ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2025
Effects of tumor spillage prevention in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nationwide trends in surgery selection and minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer with preoperative T1B1/T1B2 disease in Japan.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Robotic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Comparative Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- 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
- Laparoscopic type 3 radical hysterectomy with enclosed colpotomy using the Bakay technique for early-stage cervical cancer: a retrospective case series.BMC women's health · 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
objectiveMinimally invasive radical hysterectomy has a worse prognosis than open surgery, but the reasons for the poor prognosis remain unclear. Tumor spillage occurs when the tumor is exposed to the surgical field and has been suggested to be related to a poor prognosis. This study aimed to compare the prognostic value of tumor spillage in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and evaluate whether tumor spillage prevention improves oncological safety.
methodsWe compared the prognosis of patients who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy between December 2014 and November 2021 with or without tumor spillage prevention, including surgeries without prevention and those with failed prevention. Prevention consisted of vaginal cuff formation or closure of the vaginal canal with clips to prevent tumor exposure at the time of colpotomy. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, which was adjusted using propensity scores to compare patients.
resultsIn total, 165 patients received tumor spillage prevention, and 61 did not or failed to receive such prevention. The median follow-up was 4.4 years. Patients who did not undergo prevention or failed prevention had significantly shorter disease-free survival than those who did (hazard ratio [HR]=3.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.23-10.23). The same trend was observed after adjusting for propensity score matching. Patients who did not or failed to receive prevention were more likely to experience local recurrence (HR=4.01; 95% CI=1.13-14.24).
conclusionTumor spillage prevention was associated with longer disease-free survival in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy.
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.