Robotic-assisted vs traditional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a randomized controlled trial
Previous studies comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery to traditional laparoscopic or open surgery in gynecologic oncology have been retrospective. To our knowledge, no prospective randomized trials have thus far been performed on endometrial cancer. We sought to prospectively compare trad...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology Jg. 215; H. 5; S. 588.e1 - 588.e7 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
United States
Elsevier Inc
01.11.2016
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| ISSN: | 0002-9378, 1097-6868, 1097-6868 |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Abstract | Previous studies comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery to traditional laparoscopic or open surgery in gynecologic oncology have been retrospective. To our knowledge, no prospective randomized trials have thus far been performed on endometrial cancer.
We sought to prospectively compare traditional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer.
This was a randomized controlled trial. From December 2010 through October 2013, 101 endometrial cancer patients were randomized to hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic lymphadenectomy either by robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery or by traditional laparoscopy. The primary outcome measure was overall operation time. The secondary outcome measures included total time spent in the operating room, and surgical outcome (number of lymph nodes harvested, complications, and recovery). The study was powered to show at least a 25% difference in the operation time using 2-sided significance level of .05. The differences between the traditional laparoscopy and the robotic surgery groups were tested by Pearson χ2 test, Fisher exact test, or Mann-Whitney test.
In all, 99 patients were eligible for analysis. The median operation time in the traditional laparoscopy group (n = 49) was 170 (range 126-259) minutes and in the robotic surgery group (n = 50) was 139 (range 86-197) minutes, respectively (P < .001). The total time spent in the operating room was shorter in the robotic surgery group (228 vs 197 minutes, P < .001). In the traditional laparoscopy group, there were 5 conversions to laparotomy vs none in the robotic surgery group (P = .027). There were no differences as to the number of lymph nodes removed, bleeding, or the length of postoperative hospital stay. Four (8%) vs no (0%) patients (P = .056) had intraoperative complications and 5 (10%) vs 11 (22%) (P = .111) had major postoperative complications in the traditional and robotic surgery groups, respectively.
In patients with endometrial cancer, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery was faster to perform than traditional laparoscopy. Also total time spent in the operation room was shorter in the robotic surgery group and all conversions to laparotomy occurred in the traditional laparoscopy group. Otherwise, the surgical outcome was similar between the groups. Robotic surgery offers an effective and safe alternative in the surgical treatment of endometrial cancer. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Previous studies comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery to traditional laparoscopic or open surgery in gynecologic oncology have been retrospective. To our knowledge, no prospective randomized trials have thus far been performed on endometrial cancer.
We sought to prospectively compare traditional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer.
This was a randomized controlled trial. From December 2010 through October 2013, 101 endometrial cancer patients were randomized to hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic lymphadenectomy either by robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery or by traditional laparoscopy. The primary outcome measure was overall operation time. The secondary outcome measures included total time spent in the operating room, and surgical outcome (number of lymph nodes harvested, complications, and recovery). The study was powered to show at least a 25% difference in the operation time using 2-sided significance level of .05. The differences between the traditional laparoscopy and the robotic surgery groups were tested by Pearson χ
test, Fisher exact test, or Mann-Whitney test.
In all, 99 patients were eligible for analysis. The median operation time in the traditional laparoscopy group (n = 49) was 170 (range 126-259) minutes and in the robotic surgery group (n = 50) was 139 (range 86-197) minutes, respectively (P < .001). The total time spent in the operating room was shorter in the robotic surgery group (228 vs 197 minutes, P < .001). In the traditional laparoscopy group, there were 5 conversions to laparotomy vs none in the robotic surgery group (P = .027). There were no differences as to the number of lymph nodes removed, bleeding, or the length of postoperative hospital stay. Four (8%) vs no (0%) patients (P = .056) had intraoperative complications and 5 (10%) vs 11 (22%) (P = .111) had major postoperative complications in the traditional and robotic surgery groups, respectively.
