ArticleHeliyon2024
Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: The more experienced the bedside assistant, the better?
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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.
- Ergonomic evaluation of the Senhance® robotic system in minimally invasive gynecologic procedures versus conventional laparoscopy: an exploratory study focusing on surgeon's muscle activity.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Aim to investigate the impact of bedside assistant's work experience and learning curve on the short-term safety and efficacy in robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Methods: Our research retrospectively retrieved 120 cases of early-stage cervical cancer patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy at the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University. According to the different work experiences of the two bedside assistants (BA), patients were divided into a research group (inexperienced BA 1) and a control group (experienced BA 2). Furthermore, the learning curves of these BAs were plotted separately and divided into two distinct phases by cumulative summation: the first learning phase and the second master phase. Result: In terms of work experience, comparing BA 1 with BA 2 who was more experienced, although the average operative time was prolonged by 29 min (P<0.001), it did not increase the incidence of operative complication [24.4 % VS 29.1 %, P = 0.583], positive resection margin [4.9 % VS 7.6 %, P = 0.714], intraoperative organ damage [0 % VS 2.5 %, P = 0.546] and there was no significant difference in the number of lymph nodes [19 VS 15, P = 0.103]. Additionally, comparing two distinct phases of the same bedside assistant, there was no significant increasing rate in terms of operative complication, positive resection margin, intraoperative organ damage, and the number of lymph nodes (P>0.05) neither BA 1 nor BA 2, except for a slight extension of operative time about 20 min in learning phase (P<0.05). Conclusion: In robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, work inexperience and the learning phase of BA only result in a slight extension of operative time, without causing worse short-term surgical 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.