ArticleBMC cancer2025
Impact of laparoscopic surgical proficiency on survival outcomes in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a multi-center cohort study.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the impact of gynecologic oncologists' laparoscopic proficiency on survival outcomes in cervical cancer patients.
methodsA cohort of 1,965 cervical cancer cases from four clinical centers in China was analyzed, including abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH), laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH), and robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH). The median operative time (MOT) for LRH was used as a measure of surgical proficiency. Survival outcomes of ARH vs. LRH were compared in early-stage cervical cancer patients without adjuvant therapy to identify a critical MOT threshold. Below this threshold, no significant differences in prognosis were observed between ARH and LRH. Propensity score matching and mixed-effects Cox regression were used to adjust for baseline risk factors and random effects, validating the finding across all LRH cases.
resultsThe Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that improved prognosis was associated with reduced MOT. When gynecologic oncologists had an MOT within 210 min, LRH vs ARH was no longer a significant risk factor (HR 1.1998; 95% CI: 0.9785-1.4713; p = 0.07998). Propensity score matching and mixed-effects Cox regression were used to further clarify the significant prognostic differences in LRH performed by different level surgeons.
conclusionMOT reflects surgical efficiency and serves as a key indicator of the operative proficiency of gynecologic oncologists, which is pivotal in determining the survival prognosis of cervical cancer patients undergoing LRH. For surgeons with rigorous laparoscopic training, the survival outcomes of LRH are expected to be comparable to those of ARH.
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.