Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27171672›Full record

ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2016

Robotic single site versus robotic multiport hysterectomy in early endometrial cancer: a case control study.

Giacomo Corrado, Giuseppe Cutillo, Emanuela Mancini, Ermelinda Baiocco, Lodovico Patrizi, Maria Saltari, Anna di Luca Sidozzi, Isabella Sperduti, Giulia Pomati, Enrico Vizza

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Robotic Single-Port Versus Robotic Single-Site Hysterectomy in Early Endometrial Cancer: A Case Control Study.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

10 authors.

Giacomo CorradoSurgical Oncology Department, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy. giacomo.corrado@alice.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8319-6146
Giuseppe CutilloSurgical Oncology Department, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9526-0443
Emanuela ManciniSurgical Oncology Department, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9946-7289
Ermelinda BaioccoSurgical Oncology Department, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5719-5561
Lodovico PatriziSurgery Department, Section of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3331-9750
Maria SaltariSurgery Department, Section of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6168-8246
Anna di Luca SidozziSurgical Oncology Department, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6039-1558
Isabella SperdutiScientific Direction, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0831-2765
Giulia PomatiSurgery Department, Section of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6715-5443
Enrico VizzaSurgical Oncology Department, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5975-1202

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare surgical outcomes and cost of robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) versus robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) in early stage endometrial cancer.

methodsThis is a retrospective case-control study, comparing perioperative outcomes and costs of RSSH and RMPH in early stage endometrial cancer patients. RSSH were matched 1:2 according to age, body mass index, comorbidity, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetric (FIGO) stage, type of radical surgery, histologic type, and grading. Mean hospital cost per discharge was calculated summarizing the cost of daily hospital room charges, operating room, cost of supplies and length of hospital stay.

resultsA total of 23 women who underwent RSSH were matched with 46 historic controls treated by RMPH in the same institute, with the same surgical team. No significant differences were found in terms of age, histologic type, stage, and grading. Operative time was similar: 102.5 minutes in RMPH and 110 in RSSH (p=0.889). Blood loss was lower in RSSH than in RMPH (respectively, 50 mL vs. 100 mL, p=0.001). Hospital stay was 3 days in RMPH and 2 days in RSSH (p=0.001). No intraoperative complications occurred in both groups. Early postoperative complications were 2.2% in RMPH and 4.3% in RSSH. Overall cost was higher in RMPH than in RSSH (respectively, $7,772.15 vs. $5,181.06).

conclusionOur retrospective study suggests the safety and feasibility of RSSH for staging early endometrial cancer without major differences from the RMPH in terms of surgical outcomes, but with lower hospital costs. Certainly, further studies are eagerly warranted to confirm our findings.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCase-Control StudiesEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansHysterectomyMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesRobotic Surgical ProceduresEndometrial NeoplasmsMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresRobotic HysterectomyRobotic Single Site Hysterectomy

Identifiers

PMID27171672
PMCPMC4864515

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.