ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2019
Minimally invasive surgery improves short-term outcomes of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer: a propensity-matched analysis with open abdominal surgery.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 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
- Laparoscopic nerve‑sparing radical hysterectomy for the treatment of cervical cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.World journal of surgical oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Association Between Surgical Robotic Availability and Open Operation Rate: A Geographic Analysis.Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2026Article
- Disparities in access to and outcomes of minimally invasive surgery: a scoping review.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- The feasibility and short-term safety of single-site hysterectomy: a retrospective cohort study of a novel robotic platform.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- A retrospective study of the effects of uterine manipulators on prognosis in patients with cervical cancer.The Journal of international medical research · 2024Article
- The OCDA-Net: a 3D convolutional neural network-based system for classification and staging of ovarian cancer patients using [Annals of nuclear medicine · 2023Article
- The sealing effect of magnetic-sealing uterine manipulator in isolated uterus from patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a pre-clinical study.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2023Article
- Early-stage cervical cancer treatment - what's new?Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2023Review
- Comparative single-center study between modified laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- Hysterectomy: Let's Step Up the Ladder of Evidence to Look Over the Horizon.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Association of preoperative cone biopsy with recurrences after radical hysterectomy.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Article
- Gynaecologic cancer care during COVID-19 pandemic in India: a social media survey.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2020Article
- Gynecologic oncology at the time of COVID-19 outbreak.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2020Review
- A Comparison of Laparoscopies and Laparotomies for Radical Hysterectomy in Stage IA1-IB1 Cervical Cancer Patients: A Single Team With 18 Years of Experience.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Additional benefit of minimally invasive surgery to improve functional outcomes after radical hysterectomy.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesNerve-sparing radical hysterectomy has been implemented in order to reduce pelvic floor dysfunctions in women undergoing radical surgery for cervical cancer. Here, we aimed to investigate if the adoption of laparoscopic surgery impacts on patients' outcomes.
methodsData of consecutive patients affected by cervical cancer who had laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy were matched 1:1 with an historical cohort of patients undergoing open procedure. A propensity-score matched algorithm was applied.
resultsThirty-five patients' pairs (70 patients: 35 undergoing laparoscopic vs. 35 undergoing open abdominal nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy) were included. Demographic and baseline oncologic characteristics were balanced between groups. Patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery had similar operative time than patients undergoing open abdominal procedures (249 [±91.5] vs. 223 [±65.0] minutes; p=0.066). Laparoscopic approach correlated with lower blood loss (30.5 [±11.0] vs. 190 [90.4] mL; p<0.001) and shorter hospital stay (3.2 [±1.2] vs. 5.4 [2.0] days; p=0.023). Patients undergoing laparoscopy experienced a lower 30-day pelvic floor dysfunction rate than patients having open surgery. Moreover, they experienced shorter recovery of bladder function than patients having open procedures (median, 7 vs. 9 days; p=0.004, log-rank test).
conclusionLaparoscopic approach resulted in a faster recovery of bladder function in comparison to open surgery for patients undergoing nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy.
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.