ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Impact of Non-curative Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection on Minimally Invasive Distal Gastrectomy and on Robotic
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimThe impact of prior non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) on the safety and oncological adequacy of minimally invasive distal gastrectomy (MIDG) for pT1 gastric cancer is uncertain. Comparative evidence for laparoscopic PATIENTS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 169 patients with pT1 gastric cancer who underwent MIDG at a single center between April 2018 and December 2024; 43 had undergone non-curative ESD. Propensity score-matching produced 33 matched pairs for the primary comparison between patients with and without prior ESD. Perioperative metrics and early oncological outcomes were assessed. Perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes were compared between laparoscopic (n=33) and robotic (n=10) MIDG groups within the post-ESD cohort.
resultsAfter matching, operative duration, estimated blood loss, postoperative complication rates, and length of hospital stay were similar for the ESD and non-ESD groups. The ESD group showed a modest reduction in lymph node yield, but all resections were R0 and there were no recurrences; overall and relapse-free survival were comparable. In the post-ESD subgroup, the robotic approach required a longer operative time, largely due to docking and intracorporeal reconstruction; blood loss, lymphadenectomy yield, morbidity, and hospital stay were comparable to the laparoscopic approach. No disease recurrence was observed after either surgical approach during the follow-up period.
conclusionPrior non-curative ESD did not appear to compromise perioperative safety or early oncological outcomes after MIDG for pT1 gastric cancer. Robotic MIDG is feasible following ESD and provides perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes comparable to laparoscopy; however, the small sample size of the robotic subgroup limits definitive conclusions. Larger prospective studies are warranted to confirm our findings and to clarify the role of robotic platforms in individualized lymphadenectomy after ESD.
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.