ArticleOncoTargets and therapy2016
Comparative analyses of postoperative complications and prognosis of different surgical procedures in stage II endometrial carcinoma treatment.
Article in OncoTargets and therapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preoperative modified frailty index to predict surgical complications in endometrial cancer patients.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2022Article
- Early and late onset complications of gynaecologic surgery: a multimodality imaging approach.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the impact of surgical resection extent on the postoperative complications and the prognosis in patients with stage II endometrial cancer.
methodsA total of 54 patients were retrospectively reviewed, 35 patients underwent subradical hysterectomy and 19 patients received radical hysterectomy, both with simultaneous bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy.
resultsComparing the surgical outcomes in subradical hysterectomy group vs radical hysterectomy group, there were no significant differences in operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay. After surgery, 37.1% vs 36.8% patients received postoperative radiotherapy in the subradical hysterectomy group vs radical hysterectomy group, without statistically significant difference. As for postoperative complications, the early postoperative complication rate in patients who underwent subradical hysterectomy was 14.3%, significantly lower than that in patients submitted to radical hysterectomy (14.3% vs 42.1%), with P=0.043. However, there was no significant difference in late postoperative complication rate between the two surgical procedures. Regarding the clinical prognosis, patients receiving the subradical hysterectomy showed similar survival to their counterparts undergoing the radical procedures. The relapse rate was 5.71% vs 5.26%, respectively, without significant difference. There were no deaths in both surgical groups.
conclusionFor stage II endometrial carcinoma, subradical hysterectomy presented with less early postoperative complications and similar survival duration and recurrence compared with radical hysterectomy and should be advocated in clinical treatment.
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.