Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42842268›Full record

ArticleJAMA surgery2026

Perioperative Outcomes and Recovery After Robot-Assisted vs Open Radical Hysterectomy: A Secondary Analysis of the RACC Randomized Clinical Trial.

Sahar Salehi, Anna Norberg Hardie, Ramon G V Smolders, Luigi Pedone Anchora, Antonio Gil-Moreno, Enrico Vizza, Octavio Arencibia Sanchez, Evelyn Lundin, Jordi Ponce, Anna Fagotti and 20 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03719547 (Robot-assisted Approach to Cervical Cancer), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03719547 narecruitingnot on this map

Robot-assisted Approach to Cervical Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorKarolinska InstitutetRan2019 to 2027Enrolled800ConditionsCervical CancerArmsAbdominal radical hysterectomy, Robot-assisted radical hysterectomy, Sentinel lymph node biopsy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

30 authors.

Sahar SalehiDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Anna Norberg HardieDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ramon G V SmoldersDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Luigi Pedone AnchoraDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Antonio Gil-MorenoVall d'Hebron University Hospital, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Barcelona, Spain.
Enrico VizzaGynecologic Oncology Unit, Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
Octavio Arencibia SanchezUnit Gynecology Oncology, Hospital Universitario Materno Infantil de Canarias, Gran Canaria, Spain.
Evelyn LundinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Linköping, and Department of Biomedical and Clinical Science, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Jordi PonceUniversity Hospital of Bellvitge, Barcelona, Spain.
Anna FagottiDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Hemming JohanssonDepartment of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden.
Yvonne BrandbergDepartment of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden.
Katrine FuglsangDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Aarhus University and Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Pernilla Dahm-KählerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Dorry BollGynecologic Oncology, Catharina Cancer Institute, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Ligita Paskeviciute FrødingCopenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lena WijkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Örebro University Hospital, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Karin StålbergDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Francesco LeggeMother and Child Department, "F. Miulli" General Regional Hospital, Acquaviva delle Fonti, Bari, Italy.
Radovan PilkaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Palacky University and University Hospital Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Algirdas MarkauskasDepartment of Gynecology & Obstetrics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Barbara GeppertDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Thaïs BaertDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Leuven Cancer institute, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Ulrika OttanderDepartment of Clinical Science and Obstetrics and Gynecology, Umeå University and University Hospital, Umeå, Sweden.
Sandrina LambrechtsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Petra L M ZusterzeelDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud, the Netherlands.
Juan Gilabert EstellésDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
C G GeresteinDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Division of Imaging and Oncology University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Kolbrun PalsdottirDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Henrik FalconerDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was introduced to reduce perioperative morbidity in early-stage cervical cancer, but concerns regarding oncologic safety have limited its use. High-quality prospective randomized data evaluating perioperative safety and recovery after robot-assisted radical hysterectomy remain limited. Objective: To compare perioperative safety and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after robot-assisted vs open radical hysterectomy. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Robot-Assisted Approach to Cervical Cancer (RACC) trial, a multicenter, noninferiority, phase 3 randomized clinical trial, was conducted at tertiary centers in Europe. Female participants aged 18 years and older with cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] 2018 stage IB [excluding IB3] or IIA1) were enrolled. Patients were randomized between 2019 and 2025. Interventions: Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prespecified secondary outcomes included intraoperative complications (graded using standardized classification systems), postoperative complications within 30 days (Clavien-Dindo), and HRQOL at 1 month (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cervical Cancer Module, and EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Level questionnaire). These prespecified secondary analyses were exploratory and were not powered for confirmatory inference. Results: Of 900 randomized patients (robotic surgery, median [IQR] age, 46 [39-53] years; open surgery, median [IQR] age, 45 [37-54] years), 809 (90%) were included in the intraoperative safety analysis, 798 (89%) in the postoperative safety analysis, and 723 (80%) in the 1-month HRQOL analysis. Intraoperative complications occurred in 24 of 419 patients (5.7%) in the robot-assisted group vs 39 of 390 patients (10.0%) in the open surgery group (risk difference, -4.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.0 to -0.6 percentage points); most were minor, whereas major complications were infrequent and similar. Postoperative complications within 30 days were similar (33.4% vs 34.8%; risk difference, -1.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.9 to 5.2 percentage points), including readmission and reoperation. At 1 month, robot-assisted surgery was associated with small differences in selected domains, including physical functioning (+5 points; 95% CI, 3-8 points), role functioning (+8 points; 95% CI, 4-13 points), and lower pain (+5 points; 95% CI, 2-9 points), whereas most domains did not meet thresholds for clinically important differences. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this secondary analysis of the RACC randomized clinical trial show that robot-assisted radical hysterectomy was associated with fewer intraoperative complications, primarily reflecting lower-grade events, with similar postoperative morbidity compared with open surgery. Differences in early HRQOL were small, and overall findings indicate no improvement in clinically consequential postoperative outcomes or recovery. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03719547.

Identifiers

PMID42842268
PMCPMC13647189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.