IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0081946.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Robotic versus Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Guixiang Liao
  • Jiarong Chen
  • Chen Ren
  • Rong Li
  • Shasha Du
  • Guozhu Xie
  • Haijun Deng
  • Kaijun Yang
  • Yawei Yuan

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Knowledge was performed. Systematic review was carried out to identify studies comparing robotic gastrectomy and open gastrectomy in gastric cancer. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were also analyzed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the surgery. A fixed effects model or a random effects model was utilized according to the heterogeneity. Results: Four studies involving 5780 patients with 520 (9.00%) cases of robotic gastrectomy and 5260 (91.00%) cases of open gastrectomy were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to open gastrectomy, robotic gastrectomy has a significantly longer operation time (weighted mean differences (WMD) =92.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 55.63 to 129.12, P

Suggested Citation

  • Guixiang Liao & Jiarong Chen & Chen Ren & Rong Li & Shasha Du & Guozhu Xie & Haijun Deng & Kaijun Yang & Yawei Yuan, 2013. "Robotic versus Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0081946
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081946
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081946
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081946&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0081946?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xiaoping Liu & Da Wang & Liansheng Zheng & Tingyu Mou & Hao Liu & Guoxin Li, 2014. "Is Early Oral Feeding after Gastric Cancer Surgery Feasible? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-11, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0081946. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.