ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
Conventional Laparoscopy versus Robotic-Assisted Aortic Lymph-Nodal Staging for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lymph node dissection before initial treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2024Pooled it
- Para-aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy in locally advanced cervical cancer with pelvic lymph node metastasis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Initial Experience of Articulating Laparoscopic Instruments for Benign Gynecologic Disease: A Single-Arm Multicenter Prospective Study (Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group 4002).Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Early-stage cervical cancer treatment - what's new?Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2023Review
- Save our surgeons (SOS) - an explorative comparison of surgeons' muscular and cardiovascular demands, posture, perceived workload and discomfort during robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Article
- Beyond Sentinel Lymph Node: Outcomes of Indocyanine Green-Guided Pelvic Lymphadenectomy in Endometrial and Cervical Cancer.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Learning Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy: Are We Facing an Emerging Situation?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Resection of inferior vena cava, abdominal aorta, bilateral common iliac arteries, and bilateral partial external iliac arteries with artificial vessel replacement during radical endometrial cancer surgery: a case report.BMC women's health · 2022Article
- Progression Free Survival, Overall Survival, and Relapse Rate in Endometrioid Ovarian Cancer and Synchronous Endometrial-Ovarian Endometrioid Cancer (SEO-EC): Results from a Large Retrospective Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Diagnosis of Cervical Cancer and Pre-Cancerous Lesions by Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aortic lymph node metastases are a relative common finding in locally advanced cervical cancer. Minimally invasive surgery is the preferred approach to perform para-aortic lymph nodal staging to reduce complications, hospital stay, and the time to primary treatment. This meta-analysis (CRD42022335095) aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of the two most advanced approaches for the aortic staging procedure: conventional laparoscopy (CL) versus robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL). The meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guideline. The search string included the following keywords: "Laparoscopy" (MeSH Unique ID: D010535), "Robotic Surgical Procedures" (MeSH Unique ID: D065287), "Lymph Node Excision" (MeSH Unique ID: D008197) and "Aorta" (MeSH Unique ID: D001011), and "Uterine Cervical Neoplasms" (MeSH Unique ID: D002583). A total of 1324 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, 1200 patients were included in the CL group and 124 patients in the RAL group. Estimated blood loss was significantly higher in CL compared with RAL (
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.