ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025
Outcomes of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Ia1-Ib1 Cervical Cancer Patients: A Multi-Center Study with 10 Years' Experiences in the Real World.
Article in Annals of surgical 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.
- Incidence of surgical site infection surveillance in hysterectomies and related risk factors: a prospective cohort study.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026Article
- Adenocarcinoma Presenting as Pulmonary Ground Glass Opacities (GGOs): Every GGO Has Its Own Story.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- ASO Author Reflections: The Heterogenicity of EGFR Mutations in Patients with Pulmonary Ground-Glass Opacities.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Evaluating the safety and efficiency of day-care hysterectomy: a comparative study using propensity score matching.Frontiers in medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 stage IA1 IB1 patients with low-risk cervical cancer (CC), which was defined as tumor ≤ 2cm, less than 1/2 stromal invasion and no lymph node involvement. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of patients with CC who underwent radical hysterectomy across three hospitals between 2010 and 2020. The patients were stratified into low-risk and high-risk groups based on risk factors (tumor size, lymph nodes and stromal invasion depth). Within each group, the survival outcomes of open abdominal radical hysterectomy (OARH) and LRH were compared using the Kaplan-Meier analysis.
resultsIn the low-risk group (LRH: N = 320; OARH: N = 525), LRH demonstrated equivalence to OARH regarding 5-year overall survival (OS; 98.6% versus 99.3%, P = 0.571) and 5-year progression-free survival (PFS; 97.6% versus 98.4%, P = 0.418). Subsequently, a stratified analysis based on lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) status revealed no significant differences in 5-year OS and PFS between LRH and OARH in this group. Conversely, in the high-risk group (LRH: N = 355; OARH: N = 926), LRH exhibited significantly lower 5-year OS and PFS than OARH (91.3% versus 94.8%, P = 0.049; 84.0% versus 88.8%, P = 0.029).
conclusionAmong FIGO 2018 stage IA1-IB1 patients with low-risk CC, LRH demonstrates survival outcomes comparable to OARH. For patients with early-stage and low-risk CC, the appropriate surgical approach (LRH) can be chosen based on preoperative enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) MRI, which is clinically feasible.
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.