In patients with endometrial cancer, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery was faster to perform than traditional laparoscopy. Also total time spent in the operation room was shorter in the robotic surgery group and all conversions to laparotomy occurred in the traditional laparoscopy group. Otherwise, the surgical outcome was similar between the groups. Robotic surgery offers an effective and safe alternative in the surgical treatment of endometrial cancer. Previous studies comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery to traditional laparoscopic or open surgery in gynecologic oncology have been retrospective. To our knowledge, no prospective randomized trials have thus far been performed on endometrial cancer. We sought to prospectively compare traditional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer. This was a randomized controlled trial. From December 2010 through October 2013, 101 endometrial cancer patients were randomized to hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic lymphadenectomy either by robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery or by traditional laparoscopy. The primary outcome measure was overall operation time. The secondary outcome measures included total time spent in the operating room, and surgical outcome (number of lymph nodes harvested, complications, and recovery). The study was powered to show at least a 25% difference in the operation time using 2-sided significance level of .05. The differences between the traditional laparoscopy and the robotic surgery groups were tested by Pearson χ2 test, Fisher exact test, or Mann-Whitney test. In all, 99 patients were eligible for analysis. The median operation time in the traditional laparoscopy group (n = 49) was 170 (range 126-259) minutes and in the robotic surgery group (n = 50) was 139 (range 86-197) minutes, respectively (P < .001). The total time spent in the operating room was shorter in the robotic surgery group (228 vs 197 minutes, P < .001). In the traditional laparoscopy group, there were 5 conversions to laparotomy vs none in the robotic surgery group (P = .027). There were no differences as to the number of lymph nodes removed, bleeding, or the length of postoperative hospital stay. Four (8%) vs no (0%) patients (P = .056) had intraoperative complications and 5 (10%) vs 11 (22%) (P = .111) had major postoperative complications in the traditional and robotic surgery groups, respectively. In patients with endometrial cancer, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery was faster to perform than traditional laparoscopy. Also total time spent in the operation room was shorter in the robotic surgery group and all conversions to laparotomy occurred in the traditional laparoscopy group. Otherwise, the surgical outcome was similar between the groups. Robotic surgery offers an effective and safe alternative in the surgical treatment of endometrial cancer. Previous studies comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery to traditional laparoscopic or open surgery in gynecologic oncology have been retrospective. To our knowledge, no prospective randomized trials have thus far been performed on endometrial cancer.BACKGROUNDPrevious studies comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery to traditional laparoscopic or open surgery in gynecologic oncology have been retrospective. To our knowledge, no prospective randomized trials have thus far been performed on endometrial cancer.We sought to prospectively compare traditional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer.OBJECTIVEWe sought to prospectively compare traditional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer.This was a randomized controlled trial. From December 2010 through October 2013, 101 endometrial cancer patients were randomized to hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic lymphadenectomy either by robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery or by traditional laparoscopy. The primary outcome measure was overall operation time. The secondary outcome measures included total time spent in the operating room, and surgical outcome (number of lymph nodes harvested, complications, and recovery). The study was powered to show at least a 25% difference in the operation time using 2-sided significance level of .05. The differences between the traditional laparoscopy and the robotic surgery groups were tested by Pearson χ2 test, Fisher exact test, or Mann-Whitney test.STUDY DESIGNThis was a randomized controlled trial. From December 2010 through October 2013, 101 endometrial cancer patients were randomized to hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic lymphadenectomy either by robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery or by traditional laparoscopy. The primary outcome measure was overall operation time. The secondary outcome measures included total time spent in the operating room, and surgical outcome (number of lymph nodes