ReviewAnnals of gastroenterological surgery2026
Current Status and Future Perspectives of Robotic Surgery for Esophagogastric Cancer in Asia.
Review in Annals of gastroenterological 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has moved from an experimental adjunct to an increasingly established component of gastrointestinal (GI) oncological practice in parts of Asia, a region that carries a disproportionately high burden of gastric and esophageal cancer. Asian surgeons have been among the earliest and most prolific contributors to the clinical evidence base for robotic gastrectomy and robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy. This narrative review synthesizes evidence from randomized trials (including the ROBOT, RAMIE, and REVATE trials, and the ongoing MONA LISA [JCOG1907] study), multicenter prospective and propensity-matched cohort studies, and recent meta-analyses to critically appraise the efficacy, safety, cost, and future trajectory of RAS in Asia. Across multiple Korean, Japanese, and Chinese series, RG and RAMIE are associated with reduced short-term morbidity, improved lymph node retrieval in technically demanding anatomic regions, and lower rates of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury compared with conventional laparoscopic or thoracoscopic approaches; however, much of the evidence on long-term oncological outcomes remains retrospective or derived from propensity-score analyses rather than mature randomized data, and results across studies are not always concordant. We argue that robotic surgery in Asia is best understood as passing through three overlapping transitions: technical and oncological validation, economic and educational democratization, and digital and telesurgical integration, each of which carries distinct and unresolved questions. We conclude that while RAS has demonstrably reshaped upper GI surgical practice in high-volume Asian centers, its designation as a definitive regional standard of care should await longer-term randomized outcomes, standardized credentialing, and more equitable deployment across the region.
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.