ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
The Surgeon's Proficiency Affected Survival Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Study of 851 Patients.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Minimally Invasive Treatment Approach for Early-Stage Uterine Cervical Cancer: The Impact of the LACC Trial and a Literature Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Analysis of prognosis and related influencing factors of different surgical approaches for early cervical cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Is there a relationship between surgical proficiency and oncologic outcome of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer?International journal of medical sciences · 2023Article
- 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
- Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Cancer in Light of the LACC Trial: What Have We Learned?Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the clinical outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) by surgeons in different phases and evaluate whether the proficiency of surgeons affects the survival outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 851 patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy between January 2008 and June 2018 (every year from January to June) at a tertiary hospital were retrospectively analyzed. We categorized patients into four phases according to their sequence (phase one, 1-10 cases; phase two: 11-20 cases; phase three: 21-30 cases; phase four: > 30 cases). Demographics and clinical and pathological data were collected and analyzed.
resultsThere were no statistical differences between the open surgery and MIS groups regarding three- and five-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The OS and DFS of patients in the MIS group in phase one were significantly lower than those in later phases and those in the open surgery group after adjustment (OS,
conclusionThe phase one cases of MIS had lower OS and DFS than those in later phases and those in the open surgery group. Thus, we suggest that the proficiency of surgeons is associated with survival outcomes of MIS. Favorable outcomes can be obtained after a certain number of MIS cases.
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.