ArticleCancer management and research2025
Robotic-Assisted vs Conventional Laparoscopy for Endometrial Cancer Staging: A Comparative Two-Center Study.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2025. 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.
- Article
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
Purpose: To compare surgical outcomes between conventional laparoscopic and robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches in the treatment of endometrial cancer. Patients and Methods: This retrospective, two-center case-control study analyzed data from patients undergoing total laparoscopic hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer between January 2020 and January 2025. Primary outcomes included estimated blood loss, hemoglobin and hematocrit decrease, operative time, and complication rates. Results: A total of 136 patients were included (66 conventional laparoscopy, 70 robotic-assisted laparoscopy). No significant differences were observed in baseline demographics, comorbidities, or cancer staging. Robotic-assisted surgery was associated with lower blood loss (100 vs 200 mL, p<0.001), reduced hemoglobin and hematocrit decrease (p<0.05), less frequent peritoneal drainage (28.6% vs 80%, p<0.001) and greater number of pelvic nodes on pathology with the median [IQR] of 4 [3-7] vs 2 [1-6], (p<0.001). However, robotic procedures had longer operative times (146 vs 120 min, p<0.001). Conversion rates (2.9% vs 7.6%, p=0.264) and intraoperative/postoperative complications were comparable between groups. Conclusion: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer is a safe and effective alternative to conventional laparoscopy, offering advantages in blood loss reduction while requiring longer operative times. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and assess cost-effectiveness.
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.