ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2024
Improved bladder function in radical hysterectomy without worsening oncologic outcome: resection of the posterior layer of the vesicouterine ligament with the procedure limited to the vesical veins.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2024. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantifying the impact of bladder complications following gynecological cancer treatment: systematic review and meta-regression.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy after the LACC trial, avoiding uterine manipulator, pre-colpotomy vaginal washing and clamping, and uterine removal using a retrieval bag: a retrospective study.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2026Article
- Opinion on nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2025Article
- Response to the Letter to the Editor "Opinion on nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy".Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2025Article
- Adjuvant chemotherapy after radical hysterectomy yields comparable outcomes to chemoradiation for stage IB2-IIB and IIIC1-2 cervical cancer: a single-center retrospective study.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe classic Okabayashi nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy involves complete resection of the posterior leaf of the vesicouterine ligament, whereas in the simplified nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy, only the vesical veins and some connective tissue of the posterior layer of the vesicouterine ligament are resected. This study aimed to compare bladder function and cervical carcinoma relapse-free survival between these two techniques.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective, historical control study. All female patients aged >20 years who were diagnosed with cervical cancer stage IB1-IIB and underwent radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy between 2009 and 2022 were enrolled. Patients who had a history of other cancers and those who were treated with non-surgical approaches or non-radical hysterectomy were excluded. The primary outcome was relapse-free survival during the follow-up period.
resultsA total of 114 patients who underwent curative-intent radical hysterectomy were included in this study. The median follow-up duration was 60 months. No significant difference was observed in relapse-free survival between the two surgical procedures. The simplified nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was superior in terms of both motor and sensory bladder function outcomes.
conclusionResection of the posterior layer of the vesicouterine ligament, with the procedure limited to the vesical veins, is an effective and safe method for radical hysterectomy. It may be more useful for preserving the bladder function, without leading to unfavorable oncologic outcomes.
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.