Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39247605›Full record

ReviewJournal of Cancer2024

Robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: current trends and controversies.

Jeeyeon Kim, Ha Kyun Chang, Jiheum Paek, Hyeon Ji Park, Hye Yeon Moon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jeeyeon KimDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
Ha Kyun ChangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ewha Womans University Seoul Hospital, The College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jiheum PaekDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
Hyeon Ji ParkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University School of Medicine, Ansan, Republic of Korea.
Hye Yeon MoonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University School of Medicine, Ansan, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) is widely performed as a treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. However, in 2018, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) called the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial showed that MIRH had poorer oncologic outcomes compared to laparotomy. Since then, several clinical studies have supported this finding, and most surgeons now perform MIRH with limited surgical indications. However, most of the reported studies evaluated laparoscopic radical hysterectomy rather than robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH). Robotic surgery has advantages for complex surgical procedures in the deep and narrow pelvic cavity in cervical cancer, making it necessary to evaluate the benefits and potential harms of RRH individually. Based on this systematic review, RRH is a safe and effective alternative to abdominal approach for early-stage cervical cancer. RRH offers significant perioperative benefits, including reduced blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and fewer complications, without compromising oncologic outcomes such as overall survival and progression-free survival. Additionally, surgeons should aim to minimize tumor cell spillage into the peritoneal cavity by eliminating the use of uterine manipulators or vaginal colpotomy. Ongoing RCTs will reveal whether we can perform RRH without oncologic compromise in cervical cancer.

Indexed as

cervical cancerrobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID39247605
PMCPMC11375555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.