ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2026
Complications, recurrence, and survival rates for endometrial and cervical cancer treated by minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Consensus is lacking regarding the relative safety and oncological outcomes of minimally invasive compared to abdominal hysterectomy. Objectives: To estimate complications and survival rates of minimally invasive hysterectomy (MIH) (i.e., laparoscopic or robotic assisted) compared to total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) for endometrial and cervical cancer. Methods: A systematic quantitative review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIH with TAH for the treatment of endometrial or cervical cancer. Medline-PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, ongoing clinical trials and the grey literature were searched until December 1, 2024. Main Outcome Measures: Complications, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and disease-specific survival (DSS) rates. Results: Twenty-nine RCTs enrolling 6,127 patients were included. The risk of bladder injury was higher in the MIH group [risk ratio (RR): 1.84, 95% confidence interval: (CI): 1.03-3.29, I Conclusions: Bladder and vaginal injuries are higher with minimally invasive compared to abdominal hysterectomy. Survival rates for endometrial cancer are comparable but for cervical cancer, minimally invasive hysterectomy is associated with poorer survival outcomes and this should be taken into account when counselling patients and deciding upon the route of hysterectomy. What is New?: TAH has superior survival outcomes compared to minimally invasive hysterectomy.
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.