ArticleTranslational cancer research2021
Comparison of the two routes of video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy in vulvar cancer: a systematic review and a single-center experience.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of robotic-assisted inguinal lymphadenectomy in vulval cancer: feasibility, peri-operative outcomes and oncological safety.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Laparoscopy in the Surgical Management of Gynecological Cancer: A Comprehensive Update.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy for vulvar cancer, is it feasible?Current opinion in oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVideo endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) has fewer complications than open surgery for vulva cancer. No high-level evidence comparing the efficacy and safety of the two routes of VEIL (VEIL-H and VEIL-L) is available.
methodsWe performed a comprehensive literature search for reports on VEIL for vulva cancer from 2000 to 2020 and reviewed our experience. Data extraction includes patients' characteristics, perioperative indicators, postoperative complications, and cancer recurrence.
resultsA total of 11 eligible studies were included in the systematic review. Nine studies included only one route of VEIL, and the other two studies directly compared the two routes of VEIL. The average operation time of the VEIL-L group was 85 (range, 33-180.12) minutes, and that of the VEIL-H group was 112 (range, 35-170.79) minutes. The average blood loss of the VEIL-L group was 9 (range, 5-30) mL, and that of the VEIL-H group was 96 (range, 5.5-214.8) mL. The average number of intraoperatively removed lymph nodes in the VEIL-L group was 9 (range, 7.5-13.2), and that in the VEIL-H group was 14 (range, 9.5-16). No significant difference was observed in the cancer recurrence rate between the two groups. We found similar results in our cohort study.
conclusionsThe operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and time of drainage of the VEIL-L procedure seemed less than those of the VEIL-H procedure. VEIL-L and VEIL-H were equivalent in the efficacy of lymph node dissection, surgery-related complications, and cancer recurrence rate.
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.