Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36285905›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2022

Surgical treatment of endometrioid endometrial carcinoma - laparotomy versus laparoscopy

Sascha Baum, Ibrahim Alkatout, Louisa Proppe, Christos Kotanidis, Achim Rody, Antonio Simone Laganà, Soteris Sommer, George Gitas

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Early-stage cervical cancer treatment - what's new?Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2023
    Review
  7. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sascha BaumDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Schleswig Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, GermanyORCID 0000-0002-0737-297X
Ibrahim AlkatoutDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Schleswig Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, GermanyORCID 0000-0002-7194-6034
Louisa ProppeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Schleswig Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, GermanyORCID 0000-0003-1989-2267
Christos KotanidisDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Iaso Hospital, Larissa, GreeceORCID 0000-0002-1494-8340
Achim RodyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Schleswig Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, GermanyORCID 0000-0001-5904-0486
Antonio Simone LaganàDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Filippo Del Ponte Hospital, University of Insubria, Varese, ItalyORCID 0000-0003-1543-2802
Soteris SommerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Schleswig Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, GermanyORCID 0000-0002-2067-9415
George GitasDepartment of Gynecology, University Hospital Charite, Campus Mitte, Berlin, GermanyORCID 0000-0002-9242-8041
University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEUniversity of Insubria · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Recent publications have raised doubts about the oncological safety of a laparoscopic approach in the treatment of endometrial cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the beneficial aspects of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in patients with endometrial cancer, and present oncological outcomes. Material and Methods: A retrospective study of patients who underwent surgery for the treatment of endometrioid endometrial cancer was performed. Surgical outcomes and complications in patients who were treated by laparoscopy or open surgery were compared. The patients were followed for 5-years. Patients’ characteristics, tumor stage, complications rate and oncologic outcome were analyzed. Results: A total of 151 patients were included. The laparoscopy (n=80) and laparotomy (n=71) groups were homogeneous in regards of demographic data and tumor stage. Median average blood loss (1.31 vs. 1.92 g/dL), the mean duration of hospitalization (5.73 vs. 12.25 days), intraoperative (0 vs. 6%), and severe postoperative complications (5.1 vs. 14.3%) were significantly lower in the laparoscopy group. The numbers of pelvic or para-aortic lymph nodes removed during systematic lymphadenectomy were similar in both groups. Women who underwent laparoscopy and those who underwent laparotomy had similar five-year recurrence-free survival rates (88.7% vs. 91.5%, p=0.864), as well as similar overall five-year survival rates (91.2% vs. 97.2%, p=0.094). Conclusion: The oncological outcome of laparoscopy was similar to that of laparotomy in the treatment of patients with endometrial cancer. However, surgical outcomes and morbidity rates were significantly better in patients treated by laparoscopy. Clinical trials are essential to evaluate the oncological efficacy of laparoscopy in patients with endometrial cancer.

Indexed as

complicationsEndometrial cancerlaparoscopylaparotomyoncological outcome

Identifiers

PMID36285905
PMCPMC9743356
OpenAlexW4307338567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.