Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34634858›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2021

Comparison of perioperative outcomes among robot-assisted, conventional laparoscopic, and abdominal/open myomectomies

Esra Özbaşlı, Mete Güngör

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Open, laparoscopic and robotic myomectomies - comparison of outcomesJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2022
    Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Esra ÖzbaşlıDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, TurkeyORCID 0000-0003-0558-7296
Mete GüngörDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, TurkeyORCID 0000-0001-8010-4181
Kent Hastanesi · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To compare the perioperative results of myomectomy performed by robotic surgery (RM), laparoscopic surgery (LM), and open/abdominal surgery (OM). Materials and Methods: We included 227 patients who underwent either robotic (n=66), laparoscopic (n=88), or abdominal (n=73) myomectomy at our hospital between 2016 and 2020. Retrospective medical records, including fibroid characteristics, demographic findings, and surgical outcomes, were compared. Results: The RM group had a significantly lower body mass index and significantly larger uterine size, myoma diameter, and myoma weight than the other groups. However, the OM group had the highest number of myoma. Moreover, the RM group had higher operative time and blood loss but significantly lower maximum visual analog scale values than the OM and LM groups. Hospitalization duration was significantly different among the groups. The rate of 1-day hospitalization was 56.2%, 64.8%, and 37.9% in the OM, LM, and RM groups, respectively. Furthermore, blood transfusion requirement was significantly higher in the OM group (12.3%) than in the LM and RM groups (0.0% and 4.5%, respectively). Conclusion: Minimally invasive myomectomy may be preferable, particularly for women of reproductive age. In women with large uterine size and myoma, robot-assisted LM is recommended.

Indexed as

laparoscopic surgerymyomectomyopen surgeryRobot-assisted surgery

Identifiers

PMID34634858
PMCPMC8666999
OpenAlexW3207077552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.