ArticleJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Comparative Outcomes of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy and Nerve-Sparing Technique in Cervical Cancer Patients.
Article in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Response to the Letter to the Editor "Opinion on nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy".Journal of gynecologic oncology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Aim was to analyze and compare the oncological outcomes, genitourinary quality of life (QOL), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) of patients treated by laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (LNSRH) for early cervical cancer. Design: Retrospective study in patients of carcinoma cervix FIGO (2009) grade 1A to 2A1 from January 1, 2016 until the publication of Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial in 2018, after which only 1A and 1B1 were included up to December 31, 2020. Setting: Total of 285 patients operated over 5 years at the center were placed in 2 groups, LRH and LNSRH, based on surgical approach. Measurements: Tumor characteristics, clinical profile, tumor clearance, histopathology, adjuvant treatment, period of follow-up and recurrence were compared. The QOL was analyzed in terms of bladder and sexual function. Results: LNSRH group had significantly faster recovery of bladder (lesser number of days required for PVR <50 mL, quicker catheter removal time, less requirement of self-catheterization, less incidence of urinary retention and incontinence) and sexual function as compared to LRH group. There was no significant difference in radicality of the procedure. None of them had vault recurrences. DFS at 5 years for LRH and LNSRH was 95.3% and 94.1%, respectively. OS at 2 years for LRH and LNSRH was 95.9% and 96.3%, respectively, whereas the OS at 5 years was 95.3% and 94.1%, respectively. Conclusion: LNSRH group had significantly better genitourinary QOL as compared to the LRH group without compromising on oncological clearance. The survival is comparable to the results of open surgery in LACC trial.
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.