Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36675690›Full record

ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2022

Comparison between Laparoscopic and Robotic Approach for Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Endometrial Carcinoma Women.

Antonio Raffone, Diego Raimondo, Arianna Raspollini, Alessia Oliviero, Antonio Travaglino, Federica Renzulli, Giulia Rovero, Simona Del Forno, Gabriella Vullo, Antonio Simone Laganà and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Antonio RaffoneDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5443-2333
Diego RaimondoDivision of Gynaecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3235-4378
Arianna RaspolliniDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Alessia OlivieroGynecology and Obstetrics Unit, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry Schola Medica Salernitana, University of Salerno, 84081 Baronissi, Italy.
Antonio TravaglinoUnità di Ginecopatologia e Patologia Mammaria, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Federica RenzulliDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1159-2630
Giulia RoveroDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Simona Del FornoDivision of Gynaecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9786-5814
Gabriella VulloClinica Mediterranea Hospital, 80122 Napoli, Italy.
Antonio Simone LaganàUnit of Gynecologic Oncology, ARNAS "Civico-Di Cristina-Benfratelli", Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (PROMISE), University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1543-2802
Vito ChianteraUnit of Gynecologic Oncology, ARNAS "Civico-Di Cristina-Benfratelli", Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (PROMISE), University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy.
Renato SeracchioliDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Paolo CasadioDivision of Gynaecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Antonio MolloGynecology and Obstetrics Unit, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry Schola Medica Salernitana, University of Salerno, 84081 Baronissi, Italy.
Azienda USL di Bologna · ITUniversity of Palermo · ITUniversity of Salerno · ITAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITClinica Mediterranea · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic surgery has been approved as an alternative to laparoscopy to improve surgical outcomes. There is neither a consensus nor a systematic assessment of the literature about the superiority of the robotic approach over the laparoscopic one for sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in endometrial carcinoma (EC) women. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the laparoscopic and robotic approaches for SLN biopsy in EC patients. Five electronic databases were queried from their inception to May 2022 for peer-reviewed studies, comparing such approaches in SLN biopsy in EC patients. The rate of detected SLN, dissected SLN, intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, number of dissected SLN, and SLN identification and dissection time were compared between the laparoscopic and robotic approaches for SLN biopsy in EC patients. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated when possible. Two studies with 660 EC women (364 who had undergone laparoscopy, and 296 who had robotic surgery) were included. No assessed outcome showed significant differences between the two approaches. In conclusion, the laparoscopic and robotic approaches for SLN biopsy in EC patients appeared to not differ, in terms of SLN detection, intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, number of dissected SLN, and SLN identification and dissection time.

Indexed as

detectionendoscopyICGindocyanine greenlymphadenectomylymph node dissectionmappingminimally invasive surgerystagingtreatment

Identifiers

PMID36675690
PMCPMC9862818
OpenAlexW4312100583

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.