ArticleFrontiers in oncology2020
A Comparison of Laparoscopies and Laparotomies for Radical Hysterectomy in Stage IA1-IB1 Cervical Cancer Patients: A Single Team With 18 Years of Experience.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, excluding robotic assisted versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- A meta-analysis of survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: center-associated factors matter.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Outcomes of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Ia1-Ib1 Cervical Cancer Patients: A Multi-Center Study with 10 Years' Experiences in the Real World.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Beyond Sentinel Lymph Node: Outcomes of Indocyanine Green-Guided Pelvic Lymphadenectomy in Endometrial and Cervical Cancer.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Learning Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy: Are We Facing an Emerging Situation?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Effect of modified no-touch laparoscopic radical hysterectomy on outcomes of early stage cervical cancer: A retrospective cohort study.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- Operating costs, fiscal impact, value analysis and guidance for the routine use of robotic technology in abdominal surgical procedures.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Vaginal-assisted gasless laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer: a retrospective pilot study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2021Article
- Comparison of Prognosis between Abdominal and Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomies in Early-stage Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the safety and efficacy of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in managing early-stage cervical cancer.
methodsThis retrospective study comprised patients with FIGO stage IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), IA2, and IB1 cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy performed by a single gynecologic oncology team at Peking Union Medical College Hospital from 2000-2018. The clinicopathological characteristics, surgical outcomes, and survival outcomes were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe ARH and LRH groups consisted of 84 and 172 patients, respectively. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 89.3 and 95.9% in the ARH and LRH groups (
conclusionCompared with ARH, LRH yields similar survival and improved surgical outcomes in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. LRH is not inferior to ARH for select cervical cancer patients treated by a single team with adequate laparoscopy experience.
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.