ArticleYonsei medical journal2014
Surgical outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy using three robotic arms versus conventional multiport laparoscopy in patients with cervical cancer.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of survival outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomies for early-stage cervical cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Urological Complications in Radical Surgery for Cervical Cancer: A Comparative Meta-Analysis before and after LACC Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Application of robotic surgery and traditional laparoscopic surgery in lymph node dissection for gynecological cancer: A meta‑analysis.Oncology letters · 2023Article
- Clinical Relevance of Vaginal Cuff Dehiscence after Minimally Invasive versus Open Hysterectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Comparative Survival Outcome of Robot-Assisted Staging Surgery Using Three Robotic Arms versus Open Surgery for Endometrial Cancer.Yonsei medical journal · 2021Article
- Concurrent Learning Curves of 3-Dimensional and Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer Using 2-Dimensional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy as a Benchmark: A Single Surgeon's Experience.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2019Article
- Review
- Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy Results in Better Surgical Outcomes Compared With the Traditional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Cervical Cancer.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2017Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare surgical outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) using 3 robotic arms with those of conventional laparoscopy in patients with early cervical cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective cohort study included 102 patients with stage 1A1-IIA2 cervical carcinoma, of whom 60 underwent robotic and 42 underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) with pelvic lymph node dissection performed between December 2009 and May 2013. Perioperative outcomes were compared between two surgical groups.
resultsRobotic approach consisted of 3 robotic arms including the camera arm and 1 conventional assistant port. Laparoscopic approach consisted of four trocar insertions with conventional instruments. There were no conversions to laparotomy. Mean age, body mass index, tumor size, cell type, and clinical stage were not significantly different between two cohorts. RRH showed favorable outcomes over LRH in terms of estimated blood loss (100 mL vs. 145 mL, p=0.037), early postoperative complication rates (16.7% vs. 30.9%, p=0.028), and postoperative complications necessitating intervention by Clavien-Dindo classification. Total operative time (200.5±61.1 minutes vs. 215.6±83.1 minutes, p=0.319), mean number of lymph node yield (23.3±9.3 vs. 21.7±9.8, p=0.248), and median length of postoperative hospital stay (11 days vs. 10 days, p=0.129) were comparable between robotic and laparoscopic group, respectively. The median follow-up time was 44 months with 2 recurrences in the robotic and 3 in the laparoscopic cohort.
conclusionSurgical outcomes of RRH and pelvic lymphadenectomy were comparable to that of laparoscopic approach, with significantly less blood loss and early postoperative complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.