ArticleFrontiers in oncology2020
Feasibility of Single-Port Access (SPA) Laparoscopy for Large Ovarian Tumor Suspected to Be Borderline Ovarian Tumor.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can a Continuous Wound Infiltration System Replace Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia for Postoperative Pain Management after a Single-Port Access Laparoscopy?Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Initial Experience of Articulating Laparoscopic Instruments for Benign Gynecologic Disease: A Single-Arm Multicenter Prospective Study (Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group 4002).Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Efficacy of a continuous wound infiltration system for postoperative pain management in gynecologic patients who underwent single-port access laparoscopy for adnexal disease.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Second fertility-sparing surgery and fertility-outcomes in patients with recurrent borderline ovarian tumors.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Article
- The prevention of postoperative port-site adhesion following single-port access (SPA) laparoscopic surgeries.Medicine · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the surgical, pathological and oncological outcomes of single-port access (SPA) laparoscopy against laparotomy for large ovarian tumor (>15 cm) suspected to be a borderline ovarian tumor (BOT) on preoperative imaging.
methodsA retrospective review of the patients who underwent SPA laparoscopy (SPA Group) or laparotomy (Laparotomy Group) for suspected BOT was performed. Surgical outcomes, including the rates of iatrogenic spillage of tumor contents, and oncological outcomes, such as recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS), were compared between the two groups. Correlation between intraoperative frozen section analysis and permanent pathology results was also assessed.
resultsA total of 178 patients underwent surgical treatment for suspected large BOT. Among them, 105 patients with a mean tumor diameter of 20.9 ± 6.5 cm underwent SPA laparoscopy, and the other 73 patients, with a mean tumor diameter 20.2 ± 5.9 cm, underwent laparotomy. The mean operation time did not differ between the two groups (99.1 ± 41.9 min for SPA Group
conclusionSPA laparoscopy is feasible, safe, and not inferior to laparotomy for surgical treatment of large ovarian tumors that suspected to be BOT on preoperative imaging.
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.