ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Comparing oncological outcomes of robotic versus open surgery in the treatment of endometrial cancer.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 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.
- Association of body mass index with pathologic agreement of preoperative and postoperative tumor grade in endometrial cancer.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRobotic surgery has been incorporated in the treatment of endometrial cancer, with evidence suggesting that minimal access surgery offers advantages over laparotomy including less blood loss, lower rate of perioperative complications, and accelerated postoperative recovery. The laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer (LACC) study has recently demonstrated inferior survival outcomes in cervical cancer patients treated with minimal access surgery including robotic surgery. It is, therefore, imperative that further evaluation of the latter in endometrial cancer is performed.
methodsA retrospective analysis of clinical data was performed. We compared two different types of surgery performed for the treatment of FIGO stage 1 to 3 endometrial cancer; open surgery performed in the years 2013-2015 vs robotic surgery performed in 2017-2019, after the implementation of the robotic program in our institution. Main outcome measures were recurrence-free survival and overall survival, with secondary outcomes including surgical morbidity and postoperative recovery.
resultsWe compared 123 patients who had open surgery with 104 patients who underwent robotic surgery. One case from the second group was converted to open surgery due to the inability to complete it robotically. After a median follow-up of 68 months, there was no difference in recurrence-free survival or overall survival between the two groups. Length of stay after an operation was significantly different with mean hospital stay of 1.6 days after robotic surgery and 5 days after open surgery (p = 0.001). No significant difference was identified in the rate of complications (p = 0.304).
conclusionOur analysis has demonstrated that robotic surgery offers better perioperative outcomes without compromising the oncological safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39230794What 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.