Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20965792›Full record

ReviewJournal of minimally invasive gynecology

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology: review of literature and available technology.

Shitanshu Uppal, Michael Frumovitz, Pedro Escobar, Pedro T Ramirez

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of minimally invasive gynecology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Robotic single-site surgery versus laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in early-stage endometrial cancer: a case-control study.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Uterine prolapse: from antiquity to today.Obstetrics and gynecology international · 2012
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shitanshu UppalDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Michael Frumovitz
Pedro Escobar
Pedro T Ramirez

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this article was to review the published literature on laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) in gynecology and to present current advances in instruments used in LESS surgery. Inasmuch as LESS surgery is relatively new, the current literature on use of this technique in gynecology is somewhat limited. Sixteen articles were available for the literature review: 10 case series, 2 comparative studies, 3 case reports, and 1 surgical technique demonstration. In recent years, however, improvements in traditional laparoscopic techniques and availability of more advanced instruments has made single-incision laparoscopy more feasible and safer for the patient. There is increasing interest in LESS surgery both as an alternative to traditional laparoscopy and as an adjunct to robotic surgery when performing complicated procedures through a single incision. Although LESS surgery provides another option in the arena of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery, the ultimate role of this approach remains to be determined.

Indexed as

EndoscopyGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansLaparoscopyRobotics

Identifiers

PMID20965792
PMCPMC4361065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.