: 87.18%, p = 0.3621), with no significant differences in operative time (264.97 vs. 246.23 min, p = 0.0808), EBL (47.05 vs. 43.21mL, p = 0.7088), or retrieved lymph nodes (34.67 vs. 38.92, p = 0.2686). A linear mixed-effects model revealed a significant group-by-time interaction in pain scores (p = 0.0044), and the rpRDG group reported significantly lower NRS scores on POD 1 (2.62 vs. 3.13, p = 0.0155). rpRDG demonstrated comparable surgical and oncologic outcomes to cRDG, with statistically significant reduction in early postoperative pain on POD 1, representing a meaningful marginal gain within an ERAS-optimized setting. These findings support rpRDG as a feasible, patient-centered alternative warranting further multicenter validation.
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.