ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2026
Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy after the LACC trial, avoiding uterine manipulator, pre-colpotomy vaginal washing and clamping, and uterine removal using a retrieval bag: a retrospective study.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Comparative Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Mid-Term Oncological Outcomes of Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery Compared with Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to retrospectively evaluate and compare the recurrence-free survival (RFS) between abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) while avoiding the use of a uterine manipulator, vaginal washing and clamping before colpotomy, and removal of the uterus with a retrieval bag.
methodsThis study included patients with cervical cancer, classified by the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (2018) as preoperative stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1, who underwent radical hysterectomy at our institution between October 2009 and August 2023.
resultsOverall, 103 patients with cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy were included in this study. ARH was performed in 71 patients and LRH in 32. The median follow-up periods were 60 and 50 months for patients who underwent ARH and LRH, respectively. No significant difference was observed in the RFS between the ARH and LRH groups. Furthermore, after adjusting for inverse probability weighting, there was no significant difference in the RFS between the ARH and LRH groups. Similarly, no significant difference in overall survival was observed between the 2 groups.
conclusionThe RFS after LRH in patients with early-stage cervical cancer did not differ significantly from that in patients who underwent ARH when avoiding the uterine manipulator and tumor isolation method.
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.