ArticleMedicine2019
A comparison of surgical outcomes between robot and laparoscopy-assisted adenomyomectomy.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Versus Open Adenomyomectomy: Comparative Surgical and Reproductive Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram to predict symptomatic recurrence following laparoscopic adenomyomectomy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Novel Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches to Endometriosis and Adenomyosis: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Tips and Details for Successful Robotic Myomectomy: Single-Center Experience with the First 125 Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Transition effects from laparocscopic to robotic surgery skills in small cavities.Journal of robotic surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to investigate the feasibility of robotic adenomyomectomy and compared surgical outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic approaches for adenomyomectomy.We retrospectively reviewed the data of women who were diagnosed with adenomyosis and underwent adenomyomectomy through a minimally invasive approach between January 2014 and March 2018 at the CHA Gangnam Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Patient demographics and operation-related outcomes were compared between the robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups.We evaluated 43 women who underwent adenomyomectomy through a minimally invasive approach (21 underwent a laparoscopic and 22 underwent a robotic adenomyomectomy). All 22 women who had originally been scheduled to undergo robotic adenomyomectomy could successfully undergo the robotic surgery without requiring conversion to laparotomy and/or serious complications. No statistically significant differences in patient demographics were observed between the robotic and the laparoscopic surgery groups. No significant intergroup difference was observed in the operative time, estimated blood loss, weight of the resected nodule, and length of hospitalization (160.0 vs 212.5 min, P = .106; 500.0 vs 300.0 mL, P = .309; 60.0 vs 70.0 g, P = .932; and 5.0 vs 6.0 days, P = .277). No serious perioperative complications were observed in either group.Robotic adenomyomectomy is feasible for women with adenomyosis. Surgical outcomes of robotic adenomyomectomy were comparable to those of a laparoscopic approach. There was, however, no superiority of robotic adenomyomectomy in terms of surgical outcomes. Further multicenter prospective studies using standardized surgical procedures are needed to confirm the conclusion of this study.
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.