Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32517432›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2020

Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy; comparison of early surgical outcomes

Özgüç Takmaz, Mete Güngör

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Özgüç TakmazDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, TurkeyORCID 0000-0002-3397-7980
Mete GüngörDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, TurkeyORCID 0000-0001-8010-4181
Kent Hastanesi · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

laparoscopic hysterectomyRobotic hysterectomy

Identifiers

PMID32517432
PMCPMC7726466
OpenAlexW3033433873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.