ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Short-term surgical outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is increasingly used for gastric cancer, but real-world comparative data from Chinese institutions during the early phase of robotic program implementation remain limited. We retrospectively identified patients who underwent radical gastrectomy between January 2015 and October 2025. The primary comparison included 54 patients who underwent RG and 162 who underwent Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). After exclusion of patients with missing propensity-score covariates, 53 RG and 143 LG patients were eligible for matching. One-to-two nearest-neighbor matching was performed using a caliper of 0.2 standard deviations of the logit of the propensity score, yielding 45 RG and 88 LG patients. The principal outcomes was the number of lymph nodes retrieved. After matching, all included covariates were balanced. The median number of lymph nodes retrieved did not differ significantly between RG and LG (30 [interquartile range, 25-42] vs 34 [27-47]; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: -10.0-2.0, p = 0.181). RG was associated with a shorter postoperative length of stay (16 vs 18 days; 95% CI: -4.1-0.1, p = 0.016) and fewer positive lymph nodes (0 vs 2; 95% CI: -3.3-0.7, p = 0.007). Median operative time was 310 minutes for RG and 300 minutes for LG (95% CI: -20.5-40.5, p = 0.072). CUSUM analysis revealed a V-shaped recovery for LN retrieval, and confirmed operative efficiency convergence to the LG benchmark by the late phase (300 min, p = 0.053), together indicating a trend toward improved performance during the learning process. RG and LG achieved comparable lymph-node yields, while RG was associated with a shorter postoperative hospital stay. Exploratory sequential analyses suggested improvement in operative efficiency but did not establish a proficiency threshold. Complete outcome ascertainment and contemporaneous comparisons are needed.Clinical Trial: The study was registered retrospectively in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on August 27, 2026 (ChiCTR2600131011; http://www.chictr.org.cn).
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.