ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2022
Analysis of abdominal vs. robotic radical hysterectomies for patients with cervical cancer: a Bulgarian experience.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess and compare the peri-operative, oncologic, and survival outcomes for women with cervical cancer (CC) treated with abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) versus robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) approaches in Bulgaria. We retrospectively analyzed patients with histologically diagnosed CC operated via ARH or RRH methods during January-2008 to April-2019. The data analyzed include patients and tumor characteristics, peri-operative outcomes, and disease status. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis were performed to determine disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). There were consecutive 1347 patients (ARH = 1006, RRH = 341), which formed the basis of study analyses. Women in the RRH group had significantly shorter median hospital length-of-stay than ARH cases (7 vs. 11 days, p < 0.001), higher post-operative hemoglobin (116 vs. 108 g/L, p < 0.001), and fewer blood transfusions (7.3% vs. 21.5%, p < 0.001), respectively. The overall incidence of post-operative complications was also lower in the RRH vs. ARH group (2.1% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.001). Median follow-up time for ARH vs. RRH groups was 4.32 vs. 5.24 years, respectively (p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that the RRH cohort had a significantly higher survival rate compared to the ARH group (CC-specific death 8.5% vs. 16.5% respectively). Mean time to recurrence did not differ significantly in either surgical approach (p = 0.495). Cox multivariate regression showed no significant impact of surgical approach on DFS or OS. No significant difference in DFS or OS between ARH vs. RRH for CC was observed. RRH approach does not lead to inferior oncologic outcomes and is associated with better peri-operative outcomes. In regard to "all stages" of CC, we found robotic surgery safer compared to laparotomy, and thus consider RRH a better surgical treatment option for patients with CC.
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.