ReviewGynecologic oncology reports2025
Comparative outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic techniques in the surgical staging of endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Gynecologic oncology reports, 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.
- Intelligent therapeutic robotic-assisted surgery as the next frontier of precision oncology.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endometrial cancer (EC) is a prevalent gynecologic malignancy associated with escalating mortality rates. Surgical interventions continue to be the primary treatment modality for EC, with a growing utilization of minimally invasive surgeries (MIS) such as robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). Given the technical advantages of RALS, this study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of RALS and CLS in the management of EC. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on three electronic databases, namely PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science, up to June 2024 with no date restriction. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that compared surgical outcomes, intraoperative parameters, and short-term postoperative outcomes between RALS and CLS in women with EC were included in the analysis. Data on age, body mass index (BMI)kg/m Results: Sixteen studies with 2,725 patients were included. RALS was associated with longer operative time (170.0 vs. 152.6 min; SMD = 0.5) but lower blood loss (109.1 vs. 180.1 mL; SMD = -0.66), fewer conversions to laparotomy (OR = 0.29), reduced intraoperative injuries (OR = 0.32), and shorter hospital stay (2.91 vs. 3.36 days; SMD = -0.4) compared to CLS. However, postoperative complications were more frequent with RALS (OR = 1.8). Most studies had methodological limitations, with over 70 % rated as "poor," and substantial heterogeneity was observed. Conclusion: RALS provides specific advantages over CLS, including reduced blood loss, fewer conversions, and shorter hospitalization, but it is associated with longer operative time and higher postoperative complication rates. Results may primarily reflect outcomes from high-volume or experienced surgeons, limiting generalizability. Further high-quality prospective studies, including detailed patient-level and surgeon experience data, are needed to clarify the relative benefits, cost-effectiveness, and long-term outcomes of RALS versus CLS.
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.