SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in overweight patients, with obesity, or high visceral adiposity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of East Asian Cohorts.
Synthesis 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High body mass index (BMI) and CT-defined visceral adiposity may increase the technical difficulty of minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Whether robotic gastrectomy offers a comparative advantage over laparoscopic gastrectomy in these adiposity-defined populations is uncertain. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 29 August 2026 using prespecified strategies; reference lists were also checked. English-language comparative studies of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric malignancy were eligible when overweight, obesity, or high visceral adiposity was defined categorically and arm-level data were extractable. Two reviewers independently performed screening, extraction, ROBINS-I assessment, and conventional GRADE assessment. Overlapping cohorts were resolved outcome by outcome. Random-effects models used restricted maximum likelihood with modified Hartung-Knapp confidence intervals. Primary outcomes were overall postoperative complications, major postoperative complications, operative time, and estimated blood loss. In total, 16 studies were eligible, all from South Korea, China, or Japan. Overall complications did not differ significantly between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy (10 studies; 1,695 participants; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.10; P = 0.153; I²=0%). Major complications yielded an RR of 0.56 (8 studies; 1,858 participants; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.52; P = 0.210; I²=53%). The pooled mean difference in operative time was + 31.13 min (7 studies; 1,037 participants; 95% CI - 9.60 to + 71.86; P = 0.111; I²=92%), while the mean difference in estimated blood loss was - 10.27 mL (6 studies; 939 participants; 95% CI - 38.20 to + 17.66; P = 0.388; I²=74%). The certainty of evidence was very low for all primary outcomes. In East Asian patients with overweight, obesity, or high visceral adiposity undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer, very-low-certainty evidence did not establish a clear difference between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for any primary outcome. Applicability to Western patients remains uncertain. Future prospective multicenter studies, including Western populations and using standardized adiposity definitions and patient-centered outcomes, are needed to clarify the comparative value of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42789177What 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.