ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Comparing benign laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy outcomes by time.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical efficiency, safety, and quality of life among four various approaches for T1 stage papillary thyroid carcinoma: a prospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Observational
- Modified Use of Classical Rein Technique in Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Uterine Manipulation.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of intradermal needle therapy on the sleep quality of patients following laparoscopic hysterectomy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- A randomized, controlled trial comparing the clinical outcomes of 3D versus 2D laparoscopic hysterectomy.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2022Article
- Comparison of Uterine manipulators types in total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A retrospective study.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile laparoscopic hysterectomy has benefits compared to abdominal hysterectomy, the operative times are longer. Longer operative times have been associated with negative outcomes. This study's purpose was to elucidate if there is an operative time at which 30-day outcomes for laparoscopic hysterectomy become inferior to a more expeditiously completed abdominal hysterectomy.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2) using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to identify women undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications from 2010 to 2016 by current procedural terminology code. Hysterectomy cases were stratified by approach and 60-min intervals. 30-day post-operative outcomes were analyzed by operative time and approach.
results109,821 hysterectomies were included in our analysis, of which 66,560 (61%) were laparoscopic, and 43,261 (39%) were abdominal. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis comparing outcomes by surgical approach and operative time, there was no time combination in which patients who had a abdominal hysterectomy had significantly lower odds of the composite complications variable. This was true even in laparoscopic hysterectomies greater than 240 min compared to abdominal hysterectomies completed between 20 and 60 min. When compared to laparoscopic hysterectomies greater than 240 min, abdominal hysterectomies between 20 and 60 min had lower odds of sepsis and abdominal hysterectomies less than 180 min had lower odds of urinary tract infection.
conclusionGiven that benefits persist even in prolonged cases, a laparoscopic approach should be offered to most patients undergoing benign hysterectomy. Surgical efficiency should be prioritized for any surgical approach.
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.