Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24761214›Full record

ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2014

Comparison of laparoscopy and laparotomy for the management of early-stage ovarian cancer: surgical and oncological outcomes.

Yu-Jin Koo, Jung-Eun Kim, Young-Hwa Kim, Ho-Suap Hahn, In-Ho Lee, Tae-Jin Kim, Ki-Heon Lee, Jae-Uk Shim, Kyung-Taek Lim

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for FIGO stage I ovarian cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Yu-Jin KooDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cheil General Hospital and Women's Healthcare Center, Kwandong University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jung-Eun KimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cheil General Hospital and Women's Healthcare Center, Kwandong University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Young-Hwa KimDepartment of Radiology, Cheil General Hospital and Women's Healthcare Center, Kwandong University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ho-Suap HahnDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cheil General Hospital and Women's Healthcare Center, Kwandong University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
In-Ho LeeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cheil General Hospital and Women's Healthcare Center, Kwandong University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Tae-Jin KimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cheil General Hospital and Women's Healthcare Center, Kwandong University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ki-Heon LeeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cheil General Hospital and Women's Healthcare Center, Kwandong University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jae-Uk ShimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cheil General Hospital and Women's Healthcare Center, Kwandong University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Kyung-Taek LimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cheil General Hospital and Women's Healthcare Center, Kwandong University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic surgery compared with laparotomy for the treatment of early-stage ovarian cancer.

methodsData from patients who underwent surgical management for early-stage ovarian cancer between 2006 and 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients presented with stage I or II disease, and underwent comprehensive staging surgery consisting of a total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy, omentectomy, and peritoneal cytology.

resultsSeventy-seven patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery (24 patients) or laparotomy (53 patients) were identified. Surgery for none of the patients was converted from laparoscopy to laparotomy. The mean operation time was shorter and the estimated blood loss was lower in the laparoscopy group than in the laparotomy group, though the differences were not statistically significant (193 min vs. 224 min, p=0.127; 698 mL vs. 973 mL, p=0.127). There were no differences in the intraoperative or postoperative complications. During a mean follow-up period of 31 months, tumor recurrence occurred in 4 patients: 2 (8.3%) in the laparoscopy group and 2 (3.8%) in the laparotomy group. The mean disease-free survival was 59 months after laparoscopy and 66 months after laparotomy (p=0.367).

conclusionLaparoscopic surgery seems to be adequate and feasible for the treatment of early-stage ovarian cancer with comparable results to laparotomy in terms of the surgical outcomes and oncological safety.

Indexed as

Early-stage ovarian cancerLaparoscopy surgeryLaparotomy staging

Identifiers

PMID24761214
PMCPMC3996260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.