ArticleF&S reports2025
Robotic uterine transposition for fertility preservation in a patient undergoing pelvic radiation: a case report and surgical perspective.
Article in F&S 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.
- Uterine transposition: five live births and counting.F&S reports · 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
Objective: To share our experience using robotic uterine transposition (UT) for fertility preservation in a young patient undergoing pelvic radiation for rectal cancer and to review the existing literature on this approach and related reproductive outcomes. Design: Case report and literature review. Subjects: A 29-year-old woman with newly diagnosed, locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma requiring neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Exposure: Robotic-assisted UT with preservation of uterine and ovarian blood supply. Intraoperative fluorescence imaging was used to confirm perfusion before completing the repositioning. Main Outcome Measures: Surgical feasibility, recovery course, uterine viability, and ability to complete oncologic treatment without delay. Results: The procedure was completed without complications. The patient had an uncomplicated recovery, completed chemoradiation as planned, and follow-up imaging confirmed preserved uterine structure and perfusion. Conclusion: Robotic UT may be a safe and effective fertility-preserving option for patients who need pelvic radiation. In this case, it allowed for uninterrupted cancer treatment while maintaining uterine viability. As the technique becomes more widely used, more data are needed to guide patient selection and better understand long-term outcomes.
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.