ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Comparison of Uterine manipulators types in total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A retrospective study.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the results of operations of commercial uterine manipulators. Considering that the optimal uterine manipulator is still not found, our goal was to give an idea for gynecologists to choose the most suitable uterine manipulator for their purposes and expectations. Methods: Between January 2016 and September 2021, 294 laparoscopic hysterectomy cases met the inclusion criteria and were operated in İzmir Katip Çelebi University Atatürk Training and Research Hospital Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinic. They were divided into four groups according to the type of manipulator used. Group-1 (RUMI-I), Group-2 (Clermont-Ferrand), Group-3 (sharp intrauterine curette-tenaculum), and Group-4(without uterine manipulator). All four groups were compared with operation time, hospital stay, absolute change in hemoglobin (g/dl), and per-op complications. Results: Considering the operation times in all groups, the mean operation time in the first Group-was 180 minutes (98-349); in Group-2 was 159 minutes (96-564); in the 3rd Group was 178 minutes (141-540); in the 4th Group was 189 minutes (115-453). The group with the shortest operation time was Group-2; the difference was statistically significant (p=0.015). In general terms, the effect of all manipulators on patient parameters wasn't very different. Clermont-Ferrand seems more advantageous than others in making the surgeon's work more straightforward regarding operation time only. Conclusions: In our study, the choice of uterine manipulator did not affect the surgical results except for the duration of the operation. The personalization of uterine manipulators according to the needs of the surgery and the easiness of use of the surgeon should be at the forefront.
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.