ArticleJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India2016
A Prospective Randomized Comparative Study of Vaginal, Abdominal, and Laparoscopic Hysterectomies.
Article in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Mini-Review of the New Therapeutic Possibilities in Asherman Syndrome-Where Are We after One Hundred and Twenty-Six Years?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Validation of an educational simulation model for vaginal hysterectomy training: a pilot study.International urogynecology journal · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe present study is a prospective, randomized comparative study of abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomies comparing various parameters such as indications, blood loss, post operative pain, time taken for surgery, intraoperative and postoperative complications and total hospital stay. MATERIALS AND
methods50 patients were selected in each group over a period of 18 months. The patients were selected in such a way that they could be operated by all 3 routes. Thus patients undergoing hysterectomy for non malignant conditions, having no adnexal masses, having no severe endometriosis, uterine size not more than 12 weeks and uterine descent of not more than 1st degree were selected.
resultsThe most common indication for hysterectomy was found to be DUB, the maximum time taken was in TLH, the minimum blood loss was found in TLH. There was significant difference in the pain scores using VAS among the three groups on day 0 and day 1, where the scores were significantly lower in VH group, the hospital stay was maximum in TAH group while there was no difference between VH and TLH groups.
conclusionTLH is a better alternative for TAH and with good equipment, expertise and excellent teamwork TLH will be the future candidate for mode of surgery.
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.