ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
Conversion to laparotomy during laparoscopic hysterectomy: a meta-analysis of prevalence and key risk factors.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Staged Management of Extensive Suprapubic Wound Necrosis After Hysterectomy Using Negative Pressure Wound Therapy and Delayed Skin Grafting.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Safety and Feasibility of Vaginal Natural Orifice Surgery Hysterectomy for Enlarged Uteri.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the prevalence and identify risk factors for conversion to laparotomy during laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) for both benign and malignant gynecologic conditions. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify studies published between January 2000 and September 2024. Eligible studies reported the prevalence and risk factors for conversion to laparotomy in patients undergoing LH. Studies were assessed for quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and data were extracted on patient demographics, surgical details, and outcomes. A random-effects model was used to pool prevalence estimates and analyze risk factors. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I Results: A total of 12 studies, encompassing 12,785 patients, were included. The pooled prevalence of conversion to laparotomy was 6% (95% CI, 5%-7%), with significant heterogeneity ( Conclusions: Conversion to laparotomy occurs in approximately 6% of LH cases, particularly in patients with malignancy, a history of adhesions, or higher BMI. Surgeon expertise and case volume may reduce the risk, highlighting the importance of preoperative risk assessment.
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.