ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2024
Laparoscopic versus laparotomic surgical treatment in apparent stage I ovarian cancer: a multi-center retrospective cohort study.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic treatment shows non-inferior survival outcomes and better surgical outcomes in apparent stage I ovarian cancer (OC) in some studies but has not been well defined.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of patients with apparent stage I OC treated in two hospitals between 2012 and 2022. The surgical and oncologic outcomes were evaluated between patients receiving laparoscopic and laparotomic surgery.
resultsWe identified 37 patients with apparent stage I OC, including 15 (40.5%) serous carcinomas, 9 (24.3%) mucinous cancers, 3 (8.1%) endometroid cancers, 2 clear cell carcinomas, and 8 (21.6%) non-epithelial cancers. Sixteen patients received laparoscopic surgery and the other 21 patients underwent laparotomic surgery. The median age (44.5 vs. 49.0 years), mean mass size (10.5 vs. 11.3 cm), and median follow-up time (43.5 vs. 75.0 months) showed no statistically significant differences between patients in laparoscopic and laparotomic groups (all P > 0.05). All the patients underwent comprehensive surgical staging surgery, and the mean surgical time (213.5 vs. 203.3 min, P = 0.507), number of lymph nodes sampling (18.6 vs. 17.5, P = 0.359), proportion of upstaging (12.5% vs. 19.0%, P = 0.680), and postoperative complications (no Accordion Severity Grading System grade ≥ 3) were comparable between two surgical groups. Moreover, patients in the laparoscopic group had significantly less intraoperative blood loss (231.3 vs. 352.4 mL, P = 0.018), shorter interval between surgery and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (7.4 vs. 9.5 days, P = 0.004), shorter length of hospital stay (9.9 vs. 13.8 days, P < 0.001) than those treated with laparotomic surgery. During a median follow-up of 54.0 months, 9 (24.3%) relapsed and 1 (2.7%) died, with a 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) rate of 70.6% and 100%, respectively. However, the 5-year RFS (93.3% vs. 58.8%, P = 0.084) and DSS (100% vs. 100%, P = 0.637) rates did not significantly differ between the two groups.
conclusionLaparoscopic surgical treatment had less intraoperative blood loss, earlier postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy administration, shorter hospitalization time, and non-inferior survival outcomes in apparent stage I OC when compared with laparotomic surgery.
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.