ArticleChinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu2016
Evolution of radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer along the last two decades: single institution experience.
Article in Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu, 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.
- Feasibility and early oncologic outcomes of Total Intracorporeal Robotic Radical Hysterectomy with Vaginal Cerclage (TIRRHVC) for the treatment of clinical stage IB cervical cancer: A tumor containment technique.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2024Article
- Laparoscopic vs. Open Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Single-Institution, Propensity Score Matching Study in China.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe radical hysterectomy (RH) surgical technique has improved along the years. It is used for the treatment of cervical cancer, endometrial cancer when affecting the cervix, and upper vaginal carcinomas. Our aim was to describe the historical evolution of the technique after the introduction of laparoscopy at our institution.
methodsWe performed a retrospective review of medical records of patients who underwent RH, grouped in three periods according to the year of surgery: 1990-1999, 2000-2009 and 2010-2013. Patients?characteristics, pathologic details, intraoperative and postoperative complications were analyzed and compared throughout the time periods.
resultsA total of 102 cases of RH were performed at our center during the study period. Among all data collected, the presence of necrosis, age, number of lymph nodes, surgery route, operating time, hospital stay, blood loss and transfusion requirement were statistically significant different among groups. Conversion to laparotomy rate was 19% for the second period compared to the absence of cases in the last one. No significant differences (P=0.124) were observed in the adjuvant treatment received among the three different groups. At the time of the last contact the patients free of disease were 12 (85.7%), 53 (91.3%) and 26 (86.6%) respectively (P=0.406). Regarding the disease-free interval, we found significant better outcomes in the group of laparotomy compared to laparoscopy (P=0.015).
conclusionsLaparoscopic RH is an acceptable surgery with advantages like magnified vision of the operation field, lower surgical complications, shorter hospital stay and earlier resumption to daily activities.
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.