ArticleGynecology and minimally invasive therapy
Comparison of Surgical and Oncological Outcomes between Laparoscopic and Open Surgeries in Patients with Stage IA1 Cervical Cancer.
Article in Gynecology and minimally invasive therapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety and oncologic outcomes of total laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy following diagnostic conization for adenocarcinoma in situ and stage IA1 cervical cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Nomogram for predicting urinary retention after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer with comparative analysis of surgical methods.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Mini-laparotomic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: an innovative technique for cervical cancer surgery-a case series.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Laparoscopic surgery improves patient quality of life; however, its utility in stage IA1 cervical cancer remains debatable. This study aimed to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery in patients with stage IA1 cervical cancer. Materials and Methods: Thirty-four patients, including 20 who underwent laparoscopic surgery and 14 who underwent open surgery, were enrolled in this study. The surgical and oncological outcomes were compared between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups in terms of median age, body mass index, final pathological type, the presence of lymphovascular space invasion, and operation time. Patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery had significantly lower blood loss (38 vs. 170 mL, Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgery resulted in reduced blood loss and shorter hospital stay, with oncological outcomes comparable to those of open surgery in patients with stage IA1 cervical cancer. These findings highlight the potential benefits of laparoscopic surgery in improving surgical outcomes for patients with stage IA1 cervical cancer.
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.