Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35366181›Full record

ReviewUpdates in surgery2022

Ultra-minimally invasive surgery in gynecological patients: a review of the literature.

Marco La Verde, Gaetano Riemma, Alessandro Tropea, Antonio Biondi, Stefano Cianci

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Updates in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Postoperative pain after MiniLap percutaneous versus standard laparoscopic salpingo-oophorectomy: A propensity-matched study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Marco La VerdeDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Largo Madonna delle Grazie 1, 80138, Naples, Italy. marco.laverde@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6071-0245
Gaetano RiemmaDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Largo Madonna delle Grazie 1, 80138, Naples, Italy.
Alessandro TropeaDepartment for the Treatment and Study of Abdominal Diseases and Abdominal Transplantation, IRCCS-ISMETT (Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico-Istituto Mediterraneo per i Trapianti e Terapie ad alta Specializzazione), UPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) Italy, Palermo, Italy.
Antonio BiondiDepartment of General Surgery and Medical Surgical Specialties, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Stefano CianciDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITUniversity of Catania · ITUniversity of Messina · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the last decade, Ultra-minimally invasive surgery (UMIS) including both minilaparoscopic (MH) and percutaneous (PH) endoscopic surgery achieved widespread use around the world. Despite UMIS has been reported as safe and feasible surgical procedure, most of the available data are drawn from retrospective studies, with a limited number of cases and heterogeneous surgical procedures included in the analysis. This literature review aimed to analyze the most methodologically valid studies concerning major gynecological surgeries performed in UMIS. A literature review was performed double blind from January to April 2021. The keywords 'minilaparoscopy'; 'ultra minimally invasive surgery'; '3 mm'; 'percutaneous'; and 'Hysterectomy' were selected in Pubmed, Medscape, Scopus, and Google scholar search engines. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed for the drafting of the systematic review. The systematic literature research provided 298 studies, of which 9 fell within the inclusion criteria. Two hundred ninety-six total patients were included, 148 for both PH and MH groups. Median age (48 years), BMI (24 kg/m

Indexed as

HysterectomyMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansMiddle AgedOperative TimeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective StudiesEndoscopic surgeryMinimally invasive surgeryPercutaneous approachUltra-minimally invasive

Identifiers

PMID35366181
PMCPMC9213331
OpenAlexW4226089510

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.