SynthesisPloS one2024
Surgical outcomes of single-port vs multi-port laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-incision laparoscopic surgery with transabdominal retroperitoneal approach (SILS-TRPA): a novel surgical strategy for sigmoid colon/upper rectal cancer.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Application and research progress of single-port laparoscopy in retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for gynecologic malignancies.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer who underwent either single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SPLH) or multi-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (MPLH).
methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search from the earliest records available up to May 2023. The databases searched included PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library.
resultsA total of 12 studies were included in the analysis. Both the SPLH and MPLH groups had similar operative times (MD = -4.27, 95% CI [-35.75, 27.22], p = 0.98), conversion rates (odds ratio [OR] = 1.43, 95% CI [0.57, 3.59], p = 0.44), blood transfusion rates, intraoperative complications (bladder injury, bowel injury, and vascular injury), and postoperative complications (umbilical hernia, fever, fistula, lymphocyst, and wound-related issues). However, the SPLH group showed significant advantages in certain areas. There was a notable reduction in estimated intraoperative blood loss (EBL) compared to the MPLH group (mean difference [MD] = -23.80, 95% CI [-42.99, -4.62], p = 0.02) and a shorter hospital stay duration (MD = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.46, -0.20], p < 0.00001). Although there was some debate about postoperative pain, SPLH tended to have more favorable outcomes. Despite these advantages, the SPLH group was less efficient in para-aortic lymph node clearance compared to the MPLH group (MD = -0.96, 95% CI [-1.57, -0.35], p = 0.002). No significant differences were observed in overall lymph node dissection (MD = -0.91, 95% CI [-2.52, 0.70], p = 0.27) and pelvic lymph node dissection (MD = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.82, 1.27], p = 0.36) between the two groups. Additionally, both groups showed similar therapeutic results, with no significant differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).
conclusionSPLH and MPLH techniques are equally effective in treating endometrial cancer, with both showing low rates of surgical complications with similar rates of surgical complications and therapeutic outcomes. However, SPLH offers additional benefits, including smaller incisions, reduced estimated intraoperative blood loss, and shorter hospital stays, making it an increasingly popular option for treating endometrial cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.