ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2025
Outcomes and patterns of recurrence of robot‑assisted or laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early‑stage cervical cancer.
Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to evaluate the surgical outcomes and prognosis of minimally invasive surgery (MIS), including robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RARH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH), and open radical hysterectomy (ORH) for the treatment of early stage cervical cancer. A total of 43 patients were enrolled into the ORH group, 14 patients into the LRH group and 21 patients into the RARH group, and the patients were followed up for ≥3 years. Age, body mass index, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2008 stage, histology, tumor size, lymphovascular space invasion, lymph node metastasis, number of dissected lymph nodes, operative duration, estimated blood loss, hospitalization duration and complications were reviewed. On follow-up, 16.3% of relapses (7/43) and 11.6% of deaths (5/43) occurred in the ORH group. In the LRH group, 14.3% of patients relapsed (2/14) and no deaths were reported; however, in the RARH group, 33.3% of patients relapsed and 9.5% died (2/21). In patients treated with RARH, >50% of recurrences occurred in distant lesions because of metastasis. No significant difference was found in patient prognosis between the three groups. The difference in 3-year recurrence between the MIS and ORH groups was not statistically significant (MIS vs. ORH, 74.3 vs. 83.7%; log-rank P=0.253). In addition, there was no recurrence in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer in the RARH group. LRH and RARH were superior to ORH with regard to surgical outcomes, such as estimated blood loss, and therefore may be considered a safe and feasible alternative to ORH. However, RARH would not be an appropriate surgical approach in patients with large tumors and parametrial invasion. In the future, the ideal indications for each surgical procedure should be reassessed, and the significance of the relationship between the difficulty of surgery, such as in cases of bulky tumor, parametrium invasion and vaginal invasion, and disease recurrence should be discussed. In conclusion, MIS could be safe and useful if proper case selection is performed.
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.