ArticleOncoTargets and therapy2018
Laparoscopic procedure compared with open radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy in early cervical cancer: a retrospective study.
Article in OncoTargets and therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 11 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- A meta-analysis comparing open and minimally invasive cervical tumor surgery wound infection and postoperative complications.BMC surgery · 2024Pooled it
- A meta-analysis examining the impact of open surgical therapy versus minimally invasive surgery on wound infection in females with cervical cancer.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of minimally invasive surgery and laparotomy on wound infection and postoperative and intraoperative complications in the management of cervical cancer: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, excluding robotic assisted versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled 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
- A meta-analysis of survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: center-associated factors matter.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA oncology · 2020Pooled 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 Minimally Invasive vs. Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Review of the Standard and Advanced Screening, Staging Systems and Treatment Modalities for Cervical Cancer.Cancers · 2022Review
- Comparison between laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for low-risk cervical cancer: a multicentre retrospective study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Article
- The incidence of urologic complications requiring urologic procedure in radical hysterectomy and difference between abdominal radical hysterectomy and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2021Article
- Article
- Surgical Management of Early Cervical Cancer: When Is Laparoscopic Appropriate?Current oncology reports · 2020Review
- Comparison of Prognosis between Abdominal and Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomies in Early-stage Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
- The Impaction of Laparoscopic versus Laparotomy for Lymphovascular Space Invasion of Early Cervical Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare clinical outcomes in laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy (LRH) in early cervical cancer without the selection bias.
methodsOne special retrospective study was conducted with more than 400 patients involved in laparoscopic procedure.
resultsOur results suggest that estimated blood loss and transfusion requirements were significantly lower in the LRH group. Postoperative hospital stay was also significantly shorter in the LRH group. Significant difference was found in the number of pelvic lymph nodes retrieved between the LRH and open radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy (ORH) groups. There were no differences in operating time, perioperative complications, progression-free survival, and overall survival between the LRH and ORH groups.
conclusionLRH can be considered a safe and effective alternative to conventional open surgery (ORH) for early-stage cervical cancer.
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.