ReviewPloS one2018
Robotic radical hysterectomy is superior to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer.
Review in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews.BMJ open · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of robotic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- The incidence of postoperative symptomatic lymphocele after pelvic lymphadenectomy between abdominal and laparoscopic approach: a systemic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Pooled it
- Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy has higher risk of perioperative urologic complication than abdominal radical hysterectomy: a meta-analysis of 38 studies.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- Survival after Laparoscopic versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Early Cervical Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2021Trial
- Incidence of adverse events in minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: results of a randomized controlled trial.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2020Trial
- Article
- Open versus robot-assisted retroperitoneal tumors resection involving inferior vena cava, abdominal aorta, and renal hilum: a comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Comparison of surgical and oncological outcomes between different surgical approaches for overweight or obese cervical cancer patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Analysis of abdominal vs. robotic radical hysterectomies for patients with cervical cancer: a Bulgarian experience.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022Article
- Retrospective Analysis of Cervical Cancer Treatment Outcomes: Ten Years of Experience with the Vaginal Assisted Radical Laparoscopic Hysterectomy VARLH.BioMed research international · 2022Observational
- The influence of learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy on oncological outcomes in early-stage cervical cancer: an observational cohort study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2021Observational
- Does a pre-operative conization improve disease-free survival in early-stage cervical cancer?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2021Article
- The Landmark Series: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2021Article
- Effect of 5A nursing mode combined with fine nursing management on perioperative self-efficacy and living quality of hysteromyoma.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Robotic surgery facilitates complex minimally invasive operations.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
- Article
- Comparative analysis of roboticWorld journal of clinical cases · 2019Article
- Radical Hysterectomy After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Bulky-Size Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis between the Robotic and Abdominal Approaches.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Robotic surgery: is it right for India?Journal of robotic surgery · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCervical cancer (CC) continues to be a global burden for women, with higher incidence and mortality rates reported annually. Many countries have witnessed a dramatic reduction in the prevalence of CC due to widely accessed robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH). This network meta-analysis aims to compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in way of RRH, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LTH) and open radical hysterectomy (ORH) in the treatment of early-stage CC.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases was performed from inception to June 2016. Clinical controlled trials (CCTs) of above three hysterectomies in the treatment of early-stage CC were included in this study. Direct and indirect evidence were incorporated for calculating values of weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR), and drawing the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).
resultsSeventeen 17 CCTs were ultimately enrolled in this network meta-analysis. The network meta-analysis showed that patients treated by RRH and LRH had lower estimated blood loss compared to patients treated by ORH (WMD = -399.52, 95% CI = -600.64~-204.78; WMD = -277.86, 95%CI = -430.84 ~ -126.07, respectively). Patients treated by RRH and LRH had less hospital stay (days) than those by ORH (WMD = -3.49, 95% CI = -5.79~-1.24; WMD = -3.26, 95% CI = -5.04~-1.44, respectively). Compared with ORH, patients treated with RRH had lower postoperative complications (OR = 0.21, 95%CI = 0.08~0.65). Furthermore, the SUCRA value of three radical hysterectomies showed that patients receiving RRH illustrated better conditions on intraoperative blood loss, operation time, the number of resected lymph nodes, length of hospital stay and intraoperative and postoperative complications, while patients receiving ORH demonstrated relatively poorer conditions.
conclusionThe results of this meta-analysis confirmed that early-stage CC patients treated by RRH were superior to patients treated by LRH and ORH in intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay and intraoperative and postoperative complications, and RRH might be regarded as a safe and effective therapeutic procedure for the management of CC.
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.