ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Robotic versus traditional laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy with no-manipulation technique: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives: Controversies and challenges over minimally invasive approach in performing radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer have been raised. This study aimed to determine whether robotic approach was superior to traditional single-site radical hysterectomy with no-manipulation technique for early-stage cervical cancer. Methods: Patients diagnosed with FIGO 2018 stage IB1, IB2 or IIA1 cervical cancer who underwent robotic or traditional single-site radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy between April 2019 and December 2023 were enrolled to assess the perioperative and survival outcomes. Results: 73 patients were included in the robotic group and 51 cases in the traditional group. The robotic group had significantly shorter operative time (236.5 ± 52.8 Conclusion: Robotic and traditional single-site radical hysterectomies with no-manipulation techniques are both feasible and safe for early-stage cervical cancer with comparable survival outcomes, though longer follow-up is needed to confirm non-inferiority. The robotic system could significantly reduce surgical difficulties and improve perioperative 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.