ArticleJournal of Cancer2016
The learning curves of robotic and three-dimensional laparoscopic surgery in cervical cancer.
Article in Journal of Cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility of Vibroacoustic Sensing for Detection of Peritoneal Entry During Laparoscopic Access: A Pilot Study in a Human Body Donor.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison between learning curves of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery in gynaecology: a systematic review.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2024Article
- Enhancing Veress Needle Entry with Proximal Vibroacoustic Sensing for Automatic Identification of Peritoneum Puncture.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Tips and Details for Successful Robotic Myomectomy: Single-Center Experience with the First 125 Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- The Effect of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Surgical Volume on Oncology Outcomes in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 3D laparoscopy systems and robotic systems have been introduced into clinical practice for a few years. But the comparison of robotic and 3D laparoscopic gynecologic surgery is still needed.
objectiveTo retrospectively compare the learning curves of robotic and 3D laparoscopic hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in cervical cancer. STUDY
designThe operational duration, blood loss, peritoneal drainage of first 24 hours after operation, total hospitalization days, hospitalization days after operation, lymph nodes collected, learning curves and cost of robotic and 3D laparoscopic hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in cervical cancer performed by one experienced surgeon were studied.
resultsThere was one surgeon who performed 37 cases of robotic and 24 cases of 3D laparoscopic hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, and the turning point of learning curves was case 13
conclusionsThe turning point of the learning curve of 3D laparoscopic hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy is earlier than that of robotic sugery in patients with cervical cancer, and there is no obvious benefit from robotic surgery than 3D surgery in the terms of short-term medical index and hospitalization cost.
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.