FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4252613907> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4252613907 abstract "Abstract Background To date, robotic surgery has been widely used worldwide. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) in gastric cancer patients to determine whether RG can replace laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Methods Pubmed, Cochrane Library, WanFang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and VIP databases were comprehensively searched for studies published before May 2020 that compared RG with LG. Next, two independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The quality of the literature was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS),and the data analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Random effects or fixed effects models were applied according to heterogeneity. Results A total of 19 studies including 7275 patients were included in the meta-analyses, of which 4598 patients were in the LG group and 2677 in the RG group. Compared with LG,RG was associated with longer operative time (WMD=−32.96 min; 95% CI:-42.08~-23.84, P<0.00001),less blood loss (WMD=28.66 ml; 95% CI: 18.59~38.73, P<0.00001),and shorter time to first flatus (WMD=0.16days; 95%CI:0.06~0.27, P=0.003).There was no significant difference between RG and LG in terms of the hospital stay (WMD=0.23days, 95 % CI:-0.53~0.98, P=0.56),overall postoperative complication (OR=1.07, 95 % CI:0.91~1.25, P=0.43),mortality (OR=0.67, 95% CI=0.24~1.90, P=0.45),the number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD=-0.96, 95% CI:-2.12~0.20, P=0.10),proximal resection margin (WMD=-0.10 cm,95% CI:-0.29~0.09, P=0.30),and distal resection margin (WMD=0.15cm,95% CI:-0.21~0.52, P=0.41).No significant differences were found between the two treatments in overall survival(OS) (HR=0.95, 95% CI:0.76~1.18; P=0.64), recurrence-free survival(RFS) (HR=0.91, 95% CI:0.69~1.21;P=0.53), and recurrence rate (OR=0.90, 95% CI:0.67~1.21; P=0.50). Conclusions The results of this study suggested that RG is as acceptable as LG in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. RG can be performed as effectively and safely as LG. Moreover, more randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques with rigorous study designs are still essential to evaluate the value of the robotic surgery for gastric cancer." @default.
• W4252613907 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4252613907 creator A5017313371 @default.
• W4252613907 creator A5020616742 @default.
• W4252613907 creator A5039616532 @default.
• W4252613907 creator A5056673838 @default.
• W4252613907 creator A5086328096 @default.
• W4252613907 date "2020-10-05" @default.
• W4252613907 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W4252613907 title "Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" @default.
• W4252613907 doi "https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-84003/v1" @default.
• W4252613907 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W4252613907 type Work @default.
• W4252613907 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4252613907 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W4252613907 hasAuthorship W4252613907A5017313371 @default.
• W4252613907 hasAuthorship W4252613907A5020616742 @default.
• W4252613907 hasAuthorship W4252613907A5039616532 @default.
• W4252613907 hasAuthorship W4252613907A5056673838 @default.
• W4252613907 hasAuthorship W4252613907A5086328096 @default.
• W4252613907 hasBestOaLocation W42526139072 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConcept C2776478404 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConcept C2780439572 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConcept C2780470880 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConcept C90924648 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConceptScore W4252613907C121608353 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConceptScore W4252613907C126322002 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConceptScore W4252613907C141071460 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConceptScore W4252613907C2776478404 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConceptScore W4252613907C2780439572 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConceptScore W4252613907C2780470880 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConceptScore W4252613907C61434518 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConceptScore W4252613907C71924100 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConceptScore W4252613907C90924648 @default.
• W4252613907 hasConceptScore W4252613907C95190672 @default.
• W4252613907 hasLocation W42526139071 @default.
• W4252613907 hasLocation W42526139072 @default.
• W4252613907 hasOpenAccess W4252613907 @default.
• W4252613907 hasPrimaryLocation W42526139071 @default.
• W4252613907 hasRelatedWork W18910276 @default.
• W4252613907 hasRelatedWork W19725948 @default.
• W4252613907 hasRelatedWork W20316582 @default.
• W4252613907 hasRelatedWork W21291840 @default.
• W4252613907 hasRelatedWork W2640430 @default.
• W4252613907 hasRelatedWork W4660467 @default.
• W4252613907 hasRelatedWork W5091422 @default.
• W4252613907 hasRelatedWork W7246245 @default.
• W4252613907 hasRelatedWork W14769508 @default.
• W4252613907 hasRelatedWork W18193755 @default.
• W4252613907 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4252613907 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4252613907 workType "article" @default.