ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2023
Comparison of surgical outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy in gynecologic benign disease: a single-center cohort study.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic total hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease: an RCT-only, GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of operative outcomes and perioperative morbidity.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical Outcomes of RA FE-TLIF Compared to FE-TLIF in Patients With Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Retrospective Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Robotic Hysterectomy Using an Indigenous Robotic System: A Retrospective Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Surgical Treatment of Enlarged Cervical Leiomyoma with Concomitant Uterine Prolapse: A Case Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Uterine Weight and Perioperative Morbidity in Robotic-Assisted versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared the surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (RAH) and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH). This single-center cohort study compared 139 RAH cases from January, 2017 to September, 2021 and 291 TLH cases between January, 2015 and December, 2020. We retrospectively evaluated surgical outcomes, including total operative time (defined as the time from port wound incision to port wound closure), net operative time (defined as the time from the start of pneumoperitoneum to the end of pneumoperitoneum), estimated blood loss, weight of excised uterus (±adnexa), and overall complications, and the relationship between surgeon experience and operative time, net operative time, and blood loss in RAH and TLH. There was no significant difference in the total operative time between the two groups. Regardless of surgeon experience, the net operative time was significantly shorter in the RAH group than in the TLH group (p <0.001) and the estimated blood loss was significantly lower in RAH cases than in TLH cases (p = 0.01). The net operative time per uterine weight was shorter in the TLH group than that in the RAH group; however, there was no significant difference. RAH resulted in statistically better surgical outcomes in terms of net operative time and blood loss, regardless of surgeon experience. However, net operative time and blood loss also seem to be significantly affected by uterus weight. Large trials are imperative to determine the more effective surgical approach between RAH and TLH for different patient subsets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37278809What 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.