harvested, complications, and recovery). The study was powered to show at least a 25% difference in the operation time using 2-sided significance level of .05. The differences between the traditional laparoscopy and the robotic surgery groups were tested by Pearson χ2 test, Fisher exact test, or Mann-Whitney test.In all, 99 patients were eligible for analysis. The median operation time in the traditional laparoscopy group (n = 49) was 170 (range 126-259) minutes and in the robotic surgery group (n = 50) was 139 (range 86-197) minutes, respectively (P < .001). The total time spent in the operating room was shorter in the robotic surgery group (228 vs 197 minutes, P < .001). In the traditional laparoscopy group, there were 5 conversions to laparotomy vs none in the robotic surgery group (P = .027). There were no differences as to the number of lymph nodes removed, bleeding, or the length of postoperative hospital stay. Four (8%) vs no (0%) patients (P = .056) had intraoperative complications and 5 (10%) vs 11 (22%) (P = .111) had major postoperative complications in the traditional and robotic surgery groups, respectively.RESULTSIn all, 99 patients were eligible for analysis. The median operation time in the traditional laparoscopy group (n = 49) was 170 (range 126-259) minutes and in the robotic surgery group (n = 50) was 139 (range 86-197) minutes, respectively (P < .001). The total time spent in the operating room was shorter in the robotic surgery group (228 vs 197 minutes, P < .001). In the traditional laparoscopy group, there were 5 conversions to laparotomy vs none in the robotic surgery group (P = .027). There were no differences as to the number of lymph nodes removed, bleeding, or the length of postoperative hospital stay. Four (8%) vs no (0%) patients (P = .056) had intraoperative complications and 5 (10%) vs 11 (22%) (P = .111) had major postoperative complications in the traditional and robotic surgery groups, respectively.In patients with endometrial cancer, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery was faster to perform than traditional laparoscopy. Also total time spent in the operation room was shorter in the robotic surgery group and all conversions to laparotomy occurred in the traditional laparoscopy group. Otherwise, the surgical outcome was similar between the groups. Robotic surgery offers an effective and safe alternative in the surgical treatment of endometrial cancer.CONCLUSIONIn patients with endometrial cancer, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery was faster to perform than traditional laparoscopy. Also total time spent in the operation room was shorter in the robotic surgery group and all conversions to laparotomy occurred in the traditional laparoscopy group. Otherwise, the surgical outcome was similar between the groups. Robotic surgery offers an effective and safe alternative in the surgical treatment of endometrial cancer. Background Previous studies comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery to traditional laparoscopic or open surgery in gynecologic oncology have been retrospective. To our knowledge, no prospective randomized trials have thus far been performed on endometrial cancer. Objective We sought to prospectively compare traditional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer. Study Design This was a randomized controlled trial. From December 2010 through October 2013, 101 endometrial cancer patients were randomized to hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic lymphadenectomy either by robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery or by traditional laparoscopy. The primary outcome measure was overall operation time. The secondary outcome measures included total time spent in the operating room, and surgical outcome (number of lymph nodes harvested, complications, and recovery). The study was powered to show at least a 25% difference in the operation time using 2-sided significance level of .05. The differences between the traditional laparoscopy and the robotic surgery groups were tested by Pearson χ2 test, Fisher exact test, or Mann-Whitney test. Results In all, 99 patients were eligible for analysis. The median operation time in the traditional laparoscopy group (n = 49) was 170 (range 126-259) minutes and in the robotic surgery group (n = 50) was 139 (range 86-197) minutes, respectively ( P < .001). The total time spent in the operating room was shorter in the robotic surgery group (228 vs 197 minutes, P < .001). In the traditional laparoscopy group, there were 5 conversions to laparotomy vs none in the robotic surgery group ( P = .027). There were no differences as to the number of lymph nodes removed, bleeding, or the length of postoperative hospital stay. Four (8%) vs no (0%) patients ( P = .056) had intraoperative complications and 5 (10%) vs 11 (22%) ( P = .111) had major postoperative complications in the traditional and robotic surgery groups, respectively. Conclusion In patients with endometrial cancer, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery was faster to perform than traditional laparoscopy. Also total time spent in the operation room was shorter in the robotic surgery group and all conversions to laparotomy occurred in the traditional laparoscopy group. Otherwise, the surgical outcome was similar between the groups. Robotic surgery offers an effective and safe alternative in the surgical treatment of endometrial cancer. |
