ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2019
Comparative analysis of robotic
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of perioperative outcomes for da Vinci robotic-assisted, laparoscopic and open surgery in oncologic procedures: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of evidence from China.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled 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
- Influence of steep Trendelenburg position on postoperative complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Robotic versus traditional laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy with no-manipulation technique: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Surgical Treatment for Early Cervical Cancer in the HPV Era: State of the Art.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Comparison of surgical outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy in gynecologic benign disease: a single-center cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Trends in surgical approach to hysterectomy and perioperative outcomes in Michigan hospitals from 2010 through 2020.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- An optimized robotic surgical technique for cervical cancer: investigating whether the use of the pulling robotic arm has better surgical outcomes.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Comparison of Surgical Outcomes of Robotic versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy of Large Uterus with Gynecologic Benign Disease.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: the Right Surgical Approach.Current treatment options in oncology · 2022Review
- Surgical and Patient Outcomes of Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2021Review
- 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
- Robotic-assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Gynecological Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of mid-life healthArticle
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer is the most common gynecological malignancy, ranking first in female reproductive malignancies with more than 500000 new cases and 275000 deaths each year. Traditionally, open radical hysterectomy is considered the standard surgical procedure for the treatment of resectable cervical cancer. The latest guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Society of Gynecological Oncology suggest that open surgery and laparoscopic surgery (using traditional laparoscopic or robotic techniques) are the main surgical approaches for radical hysterectomy for patients with stage IA2-IIA cervical cancer. Robotic surgery has been increasingly used in abdominal surgery and has shown more beneficial effects.
aimTo analyse the perioperative conditions, complications, and short-term and long-term effects in patients undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) to compare their clinical efficacy, safety, and feasibility.
methodsThe perioperative data of patients undergoing RRH and LRH were extracted and collected from the database of surgical treatments for cervical cancer for statistical analysis.
resultsOf the patients, 342 underwent LRH for cervical cancer, and 216 underwent RRH. The total complication rate was 9.65% (20 patients) in the RRH group and 17.59% (60 patients) in the LRH group. The complication rate was significantly lower in the RRH group than in the LRH group. There was no significant difference in the follow-up period (
conclusionRRH is associated with significantly less operative time and blood loss than LRH. The two procedures have similar complication rates, OS, and progression-free survival time.
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.