ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2025
Vaginal radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The goal is to communicate the perioperative and oncological results of a single surgical team after Assisted Vaginal Radical Hysterectomy (a-VRH) for early-stage cervical cancer. We also compared these results with a control group of patients who underwent Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy (ARH) during the same period at the same center. Methods: From April 2008 to November 2018, patients with early-stage cervical cancer (FIGO 1A2, 1B1, 1B2 and 2A1) were prospectively recruited to undergo surgical intervention through Radical Hysterectomy Assisted by Videolaparoscopy with Laparoscopic Systematic Pelvic Lymphadenectomy at Gustavo Fricke Hospital in Viña del Mar, Chile. This group of patients has been registered and followed up to date, analyzing epidemiological, surgical, pathological factors, and survival. We present perioperative and oncological results, along with a comparison to a similar consecutive series of 97 patients undergoing Radical Abdominal Hysterectomy (ARH) during the same period at the same center. Results: Overall survival and disease-free survival in a-VRH are not inferior to those in ARH. Complications were observed in a greater proportion in ARH (16.4 % vs. 22.7 %). The hospital stay was 3.6 days for a-VRH and 6 days for ARH. Fewer transfusions were administered in the a-VRH group. Conclusion: We believe that assisted a-VRH is a very good alternative for the surgical treatment of early-stage cervical cancer, as in this series of patients, the cancer outcomes are at least similar to those of ARH, allowing for the benefits of minimally invasive surgery.
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.