ArticleCureus2026
Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Advanced-Stage Ovarian Cancer: A 10-Year Data Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective The study's objective is to compare long- and short-term surgical outcomes as well as progression-free and overall survival in patients with laparoscopic versus open surgery for advanced-stage ovarian cancer. Methods A total of 171 patients with advanced stage III/IV ovarian cancer who underwent ovarian cancer surgery were included in this retrospective cohort study. The surgeries performed from January 2014 to January 2024 were reviewed. Patient characteristics, such as age, BMI, cancer histology and stage, and treatment received (chemotherapy and surgery), will be noted. The study compares surgical outcomes as well as overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients. Results The mean age of this study cohort was 53.47 ± 11 years (range 27-87 years) with an average BMI of 27.7 ± 5.8. 17 (10%) patients had total laparoscopic surgery, whereas 154 (90%) patients had open surgery with a midline incision. Interestingly, patients receiving an extra cycle of chemotherapy pre-operatively were found to have undergone laparoscopic surgery (p = 0.009). The average blood loss for the laparoscopy group was 82 ± 50 mL, whereas with open surgery, it was 164 ± 125 mL. On the other hand, the average length of surgery was longer for laparoscopy (231 ± 94 minutes) as compared to open surgery. The length of hospital stay was shorter for the laparoscopy group (3.24 ± 1.2 days). The overall and PFS were longer in the open surgery group, but this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion Laparoscopy offers short-term benefit in terms of intraoperative and postoperative indicators, but no significant survival benefit was noted in one group over the other.
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.