Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30666510›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2019

Comparison between single-site and multiport robot-assisted myomectomy.

Gaby N Moawad, Paul Tyan, Jiheum Paek, Erryn E Tappy, Daniel Park, Souzanna Choussein, Serene S Srouji, Antonio Gargiulo

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Gaby N MoawadDivision of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University Hospital, 900 23rd St NW, Washington, DC, 20037, USA. GNMoawad@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3240-1496
Paul TyanDivision of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University Hospital, 900 23rd St NW, Washington, DC, 20037, USA. ptyan@gwu.edu.
Jiheum PaekDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gynecologic Cancer Center, Ajou University Medical Center, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
Erryn E TappyDivision of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University Hospital, 900 23rd St NW, Washington, DC, 20037, USA.
Daniel ParkDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Souzanna ChousseinDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, and Reproductive Biology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Serene S SroujiDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, and Reproductive Biology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Antonio GargiuloDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, and Reproductive Biology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Minimizing the number of port incisions during minimally invasive surgery is associated with improved outcomes and patient satisfaction. We designed this work to study the perioperative outcomes of robotic single-site myomectomy (RSSM) in comparison to robotic multiport myomectomy (RMM) in a certain subset of patients. The design of the study is a multicenter retrospective analysis (Canadian Task Force classification III). The setting was three university hospitals. Eighty patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids undergoing robot-assisted single-site myomectomy were selected for the study. These 80 consecutive RSSM patients were matched at the uterine fibroid tumor burden level with 95 consecutive RMM patients performed at the same institutions, by the same surgeons, within a similar time frame. The main outcome measures were estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, overnight admission, and post-operative complications. Of the 175 women, 95 (54.2%) underwent RMM and 80 (45.7%) underwent RSSM. Single-site vs. multiport patient demographics differed significantly in mean age (39.1 vs. 35.6, p < 0.001), and BMI (25.3 vs. 27.5, p < 0.04). Pre-operative MRI fibroid characteristics were matched between the two cohorts. Fibroid size on imaging (5.8 cm vs. 5.9 cm, p = 0.4) and the number of fibroids removed (2.5 vs. 2.3, p = 0.08) were similar between the two groups. After adjustment for multiple covariates with regression models, single-site myomectomy and multiport myomectomy has comparable EBL (83.3 mL vs. 109.2 mL, p = 0.34), operative time (162.4 min vs. 162.4 min, p = 0.99), overnight admission (OR = 1.54, p = 0.44) and a post-operative complication (OR = 1.3, p = 0.78). In selected patients, robotic single-site myomectomy is equivalent to its multiport counterpart. Both surgical approaches are associated with low rates of intra-operative and post-operative complications.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansLeiomyomaMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesRobotic Surgical ProceduresUterine MyomectomyUterine NeoplasmsUterusMinimally invasive myomectomyRobotic myomectomySingle-site myomectomySingle-site surgery

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.