Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35708378›Full record

ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery

Comparative study on gasless laparoscopy using a new device versus conventional laparoscopy for surgical management of postmenopausal patients.

Jong Ha Hwang, Bo Wook Kim

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of minimal access surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 48% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
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.

Jong Ha HwangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, International St. Mary's Hospital, Catholic Kwandong University College of Medicine, Incheon Metropolitan City, South Korea.
Bo Wook KimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, International St. Mary's Hospital, Catholic Kwandong University College of Medicine, Incheon Metropolitan City, South Korea.
Catholic Kwandong University International St. Mary's Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To compare gasless laparoscopy with conventional laparoscopy for the surgical management of postmenopausal patients. Methods: The medical records of 80 postmenopausal patients who underwent laparoscopic surgeries between February 2016 and February 2020 were reviewed. Forty patients underwent gasless laparoscopy and 40 patients underwent conventional single-port access (SPA) laparoscopy. The two groups were compared in terms of surgical outcomes. Results: : Of 80 patients, 42 underwent adnexal surgeries and 38 underwent uterine surgeries such as total hysterectomy or myomectomy. Between the gasless SPA and conventional SPA laparoscopic groups, no significant differences were observed in terms of age, body mass index, parity or history of previous abdominal surgery. The mean retraction setup time from skin incision was 6.8 ± 1.2 min with gasless laparoscopic surgery. There was no significant difference in mean total operation times for the gasless (71.3 ± 31.4 min) and conventional (82.5 ± 36.4 min) groups. There was also no significant difference between the groups in terms of operation type, laparotomy conversion rate or duration of hospitalisation. There were no major complications in either group. Conclusions: Gasless laparoscopy is a safe and feasible alternative to conventional laparoscopy for postmenopausal women.

Indexed as

Benign gynaecologic diseaseconventional laparoscopygasless laparoscopypostmenopause

Identifiers

PMID35708378
PMCPMC9306136
OpenAlexW4283034472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.