Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29716555›Full record

Trial reportBMC women's health2018

Efficacy and safety outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy in Chinese older women with cervical cancer compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy.

Cheng Luo, Mei Liu, Xiuli Li

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC women's health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cheng LuoDepartment of Gynecology, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital and Hainan Branch, Haitang Bay, Sanya, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9275-8772
Mei LiuDepartment of Oncology, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital and Hainan Branch, Sanya, China.
Xiuli LiDepartment of Gynecology, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital and Hainan Branch, Haitang Bay, Sanya, China. lixiuli330521@163.com.
Hainan 301 Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently, as a complex integrating a number of modern high-tech means, robotic surgery system is a well-deserved revolutionary tool in globally minimally invasive surgical field. For the first time in China, the objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) in Chinese older women with cervical cancer compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH).

methodsIn this prospective, randomized and double-blinded study, 60 Chinese older women with cervical cancer were evenly divided to accept the RRH or LRH. Follow-up period lasted for 24 months.

resultsMedian age for the entire cohort was 65 (range: 61-69) years. There was no difference in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages and cell types between two groups (p > 0.05 for all). Uterine size, tumor size, vaginal length and numbers of left and right pelvic lymph nodes did not differ between two groups (p > 0.05 for all). No difference was observed in numbers of left and right lymph node metastasis (p > 0.05 for all). All patients had negative margins without conversion to laparotomy. There were significantly less postoperative complications in the RRH group than in the LRH group (p < 0.05). Shorter indwelling time of bladder and drain catheters was observed in the RRH group than in the LRH group (p < 0.05 for all). Length of postoperative hospital stay in the RRH group was significantly shorter compared with that in the LRH group (p < 0.05). Patients in two groups similarly experienced the recurrence and death (p > 0.05 for all).

conclusionsThis study demonstrated that RRH provided additional benefits for Chinese older women with cervical cancer because of less complications and faster recovery compared with LRH. Meanwhile, this study supported an equivalence of surgical qualities and survival outcomes of RRH to LRH. Robotics-assisted surgical method is effective, safe and feasible for Chinese older women with cervical cancer.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedCatheters, IndwellingChinaDouble-Blind MethodDrainageFemaleHumansHysterectomyLength of StayLymphatic MetastasisMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesSurvival RateCervical cancerChinese older womenLaparoscopic radical hysterectomyRobotic radical hysterectomy

Identifiers

PMID29716555
PMCPMC5930733
OpenAlexW2806705036

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.