SynthesisMedicine2019
Efficacy of robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer compared with that of open and laparoscopic surgery: A separate meta-analysis of high-quality studies.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 5 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- A meta-analysis comparing open and minimally invasive cervical tumor surgery wound infection and postoperative complications.BMC surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews.BMJ open · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of survival outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomies for early-stage cervical cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Pooled it
- Protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2021Pooled it
- Pathogenesis and Possible Consequences of Port-Site Metastasis in Gynecologic Oncology After Laparoscopic Procedures.Cancer management and research · 2025Review
- Article
- Robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: current trends and controversies.Journal of Cancer · 2024Review
- Port Site Metastasis After Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gynecologic Malignancies: Two Case Reports and a Review of the Literature.International journal of women's health · 2023Article
- Retrospective Comparison of Laparoscopic versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer in a Single Tertiary Care Institution from Lithuania between 2009 and 2019.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Analysis of abdominal vs. robotic radical hysterectomies for patients with cervical cancer: a Bulgarian experience.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022Article
- Review
- Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: the Right Surgical Approach.Current treatment options in oncology · 2022Review
- Challenges and Controversies in the Surgical Treatment of Cervical Cancer: Open Radical Hysterectomy versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Clinical value of traditional laparotomy, extensive vaginal hysterectomy, and laparoscope-assisted vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia III.Translational cancer research · 2021Article
- 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
- An exploratory study of public' awareness about robotics-assisted surgery in Kuwait.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- Minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy for radical hysterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: Survival outcomes.Gynecologic oncology · 2020Article
- Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: When Adoption of a Novel Treatment Precedes Prospective, Randomized Evidence.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2019Review
- 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
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 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo perform a meta-analysis of high-quality studies comparing robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH), and open radical hysterectomy (ORH) for the treatment of cervical cancer.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed to identify studies that compared RRH with LRH or ORH. The selection of high-quality, nonrandomized comparative studies was based on a validated tool (methodologic index for nonrandomized studies) since no randomized controlled trials have been published. Outcomes of interest included conversion rate, operation time, intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), morbidity, mortality, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLNs), and long-term oncologic outcomes.
resultsTwelve studies assessing RRH vs LRH or ORH were included for this meta-analysis. In comparison with LRH, there was no difference in operation time, EBL, conversion rate, intraoperative or postoperative complications, LOS, and tumor recurrence (P > .05). Compared with ORH, patients underwent RRH had less EBL (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -322.59 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -502.75 to -142.43, P < .01), a lower transfusion rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06-0.34, P < .01), and shorter LOS (WMD = -2.71 days; 95% CI: -3.74 to -1.68, P < .01). There was no significant difference between RRH and LRH with respect to the operation time, intraoperative or postoperative complications, RLN, and tumor recurrence (P > .05).
conclusionOur results indicate that RRH is safe and effective compared to its laparoscopic and open counterpart and provides favorable outcomes in postoperative recovery.
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.