| Author | Mäenpää, Johanna U. Luukkaala, Tiina H. Nieminen, Kari Tomás, Eija I. Laurila, Marita Mäenpää, Minna M. |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Minna M. surname: Mäenpää fullname: Mäenpää, Minna M. email: minna.maenpaa@pshp.fi organization: Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland – sequence: 2 givenname: Kari surname: Nieminen fullname: Nieminen, Kari organization: Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland – sequence: 3 givenname: Eija I. surname: Tomás fullname: Tomás, Eija I. organization: Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland – sequence: 4 givenname: Marita surname: Laurila fullname: Laurila, Marita organization: Department of Pathology, Fimlab Laboratories, Pirkanmaa Hospital District; Tampere, Finland – sequence: 5 givenname: Tiina H. surname: Luukkaala fullname: Luukkaala, Tiina H. organization: School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland – sequence: 6 givenname: Johanna U. surname: Mäenpää fullname: Mäenpää, Johanna U. organization: Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27288987$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNqFkttq3DAQhkVJaTZpX6AXxZe98VaWbR1CKZSQHiBQaHMvZuVxkKO1tpIc2D5Nn6VPFqmb3ASawoAO_P8v9M2ckKPZz0jI64auG9rwd9MaJn-9Znm_prlo_4ysGqpEzSWXR2RFKWW1aoU8JicxTuXIFHtBjplgUiopVuTmu9_4ZE0NMdqYcKhuY5UCDDZZP4OrHOwg-Gj8zpoqLuEaw74affjzG-fBbzEFm1UGZoPhrIIqQLm2v3KS8XMK3rm8_at6SZ6P4CK-ul9PydWni6vzL_Xlt89fzz9e1qZnMtVCyRHU2HRjrxiOfOjVOHSyB2MMCMbpRmGvhFK87zoqlaL5u6pFBJCwGdtT8vYQuwv-54Ix6a2NBp2DGf0SdSMZF5QL1mbpm3vpstnioHfBbiHs9QOfLJAHgckMYsBRG5ugoMmMrNMN1aUVetKlFbq0QtNctM9W9sj6kP6k6f3BhJnPrcWgo7GY2Q42oEl68PZp-4dHduPsbA24G9xjnPwSck8zAh2ZpvpHmYgyHw1vadt0BcjZvwP-9_od2wrNdA |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajog_2017_01_031 crossref_primary_10_1136_ijgc_2023_005197 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11701_023_01631_w crossref_primary_10_24060_2076_3093_2018_8_4_298_302 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bpobgyn_2023_102421 crossref_primary_10_3390_jcm14124013 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11701_023_01638_3 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_asjsur_2019_05_003 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jvs_2019_11_036 crossref_primary_10_7326_M20_7006 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00423_023_03037_6 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejso_2020_10_005 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jogc_2021_07_021 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_hoc_2019_08_018 crossref_primary_10_3390_cancers14215463 crossref_primary_10_3390_jpm12020307 crossref_primary_10_1245_s10434_022_12558_1 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gore_2025_101919 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13224_018_1170_0 crossref_primary_10_3802_jgo_2025_36_e122 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00404_021_06229_x crossref_primary_10_1097_IGC_0000000000001073 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11701_023_01626_7 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11701_017_0725_x crossref_primary_10_1016_j_surg_2023_02_016 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejso_2020_04_001 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejogrb_2021_07_038 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00404_020_05876_w crossref_primary_10_12968_bjon_2023_32_6_298 crossref_primary_10_17979_ja_cea_2025_46_12259 crossref_primary_10_31083_j_ceog5007139 crossref_primary_10_3390_cancers17162626 crossref_primary_10_7759_cureus_90782 crossref_primary_10_1111_iwj_13962 crossref_primary_10_1111_iwj_14535 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_022_09073_5 crossref_primary_10_3389_fsurg_2022_843517 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12893_024_02713_8 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11701_022_01374_0 crossref_primary_10_31083_j_ceog5003061 crossref_primary_10_3892_ol_2023_13761 crossref_primary_10_3390_jpm14060601 crossref_primary_10_3390_cancers17030435 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00129_020_04600_8 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_024_11036_x crossref_primary_10_3389_fmed_2024_1370836 crossref_primary_10_1093_jjco_hyae170 crossref_primary_10_1515_oncologie_2023_0437 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11701_023_01747_z crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gofs_2017_10_008 crossref_primary_10_1097_IGC_0000000000000925 crossref_primary_10_1097_GRF_0000000000000274 