ArticleInternational journal of medical sciences2021
Comparison of abdominal and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer.
Article in International journal of medical sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survival outcomes.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled 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
- Laparoscopic type 3 radical hysterectomy with enclosed colpotomy using the Bakay technique for early-stage cervical cancer: a retrospective case series.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Analysis of prognosis and related influencing factors of different surgical approaches for early cervical cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Effect of annualized surgeon volume on major surgical complications for abdominal and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer in China, 2004-2016: a retrospective cohort study.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- Oncologic Outcomes of Surgically Treated Cervical Cancer with No Residual Disease on Hysterectomy Specimen: A 4C (Canadian Cervical Cancer Collaborative) Working Group Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Is there a relationship between surgical proficiency and oncologic outcome of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer?International journal of medical sciences · 2023Article
- New Insights on the Minimal-Invasive Therapy of Cervical Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Protocol for Early Discharge within 12 Hours after Robotic Radical Hysterectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Assessment for the minimal invasiveness of laparoscopic liver resection by interleukin-6 and thrombospondin-1.World journal of hepatology · 2022Article
- The early surgical period in robotic radical hysterectomy is related to the recurrence after surgery in stage IB cervical cancer.International journal of medical sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare survival outcomes of open radical hysterectomy and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIS) in early stage cervical cancer.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 148 patients with stage IB1 - IIA2 cervical cancer who underwent either minimally invasive or open radical hysterectomy. Tumor characteristics, recurrence rate, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared according to surgical approach.
resultsIn total, 110 and 38 patients were assigned to open surgery and MIS groups. After a medical follow-up of 42.1 months, the groups showed similar survival outcomes (recurrence rate, DFS, and OS). However, in patients with tumor size >2 cm, recurrence rate was significantly higher in MIS group (22.5% vs 0%; p=0.008). And in patients with tumor size >2 cm, MIS group showed significantly poorer DFS than open surgery group (p=0.017), although OS was similar between the two groups (p=0.252).
conclusionIn patients with tumor size >2 cm, MIS was associated with higher recurrence rates and poorer DFS than open surgery. However, in patients with tumor size ≤2 cm, MIS did not seem to compromise oncologic outcomes.
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.