ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2022
Robotic radical hysterectomy versus open radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a single-centre experience from India.
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. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementation of tumor-free and total Müllerian compartment resection techniques in robot-assisted radical hysterectomy: protocol for standardizing surgical procedures.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Comparison of surgical and oncological outcomes between different surgical approaches for overweight or obese cervical cancer patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Challenges in the Diagnosis and Individualized Treatment of Cervical Cancer.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) at 3 years and 5 years in patients undergoing treatment for early-stage cervical cancer with either robotic (RRH) or open radical hysterectomy (ORH). This retrospective study compared all patients with stage IA1 (lymphovascular invasion), IA2, IB1, IB2 and II A cervical cancer in accordance with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics staging (FIGO 2009) of cancer of the cervix uteri. Patients who underwent Radical Hysterectomy at our centre from January 2011 till January 2018 were included in the study. One hundred and eighty-nine patients ( ORH = 67, RRH = 122) were included. The median follow-up time was 46.3 months in RRH group and 70.0 months in the ORH group. The 3-year DFS was comparable in both the arms, 91.5% in RRH and 91.6% in ORH. The 5-year DFS was 88.9% and 85.9% in robotic and open approaches, respectively (P = 0.258), hazard ratio (HR) 0.616 (CI = 0.266-1.427). The 3-year overall survival for robotic approach was 93.4% and for open was 95%, whereas 5-year overall survival was 84.7% and 87.4% in robotic and open approaches, respectively (P = 0.813). The median estimated blood loss for robotics was lower (100 ml vs 300 ml, P < 0.001) and median operative time was less (162.5 min vs. 180 min, P = 0.005) in robotics. The patients in RRH cohort had shorter median hospital stay (3.9 days vs. 6.3 days, P < 0.001). Robotic radical hysterectomy had comparable survival outcomes to open radical hysterectomy in cancer cervix. RRH is associated with improved peri-operative surgical outcomes and better resource utilisation.
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.