ArticlePloS one2020
RETRACTED: Choosing the most appropriate minimally invasive approach to treat gynecologic cancers in the context of an enhanced recovery program: Insights from a comprehensive cancer center.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Influence of steep Trendelenburg position on postoperative complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Surgical Outcomes in Laparoscopic Hysterectomy, Robotic-Assisted, and Laparoscopic-Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy for Uterine and Cervical Cancers: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Comparison of Surgical Outcomes of Robotic versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy of Large Uterus with Gynecologic Benign Disease.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Surgical and Patient Outcomes of Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-12-18Compromised Peer Review · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Objections by Author(s) ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the study was to compare the characteristics of procedures for gynecologic cancers conducted with conventional laparoscopy (CL) or robotically assisted laparoscopy (RAL) in the context of an enhanced recovery program (ERP).
methodsThis is a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from a cohort study conducted between 2016 (when the ERP was first implemented at the Institut Paoli-Calmettes, a comprehensive cancer center in France) and 2018. We included patients who had undergone minimally invasive surgery for gynecological cancers and followed our ERP. The endpoints were the analysis of postoperative complications, the length of postoperative hospitalization (LPO), and the proportion of combined procedures depending on the approach (RAL or CL). Combined procedures were defined by the association of at least two of the following operative items: hysterectomy, pelvic lymphadenectomy, and para-aortic lymphadenectomy.
resultsA total of 362 women underwent either CL (n = 187) or RAL (n = 175) for gynecologic cancers and followed our ERP. The proportion of combined procedures performed by RAL was significantly higher (85/175 [48.6%]) than that performed by CL (23/187 [12.3%]; p < 0.001). The proportions of postoperative complications were similar between the two groups (19.4% versus 17.1%; p = 0.59). Logistic regression analysis revealed a statistically insignificant trend in the association of RAL with a reduced likelihood of an LPO > 3 days after adjusting for predictors of prolonged hospitalization (adjusted OR = 0.573 [0.236-1.388]; p = 0.217).
conclusionExperts from our cancer center preferentially choose RAL to perform gynecologic oncological procedures that present elements of complexity. More studies are needed to determine whether this strategy is efficient in managing complex procedures in the framework of an ERP.
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.