ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2022
Comparison between laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for low-risk cervical cancer: a multicentre retrospective study.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Ia1-Ib1 Cervical Cancer Patients: A Multi-Center Study with 10 Years' Experiences in the Real World.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Comparison of the survival outcomes of laparoscopic, abdominal and gasless laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: trial protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (LAGCC trial).Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for low-risk cervical cancer.
methodWe retrospectively compared the 3-year overall survival (OS) and 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) of 1269 low-risk cervical cancer patients with FIGO 2009 stage IA2, IB1 and IIA1 with a tumour size < 2 cm, no lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), superficial stromal invasion and no lymph node involvement on imaging, and who received LRH (n = 672) and ARH (n = 597) between 2009 and 2018 at 47 hospitals.
resultsIn the total study population, LRH and ARH showed similar 3-year OS (98.6% vs. 98.9%, P = 0.850) and DFS rates (95.7% vs. 96.4%, P = 0.285). LRH was not associated with worse 3-year OS (HR 0.897, 95% CI 0.287-2.808, P = 0.852) or DFS (HR 0.692, 95% CI 0.379-1.263, P = 0.230) as determined by multivariable analysis. After propensity score matching in 1269 patients, LRH (n = 551) and ARH (n = 551) still showed similar 3-year OS (98.4% vs. 98.8%, P = 0.704) and DFS rates (95.5% vs. 96.3%, P = 0.249). LRH was still not associated with worse 3-year OS (HR 0.816, 95% CI 0.262-2.541, P = 0.725) or DFS (HR 0.694, 95% CI 0.371-1.296, P = 0.251).
conclusionAmong patients with low-risk cervical cancers < 2 cm, no LVSI, superficial stromal invasion, and no lymph node involvement on imaging, no significant differences were observed in 3-year OS or DFS rates between LRH and ARH.
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.