ArticleZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences2023
Comparative study of tumor
Article in Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A meta-analysis comparing open and minimally invasive cervical tumor surgery wound infection and postoperative complications.BMC surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy of laparoscopic versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy on stress response and urodynamic status in patients with early cervical cancer.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- A retrospective study on the effect of surgical approaches and uterine manipulators on the prognosis of cervical cancer.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Comparison of Surgical and Oncological Outcomes between Laparoscopic and Open Surgeries in Patients with Stage IA1 Cervical Cancer.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesLaparoscopic surgery for cervical cancer has the advantages of little blood loss and rapid recovery, but its therapeutic effect is still controversial. This study aims to analyze the surgical procedure and clinical efficacy of tumor-free laparoscopic radical hysterectomy without a uterine manipulator for early-stage cervical cancer, and to explore the indications of laparoscopic surgery for cervical cancer.
methodsThis study was a retrospective study. The data of patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer admitted to Hunan Provincial Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital from July 2019 to December 2021 were collected. According to 2018 the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) clinical staging, all patients were in IA1 with lymphovascular invasion, IA2, and IB1 stage. Among them, 45 patients underwent tumor-free laparoscopic radical hysterectomy without a uterine manipulator (laparoscopy group) and 16 patients underwent open surgery (open surgery group). Patients were followed up for 12-41 months. The differences between the 2 groups in terms of operative time, bleeding volume, extent of surgical resection, surgical complications, and prognosis were compared and analyzed.
resultsCompared to the open surgery group, the laparoscopy group had significantly shorter operation time and less intraoperative blood loss (both
conclusionsFor early-stage cervical cancer with a diameter ≤2 cm, tumor-free laparoscopic radical hysterectomy without a uterine manipulator is safe and feasible, and the short-term outcomes is no less than that of open 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.