ArticleEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2020
Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.
Article in European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic techniques in the surgical staging of endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2025Review
- Different minimally invasive surgical methods to hysterectomy for benign gynecological disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Health science reports · 2024Review
- The current status of robotic surgery for endometrial cancer in Japan.Global health & medicine · 2022Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (RALH) compared with conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) for surgical staging of endometrial cancer has not been clearly established. With the commencement of a robotic program at our institution, our objective was to evaluate and compare the surgical outcomes of RALH with TLH for endometrial cancer.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was performed on 39 patients who underwent RALH and 41 patients who underwent TLH for endometrial cancer at a tertiary care academic institution.
resultsIn the setting of endometrial cancer RALH is significantly longer to perform than TLH (mean operating time 133 min vs 107 min,
conclusionRALH is safe and feasible for the treatment of endometrial cancer, with low morbidity, less blood loss and shorter length of stay than TLH. RALH is associated with longer mean operating times than TLH and this may improve with enlisting a consistent experienced team. Prospective randomised studies which include analysis of quality of life measures and long-term outcomes are required to further establish the role of RALH in the surgical staging of endometrial cancer.
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.