Trial reportScientific reports2021
Two-port access for laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer using conventional laparoscopic instruments.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to Complete a Gynecological Robot-Assisted Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection with a High-Quality Experience: 180 Cases in a Single Center.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Retroperitoneal vNOTES approach in early-stage endometrial cancer: a feasibility cohort with a contemporaneous laparoscopic comparison.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Effect of Two-Port Laparoscopic Surgery on Pregnancy Outcomes of Patients with Concurrent Adnexal Masses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery is the first-line management for endometrial cancer. The role of 2-port access laparoscopy (TPA) has been underestimated. Compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CL), TPA is associated with smaller total incision size and less postoperative pain. Compared to single-incision laparoscopic surgery, no specific instruments and surgical techniques are needed. This study primarily evaluated the surgical and pathologic outcomes of TPA with conventional instruments, and additionally evaluated the surgeon's learning curve. Consecutive patients who underwent TPA and CL for endometrial cancer between 2015 and 2019 were included. Baseline characteristics were recorded. In total, 148 patients (TPA, 89; CL, 59) were identified. The baseline characteristics were similar, except for a greater proportion of patients in the CL group receiving para-aortic lymph node dissection (5.62% vs. 35.59%, P < 0.01). The mean operation time was significantly less in the TPA group (152.09 vs. 187.15 min; P < 0.01). Both the groups had comparable 5-year progression-free survival (TPA, 86.68%) and 5-year overall survival rates (TPA, 93.24%). Analysis of the learning curve showed that the operation time decreased after 3-4 procedures. TPA using conventional laparoscopic instruments for endometrial cancer is feasible and is easily accessible to patients and surgeons.
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.