ArticleBMC women's health2024
Is robotic-assisted vaginectomy a better choice in vaginal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions than conventional laparoscopic surgery?
Article in BMC women's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVaginectomy has been shown to be effective for select patients with vaginal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) and is favored by gynecologists, while there are few reports on the robotic-assisted laparoscopic vaginectomy (RALV). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and treatment outcomes between RALV and the conventional laparoscopic vaginectomy (CLV) for patients with vaginal HSIL.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted in 109 patients with vaginal HSIL who underwent either RALV (RALV group) or CLV (CLV group) from December 2013 to May 2022. The operative data, homogeneous HPV infection regression rate and vaginal HSIL regression rate were compared between the two groups. Student's t-test, the Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson χ
resultsThere were 32 patients in the RALV group and 77 patients in the CLV group. Compared with the CLV group, patients in the RALV group demonstrated less estimated blood loss (41.6 ± 40.3 mL vs. 68.1 ± 56.4 mL, P = 0.017), lower intraoperative complications rate (6.3% vs. 24.7%, P = 0.026), and shorter flatus passing time (2.0 (1.0-2.0) vs. 2.0 (2.0-2.0), P < 0.001), postoperative catheterization time (2.0 (2.0-3.0) vs. 4.0 (2.0-6.0), P = 0.001) and postoperative hospitalization time (4.0 (4.0-5.0) vs. 5.0 (4.0-6.0), P = 0.020). In addition, the treatment outcomes showed that both RALV group and CLV group had high homogeneous HPV infection regression rate (90.0% vs. 92.0%, P > 0.999) and vaginal HSIL regression rate (96.7% vs. 94.7%, P = 0.805) after vaginectomy. However, the RALV group had significantly higher hospital costs than that in the CLV group (53035.1 ± 9539.0 yuan vs. 32706.8 ± 6659.2 yuan, P < 0.001).
conclusionsBoth RALV and CLV can achieve satisfactory treatment outcomes, while RALV has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, fewer intraoperative complications rate and faster postoperative recovery. Robotic-assisted surgery has the potential to become a better choice for vaginectomy in patients with vaginal HSIL without regard to the burden of hospital costs.
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.