Trial reportAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2020
Incidence of adverse events in minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: results of a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 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 72 papers, 6 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
72 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- 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
- Pooled it
- Interim analysis of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy in Japan: a multicenter, prospective interventional single-arm clinical trial.BMC cancer · 2024Trial
- Quality of life in patients with cervical cancer after open versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (LACC): a secondary outcome of a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.The Lancet. Oncology · 2020Trial
- Perioperative Outcomes and Recovery After Robot-Assisted vs Open Radical Hysterectomy: A Secondary Analysis of the RACC Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA surgery · 2026Article
- Complications, recurrence, and survival rates for endometrial and cervical cancer treated by minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2026Article
- Impact of laparoscopic versus open surgery on 5-year survival in patients with stage IA2-IB1 cervical cancer: a retrospective cohort study.American journal of cancer research · 2026Article
- Case Report: A rare case of external iliac artery rupture and sigmoid fistula following multimodal treatment for cervical cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Morbidity of radical surgery and postoperative radiotherapy in cervical cancer.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Review
- Review
- ROCC/GOG-3043: a randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open surgery for early-stage cervical cancer.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2025Article
- Mechanisms and benefits of phytochemicals as an alternative therapeutic strategy in female cancers.Chinese herbal medicines · 2025Review
- Current trends and challenges in minimally invasive surgical treatment for gynecologic cancers in Japan: a cancer statistics report.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Article
- Explorations of predictors for parametrial invasion and how it affects treatment strategy for bulky cervical cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Editorial: Changing backgrounds and groundbreaking changes: gynecological surgery in the third decade of the 21st century volume II.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStandard treatment of early cervical cancer involves a radical hysterectomy and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. The existing evidence on the incidence of adverse events after minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer is either nonrandomized or retrospective.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of adverse events after minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer. STUDY
designThe Laparoscopic Approach to Carcinoma of the Cervix trial was a multinational, randomized noninferiority trial that was conducted between 2008 and 2017, in which surgeons from 33 tertiary gynecologic cancer centers in 24 countries randomly assigned 631 women with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stage IA1 with lymph-vascular invasion to IB1 cervical cancer to undergo minimally invasive (n = 319) or open radical hysterectomy (n = 312). The Laparoscopic Approach to Carcinoma of the Cervix trial was suspended for enrolment in September 2017 because of an increased risk of recurrence and death in the minimally invasive surgery group. Here we report on a secondary outcome measure: the incidence of intra- and postoperative adverse events within 6 months after surgery.
resultsOf 631 randomly assigned patients, 536 (85%; mean age, 46.0 years) met inclusion criteria for this analysis; 279 (52%) underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy, and 257 (48%) underwent open radical hysterectomy. Of those, 300 (56%), 91 (16.9%), and 69 (12.8%) experienced at least 1 grade ≥2 or ≥3 or a serious adverse event, respectively. The incidence of intraoperative grade ≥2 adverse events was 12% (34/279 patients) in the minimally invasive group vs 10% (26/257) in the open group (difference, 2.1%; 95% confidence interval, -3.3 to 7.4%; P=.45). The overall incidence of postoperative grade ≥2 adverse events was 54% (152/279 patients) in the minimally invasive group vs 48% (124/257) in the open group (difference, 6.2%; 95% confidence interval, -2.2 to 14.7%; P=.14).
conclusionFor early cervical cancer, the use of minimally invasive compared with open radical hysterectomy resulted in a similar overall incidence of intraoperative or postoperative adverse events.
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.