ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2016
Robotic single site versus robotic multiport hysterectomy in early endometrial cancer: a case control study.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotic single site versus robotic multiport hysterectomy in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Surgical outcomes of single-port vs multi-port laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Single-site port robotic-assisted hysterectomy: an update.Journal of robotic surgery · 2018Pooled it
- 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 · 2025Article
- Surgical Outcomes in Laparoscopic Hysterectomy, Robotic-Assisted, and Laparoscopic-Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy for Uterine and Cervical Cancers: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Review
- Comparing surgical outcomes of da Vinci SP and da Vinci Xi for endometrial cancer surgical staging in a propensity score-matched study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Review
- Efficacy of transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a retrospective comparison study.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Article
- A Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Site Robotic, Multiport Robotic and Conventional Laparoscopic Techniques in Performing Hysterectomy for Benign Indications.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.