ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Surgical Outcomes in Laparoscopic Hysterectomy, Robotic-Assisted, and Laparoscopic-Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy for Uterine and Cervical Cancers: A Systematic Review.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic total hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease: an RCT-only, GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of operative outcomes and perioperative morbidity.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches on Patient Recovery: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Gynecological surgery using the Kangduo robotic system.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of Laparoscopic and Laparotomic Total Hysterectomy in Terms of Patient Satisfaction and Cosmetic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Robot-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: is there a correlation between uterine diameters, pelvic volume, and surgical outcomes?Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Robotic Hysterectomy Using an Indigenous Robotic System: A Retrospective Study.Cureus · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThis systematic review aimed to evaluate the outcomes of minimally invasive techniques in gynecological cancer surgery, specifically laparoscopic hysterectomies (LHs), robotic-assisted hysterectomies (RHs), and laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomies (LAVHs).
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases including PubMed and MedLine from January 2010 to August 2024. The search included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Studies were selected based on inclusion criteria such as a focus on LHs, RHs, or LAVHs, and reporting on key outcomes like recovery rates, overall survival (OS) rates, disease-free survival (DFS), postoperative complications, and surgery time. Exclusion criteria were applied to omit non-randomized studies, non-English publications, and those lacking relevant data.
resultsThe analysis included 35 studies on gynecological cancers and surgical procedures, conducted across multiple countries. Among them, 8 were RCTs from countries like the Netherlands and Italy, while 20 were retrospective cohort studies from China and the USA. The studies varied in design, cancer type, and participant age, highlighting diverse surgical approaches and the adaptation of minimally invasive techniques in gynecological cancer treatment. LH and RH demonstrated similar oncological safety with comparable OS and DFS rates. RH was associated with reduced blood loss, but longer operative times compared to LH. LAVH showed favorable perioperative outcomes, including shorter hospital stays and faster recovery, but was less frequently studied in advanced-stage cancers. Complication rates were generally lower in minimally invasive surgeries compared to open procedures. The findings support the efficacy of LH and RH as viable alternatives to open surgery, with specific advantages depending on patient and disease characteristics.
conclusionsMinimally invasive techniques in gynecological cancer surgery offer significant advantages in terms of recovery and complication rates. Despite these benefits, further research is needed to confirm their oncological safety and overall effectiveness compared to traditional open surgeries.
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.