ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2015
Single-site robotic surgery in gynecologic cancer: a pilot study.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Robotic transumbilical single-site re-staging surgery of ovarian granulosa cell tumor - case report and technical points with video.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Review
- Feasibility and Surgical Outcomes of Hybrid Robotic Single-Site Hysterectomy Compared with Single-Port Access Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Breast Surgery: Recent Evidence with Comparative Clinical Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Da Vinci SP Single-Port Robotic Surgery in Gynecologic Tumors: Single Surgeon's Initial Experience with 100 Cases.Yonsei medical journal · 2022Article
- Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site benign gynecologic surgery: a single-center experience.Journal of robotic surgery · 2018Article
- Robotic Single-Site® Sacrocolpopexy: First Report and Technique Using the Single-Site® Wristed Needle Driver.Yonsei medical journal · 2016Article
- Robotic or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus open sacrohysteropexy for uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2016Article
- Robotics in Colorectal Surgery.F1000Research · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo discuss the feasibility of single-site robotic surgery for benign gynecologic tumors and early stage gynecologic cancers.
methodsIn this single institution, prospective analysis, we analyzed six patients who had undergone single-site robotic surgery between December 2013 and August 2014. Surgery was performed using the da Vinci Si Surgical System. Patient characteristics and surgical outcomes were analyzed.
resultsSingle-site robotic surgery was performed successfully in all six cases. The median patient age was 48 years, and the median body mass index was 25.5 kg/m² (range, 22 to 33 kg/m²). The median total operative time was 211 minutes, and the median duration of intracorporeal vaginal cuff suturing was 32 minutes (range, 22 to 47 minutes). The median duration of pelvic lymph node dissection was 31 minutes on one side and 27 minutes on the other side. Patients' postoperative courses were uneventful. The median postoperative hospital stay was 4 days. No postoperative complications occurred.
conclusionWhen used to treat benign gynecologic tumors and early stage gynecologic cancers, the single-site da Vinci robotic surgery is feasible, safe, and produces favorable surgical outcomes.
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.