ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2023
The sealing effect of magnetic-sealing uterine manipulator in isolated uterus from patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a pre-clinical study.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTraditional uterine manipulator is considered as the main reason for short survival of patients with early-stage cervical cancer during minimally invasive surgery. This study aims to assess the sealing effect of magnetic-sealing uterine manipulators (MUMs) in isolated uteruses.
methodsThe study was performed on isolated uterus from patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent open abdominal radical hysterectomy between November 2019 to April 2021. Right-angle forceps closure tests (groups 1 and 3) were defined as control tests. One experimental MUM closure test (group 2) and 2 control tests were respectively carried out in each of the isolated uterus. DNA ploidy analysis system was used to observe exfoliated cells. Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test to assess the sealing effect of MUM.
resultsWe identified 36 patients. No regional node metastasis was discovered and only one tumor was larger than 4.0 cm in diameter. The mean of exfoliated tumor cells in groups 1, 2, and 3 were 1, 1, and 2, respectively. There was no significant difference in the quantity of exfoliated cells between groups 1 and 3 (p=0.476), so the results of the 2 groups were merged. Subsequently, a significant difference was observed between combined right-angle forceps closure tests and MUM closure tests (p=0.022).
conclusionThe sealing effect of MUM was better than that of right-angle forceps. MUM can effectively seal cervical cancer cells in the cup cover, avoiding the dissemination of tumor cells.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Register Identifier: ChiCTR1900026012.
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.