SynthesisArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2022
Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy.
Synthesis 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 9 papers, 2 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- A meta-analysis comparing open and minimally invasive cervical tumor surgery wound infection and postoperative complications.BMC surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews.BMJ open · 2024Pooled it
- Association of a multimodal perioperative nutritional/ERAS care pathway with postoperative infectious complications following radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a retrospective nonconcurrent cohort study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The evolution of digital surgery and the role of the surgeon.JPRAS open · 2025Review
- Feasibility and early oncologic outcomes of Total Intracorporeal Robotic Radical Hysterectomy with Vaginal Cerclage (TIRRHVC) for the treatment of clinical stage IB cervical cancer: A tumor containment technique.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2024Article
- Comparison of surgical and oncological outcomes between different surgical approaches for overweight or obese cervical cancer patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Surgical outcomes and cost analysis of a multi-specialty robotic-assisted surgery caseload in the Australian public health system.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Uterine allograft removal by total laparoscopic hysterectomy after successful cesarean delivery in a living-donor uterus recipient with uterovaginal agenesis (MRKHS).Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Article
- The Future in Standards of Care for Gynecologic Laparoscopic Surgery to Improve Training and Education.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRadical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy is the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Studies have shown superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, but peri- and postoperative complication rates were shown vice versa. This meta-analysis evaluates the peri- and postoperative morbidities and complications of robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy compared to open surgery.
methodsEmbase and Ovid-Medline databases were systematically searched in June 2020 for studies comparing robotic, laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy. There was no limitation in publication year. Inclusion criteria were set analogue to the LACC trial. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the operative technique, the study design and the date of publication for the endpoints intra- and postoperative morbidity, estimated blood loss, hospital stay and operation time.
results27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference between robotic radical hysterectomy (RH) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) concerning intra- and perioperative complications. Operation time was longer in both RH (mean difference 44.79 min [95% CI 38.16; 51.42]), and LH (mean difference 20.96 min; [95% CI - 1.30; 43.22]) than in open hysterectomy (AH) but did not lead to a rise of intra- and postoperative complications. Intraoperative morbidity was lower in LH than in AH (RR 0.90 [0.80; 1.02]) as well as in RH compared to AH (0.54 [0.33; 0.88]). Intraoperative morbidity showed no difference between LH and RH (RR 1.29 [0.23; 7.29]). Postoperative morbidity was not different in any approach. Estimated blood loss was lower in both LH (mean difference - 114.34 [- 122.97; - 105.71]) and RH (mean difference - 287.14 [- 392.99; - 181.28]) compared to AH, respectively. Duration of hospital stay was shorter for LH (mean difference - 3.06 [- 3.28; - 2.83]) and RH (mean difference - 3.77 [- 5.10; - 2.44]) compared to AH.
conclusionMinimally invasive radical hysterectomy appears to be associated with reduced intraoperative morbidity and blood loss and improved reconvalescence after surgery. Besides oncological and surgical factors these results should be considered when counseling patients for radical hysterectomy and underscore the need for new randomized trials.
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.