ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2020
Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy; comparison of early surgical outcomes
Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- The challenge of robotic surgery in oncology: a feasibility study with the Senhance™ Surgical System.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Observational
- Safety and Efficacy of Robotic Hysterectomy Using an Indigenous Robotic System: A Retrospective Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Surgical and Patient Outcomes of Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2021Review
- On-demand robotic surgery for hysterectomies: A combination of the best of robotic and laparoscopic approach.Women's health (London, England)Article
- Day case total laparoscopic hysterectomy in a low resource setting: A descriptive analysis.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare early surgical outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign diseases, in terms of operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), perioperative complications, hospital stay and first gas discharge. Material and Methods: Medical records of 146 patients who either underwent laparoscopic (n=84) or robotic assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (n=62) for benign diseases were extracted from records. Demographic characteristics and operation time, EBL, length of hospital stay and first gas discharge were compared between the groups. Results: Mean age and mean body mass index of both groups were comparable. The difference in the mean EBL was not statistically significant between laparoscopic (91±65 mL) and robotic group (80±37 mL, p=0.43). The difference in the mean first gas discharge time was not statistically different between laparoscopic (15±5 hours) and robotic group (17±6 hours, p=0.33). The length of hospital stay was comparable between groups (1.4±0.5 vs 1.5±0.7 days, p=0.64). The mean operation time was longer for the robotic group (150±180 minimum) when compared with laparoscopic group (105±18 minimum, p<0.01). The mean uterine weight of the robotic group was significantly heavier compared with laparoscopic group (234±157 grams vs 153±119 grams, respectıvely, p<0.01). Conclusion: Early surgical outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic and laparoscopic hysterectomy were comparable in terms of EBL, first gas discharge and hospital stay. Operation time was longer for robotic hysterectomy.
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.