SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcome and long-term survival.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The introduction of robotic surgical platforms has addressed several inherent technical constraints associated with conventional laparoscopy. Nevertheless, it remains uncertain whether robotic gastrectomy (RG), in comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), provides superior perioperative outcomes and long-term survival benefits in patients affected by gastric cancer (GC). We searched the published literature from three principal databases, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Data, such as research features, individual traits and consequent parameters, were extracted. ROB 2 and ROBINS-I V2 was used to evaluate study quality, as appropriate. The primary survival outcomes indicators were overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival (RFS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Our search yielded 4691 studies. Eighty-four studies, which contained 39,635 patients, were included. RG was associated with improved OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.83–0.95] and RFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.65–0.96], fewer postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.70–0.86], The complication benefit was mainly driven by a reduction in moderate-to-severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III OR 0.71), longer surgeries [weighted mean difference (WMD) 28.23, 95% CI 22.87–33.58], lower estimated blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) − 21.97, 95% CI − 26.34 to − 18.59], greater numbers of retrieved lymph nodes [weighted mean difference (WMD) 1.70, 95% CI 0.87–2.54], and shorter postoperative hospital stays [weighted mean difference (WMD) − 0.60, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.41]. RG was associated with higher costs than LG [weighted mean difference (WMD) 1.26, 95% CI 0.93–1.58]. DFS showed no significant difference. Subgroup Analysis: The Japanese subgroup outperformed the Chinese and Korean subgroups in long-term survival. Our research indicates that RG has modest perioperative advantages for gastric cancer treatment and shows potential long-term survival benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42010147What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.