ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2020
Efficacy of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy vs. conventional radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pelvic Floor Dysfunction Following Gynecologic Cancer Surgery and Adjuvant Therapy: Epidemiology, Mechanisms, and Management-A Systematic Review.International urogynecology journal · 2026Pooled it
- [Interpretable machine learning models for preoperative precision prediction of perineural invasion in cervical cancer to support treatment decision: a multicenter retrospective study].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2026Article
- Advances in Screening, Immunotherapy, Targeted Agents, and Precision Surgery in Cervical Cancer: A Comprehensive Clinical Review (2018-2025).Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
- Oncologic outcome and recurrence patterns of clinical stage IB and IIA cervical cancer: A large retrospective analysis of a tertiary reference center.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Surgical Techniques for Radical Trachelectomy.Cancers · 2025Review
- Improved bladder function in radical hysterectomy without worsening oncologic outcome: resection of the posterior layer of the vesicouterine ligament with the procedure limited to the vesical veins.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2024Article
- Anatomical Location of the Vesical Branches of the Inferior Hypogastric Plexus in Human Cadavers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Pelvic Floor Therapy and Initial Interventions for Pelvic Floor Dysfunction in Gynecologic Malignancies.Current oncology reports · 2024Review
- Surgical Anatomy and Dissection of the Hypogastric Plexus in Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- The distribution of the inferior hypogastric plexus in female pelvis.Journal of medicine and life · 2022Article
- Surgery for cervical cancer: consensus & controversies.The Indian journal of medical research · 2021Review
- Preoperative Evaluation of Perineural Invasion in Cervical Cancer: Development and Independent Validation of a Novel Predictive Nomogram.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare the oncological outcome of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) and conventional radical hysterectomy (CRH) for early-stage cervical cancer using a meta-analysis. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, including 4 randomized controlled trials (RCT), 8 case-control and 11 comparative cohort studies comparing the morbidity, pelvic dysfunctions and oncological outcome between the two surgical methods. A total of 23 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The studies reported data of patients affected by cervical cancer; were written in English; included ≥20 patients; and reported data of patients with a comparison of clinical outcomes between NSRH and CRH. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by four independent reviewers. A total of 1,796 patients were included: 884 patients (49.2%) undergoing NSRH and 912 (50.8%) undergoing CRH. The meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager version 5.3 software, which is designed for conducting Cochrane reviews. As regards perioperative parameters, NSRH was found to be associated with a lower intraoperative blood loss and a shorter length of hospital stay in comparison with CRH. Patients undergoing NSRH experienced lower incidence of urinary, colorectal and sexual dysfunction compared with patients undergoing CRH. However, the resected parametrial width was favorable in patients with CRH, suggesting that NSRH was inferior to CRH in terms of radicality. The 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates were similar between the two groups. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the collected data to date demonstrated that the nerve-sparing approach guarantees minimized surgical-related pelvic dysfunction, with similar oncological outcomes as CRH. However, further RCTs should be conducted to confirm the superiority and safety of NSRH.
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.