ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Real-world outcomes of robotic and non-robotic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: insights from a national cohort.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. 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 (or laparoscopic) hysterectomy: a comprehensive review of clinical, surgical, and economic outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic hysterectomy and hospital performance: nationwide evidence on outcomes, efficiency, and costs in France (2020 to 2024).Journal of robotic surgery · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To compare perioperative outcomes, postoperative complications, and overall survival among patients with endometrial cancer (EC) undergoing open hysterectomy (OH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), or robot-assisted hysterectomy (RAH) using nationwide real-world data. This was a retrospective, population-based study using 2018-2020 Taiwan Cancer Registry who underwent one of three surgical approaches (open, laparoscopic, or robot-assisted) and outcomes were evaluated using NHIRD with follow-up data available through 2021. From these linked datasets, we identified 5,360 women diagnosed with endometrial cancer who received hysterectomy, including 3,176 cases of OH, 1,760 LH, and 424 RAH. Inverse probability weighting (IPTW) methodology was utilized to harmonize baseline characteristics across the study arms. Compared with OH, RAH was associated with significantly fewer transfusions (15.5% vs. 29.7% (p < 0.0001)), shorter hospital stays (5.9 vs. 8.0 days, p < 0.0001), and reduced intensive care utilization. At one month postoperatively, overall complication rates were markedly lower in the RAH group (0.95%) than in OH (7.52%) and LH (6.07%) (both p < 0.0001). Specific complications, including vascular events, cardiac events, stroke, pneumonia, peritonitis, and wound disruption, were significantly reduced with RAH. Mortality analysis showed that OH was shown higher mortality hazard ratios compared with RAH (HR 1.39, 95% CI: 1.20-1.61 after IPTW), while survival outcomes were similar between RAH and LH (HR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.73-1.28). RAH for endometrial cancer demonstrated significant perioperative and postoperative advantages compared with OH, including lower complication rates and improved survival outcomes. RAH outcomes were largely comparable to laparoscopic hysterectomy. These findings support broader consideration of RAH as a safe and effective minimally invasive approach for EC management in real-world practice, although further long-term evaluation is warranted.
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.