ArticleBMC surgery2025
The impact of uterine manipulator assistance on intraoperative exposure and outcomes in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
backgroundLaparoscopic rectal surgery in female patients poses challenges due to limited pelvic space and obstructing reproductive structures. Uterine manipulators, widely used in gynecological surgery, may enhance intraoperative exposure during rectal resections, but evidence in colorectal settings is sparse.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 40 female patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery between October 2024 and January 2025. Patients were divided into two groups based on the use of a uterine manipulator. Preoperative characteristics, intraoperative findings, and postoperative outcomes were compared, including exposure quality, operative time, lymph node harvest, neoadjuvant treatment response, and recovery parameters.
resultsIntraoperative exposure was significantly better in the manipulator group (VAS 8.8 ± 0.9 vs. 6.05 ± 1.5; p < 0.001). Other perioperative parameters such as operative time, bleeding, lymph node harvest, and ICU admission showed no statistically significant differences. Among patients who received neoadjuvant therapy, pathological response did not differ between groups. Hospital stay was slightly shorter and pain scores marginally higher in the manipulator group, without statistical significance.
conclusionUterine manipulators significantly improve exposure during laparoscopic rectal surgery in women without adversely affecting oncological or perioperative outcomes. They may be considered a useful adjunct in challenging pelvic dissections.
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.