ArticleCancer management and research2021
A Comparative Analysis of Robotic Single-Site Surgery and Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery as Therapeutic Options for Stage IB1 Cervical Squamous Carcinoma.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness and Cost of Single-Site Robotic Surgery and Single-Site Laparoscopic Surgery in Gynecological Diseases: The Era of Single-Site Robotic Surgery May Have Arrived.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic versus traditional laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy with no-manipulation technique: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery by da Vinci Xi system in gynecology: a retrospective series of 721 cases.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Role of transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in the implementation ERAS in gynecology oncology: a retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare perioperative outcomes between robotic single-site surgical technique and conventional laparoendoscopic single-site surgical technique.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study involving 67 patients who received robotic single-site surgery or laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for the treatment of stage IB1 cervical squamous carcinoma. The robotic single-site radical hysterectomy technique combined with pelvic lymph node dissections were performed in 32 patients while the laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy technique combined with pelvic lymph node dissections were performed in 35 patients.
resultsThe enrolled patients had been diagnosed with stage IB1 cervical squamous carcinoma. The perioperative outcomes were mean age (51.63±8.32 years in the lymph node dissection (RSS group) and 53.14±8.14 years in the lymph node dissection (LESS group), p=0.453); BMIs (23.76±2.72 in the RSS group and 23.46±2.28 in the LESS group, p=0.629); shorter operative times (223.56±15.43 min in the RSS group and 248.61±20.89 min in the LESS group, p<0.01) and less estimated blood loss (217.25±16.77 mL in the RSS group and 294.74±24.00 mL in the LESS group, p<0.01). None of the study participants exhibited postoperative pain. There were no statistically significant differences in the length of hospital stay (p=0.865), perioperative complications (p=0.602), duration of closure and removal of catheter (p=0.518) as well as in pathological diagnoses between the two groups.
conclusionRobotic single-site surgery can be used in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer as it exhibits acceptable operative times and perioperative outcomes. This surgical technique is feasible and safe.
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.