ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Robotic Staging of Cervical Cancer With Simultaneous Detection of Primary Pelvic and Secondary Para-Aortic Sentinel Lymph Nodes: Reproducibility in a First Case Series.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of Risk Factors of Lymphedema After Surgical Treatment in Cervical Cancer: A Case-Control Retrospective Study.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical characteristics of endometrial cancers with microsatellite instability-high andFrontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Discrepancies exist among international guidelines on the surgical staging of para-aortic lymph nodes in locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC), varying from considering a para-aortic lymph node dissection, at least up to the inferior mesenteric artery, to a complete para-aortic lymph node dissection. In this study, we aim to assess the reproducibility of our recently reported robotic technique using indocyanine green for identifying besides primary pelvic sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs), secondary para-aortic SLNs in a first case-cohort of cervical cancer patients. Methods: A retrospective case series of LACC patients with/without suspicious pelvic lymph nodes (LNs) on imaging (including two patients with an additional suspicious para-aortic LN) is reported. All patients underwent a robotic pelvic SLN and para-aortic sentinel/nonsentinel LN dissection using the da Vinci Xi platform. Indocyanine green was used as a fluorescent tracer, at a concentration of 1.9 mg/mL, and injected as 0.5 mL in each quadrant of the cervix. Results: In a total of 10 cases, primary pelvic SLNs (90% bilateral) with subsequent secondary para-aortic SLNs were identified in all cases. Lower para-aortic SLNs were present in all cases, and upper para-aortic SLNs were found in 9 out of 10 cases. The mean age of the cervical cancer patients was 49.8 years (SD ± 6.89), and the mean body mass index (BMI; kg/m Conclusion: Our preliminary experience demonstrates the reproducibility of identifying, besides primary pelvic SLNs, secondary lower and upper para-aortic SLNs during robotic staging in LACC. A surgical approach limiting a complete para-aortic LN dissection could reduce the potential risks and morbidity associated with this procedure. To determine the sensitivity and negative predictive value of this new surgical approach, and whether the lower para-aortic SLNs under the inferior mesenteric artery are representative of the whole para-aortic region, large prospective observational studies are needed in LACC and/or those with suspicious pelvic LNs but apparent normal para-aortic LNs on imaging.
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.