ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2021
The incidence of urologic complications requiring urologic procedure in radical hysterectomy and difference between abdominal radical hysterectomy and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy of radical hysterectomy based on embryo development-originated in the treatment of early cervical cancer: a single-arm meta-analysis.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Total hysterectomy versus radical hysterectomy in neuroendocrine cervical cancer: a SEER-database analysis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Article
- Urological Complications in Radical Surgery for Cervical Cancer: A Comparative Meta-Analysis before and after LACC Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Short-term Outcome of Robotic and Laparoscopic Surgery for Gynecological Malignancies: A Single-center Experience.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
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
objectiveTo evaluate the incidence of urologic complications requiring a urologic procedure during the perioperative period and compare the differences between abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH).
methodsWe identified all Korean women who underwent radical hysterectomy (RH) between January 2006 and December 2019 using the National Health Insurance Service database. Complications requiring surgical intervention-based urologic procedures between ARH and LRH were investigated.
resultsA total of 12,068 patients were classified into the ARH group and 8,837 patients were classified into the LRH group. Urologic complications requiring urologic procedures occurred in 1,546 of 20,905 patients (7.40%) who underwent RH. The most common urologic procedure was double-J insertion (R326, 5.18%), followed by bladder repair (R3550, 0.90%). There was no significant difference in urologic complications requiring urologic procedures between the ARH and LRH groups (odds ratio [OR]=1.027; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.925-1.141; p=0.612). The incidence of bladder repair (R3550) was significantly higher in patients who underwent LRH (OR=1.620; 95% CI=1.220-2.171; p<0.001). Urologic complications requiring urologic procedures were statistically higher in the LRH group during the first half (OR=1.446; 95% CI=1.240-1.685; p<0.001), but more in the ARH group during the second half (OR=0.696; 95% CI=0.602-0.804; p<0.001) of the study period.
conclusionThere was no difference of urologic complications between ARH and LRH with regard to urologic procedures. The incidence of urologic procedures decreases with time in patients who underwent LRH.
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.