ArticleBMC surgery2024
Clinical comparative study of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic surgery in patients with cervical cancer: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Analysis Reveals Correlation Between Immune Cell Composition and Gene Expression in Cervical Cancer.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2026Article
- Minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: a narrative review of controversies and clinical implications.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA new era in minimally invasive surgery has been ushered in by Leonardo's robot surgical system, but the safety and effectiveness in cervical cancer is lake of evidence. This study aimed to compare the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (RRH) and conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in patients with cervical cancer.
methodsPatients with cervical cancer who had radical surgery at the first affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University between January 2017 and June 2022 were enrolled. Patients in the LRH and RRH groups were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching (PSM), all patients were followed up to September 2023, cancer recurrence occurred or death, whichever came first.
results522 cervical cancer patients were enrolled in this study, 261 of whom were in the LRH group and 261 of whom were in the RRH group. Univariate analysis showed that the RRH group had less intraoperative blood loss, shorter operation time and hospital stay, lower incidence of composite complications and urinary retention, but had higher hospitalization costs. Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that LRH was an independent protective factor for composite complications (OR 1.531; 95%CI,1.022 to 2.295; P = .039). Cox regression analysis with cancer recurrence as the endpoint showed that LRH (HR 0.320; 95%CI,0.255 to 0.401; P < .001) and longer operation time (HR 0.995; 95%CI,0.993 to 0.997; P < .001) reduced 68% and 5% risk of cancer recurrence ; results also indicated that the older age (HR 1.017; 95%CI,1.007 to 1.027; P = .001) and postoperative complications (HR 22.410; 95%CI,16.019 to 31.350; P < .001) would increase 224% recurrence risk of cancer recurrence.
conclusionsBoth LRH and RRH demonstrated good short-term efficacy, with RRH outperforming LRH in terms of reduced intraoperative bleeding, shorter hospital stays and operation times, and fewer composite complications. However, the RRH group faces a higher risk of early cancer recurrence and incurs greater expenses. In summary, comprehensive long-term prospective studies are needed to thoroughly explore the effectiveness and safety of both LRH and RRH.
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.