crossref_primary_10_1159_000543122 crossref_primary_10_1089_lap_2018_0426 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0191628 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00129_024_05213_1 crossref_primary_10_7759_cureus_36564 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_020_07998_3 crossref_primary_10_3390_medicina60010053 crossref_primary_10_1002_ijgo_13258 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_018_06606_9 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clon_2021_05_001 crossref_primary_10_1097_XCS_0000000000000549 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_023_10275_8 crossref_primary_10_4103_gmit_gmit_3_24 crossref_primary_10_1002_jso_27536 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11864_018_0582_5 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajog_2025_04_062 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajog_2025_08_002 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jmig_2016_08_832 crossref_primary_10_7759_cureus_16828 crossref_primary_10_1002_bjs5_50352 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jogoh_2025_102917 crossref_primary_10_1002_rcs_2254 crossref_primary_10_1089_gyn_2023_0036 crossref_primary_10_1093_qjmed_hcad105 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11701_023_01673_0 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_024_11275_y crossref_primary_10_1007_s13304_020_00812_8 crossref_primary_10_7759_cureus_30569 crossref_primary_10_1093_jjco_hyad067 crossref_primary_10_1097_MD_0000000000035981 crossref_primary_10_1097_SLA_0000000000003915 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajog_2019_04_038 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2020_045888 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bpobgyn_2023_102366 crossref_primary_10_1002_rcs_1851 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13304_021_01195_0 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gofs_2018_07_002 crossref_primary_10_3390_cancers14184500 crossref_primary_10_1097_JS9_0000000000002175 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajog_2024_08_028 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0253143 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00129_016_3981_3 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0231793 crossref_primary_10_7759_cureus_71988 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jmig_2021_12_013 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejca_2018_12_004 crossref_primary_10_1155_2020_2503753 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11701_017_0772_3 crossref_primary_10_1136_ijgc_2018_000098 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jmig_2018_01_010 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejogrb_2021_11_423 crossref_primary_10_1002_rcs_2157 crossref_primary_10_1111_aogs_14852 crossref_primary_10_1016_S0007_4551_23_00331_4 crossref_primary_10_1136_ijgc_2020_001677 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13669_019_00271_y crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejogrb_2025_03_037 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ygyno_2020_05_010 |
| Cites_doi | 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.07.006 10.1007/s00404-003-0488-7 10.1093/annonc/mdv484 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.022 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.11.034 10.1002/ijc.29210 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818e4416 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.02.008 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f74153 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.06.030 10.1002/bjs.7269 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.01.059 10.1111/aogs.12620 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.04.020 10.1097/CCO.0b013e328307c7ec 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.07.015 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.12.005 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.07.010 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.08.012 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.01.009 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318265b61a 10.3802/jgo.2013.24.1.21 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.01.010 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181af2a74 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.11.014 10.1002/rcs.268 10.1200/JCO.2011.36.7508 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | 2016 Elsevier Inc. Elsevier Inc. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: 2016 Elsevier Inc. – notice: Elsevier Inc. – notice: Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
| DBID | AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005 |
| DatabaseName | CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE MEDLINE - Academic |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 1097-6868 |
| EndPage | 588.e7 |
| ExternalDocumentID | 27288987 10_1016_j_ajog_2016_06_005 S0002937816303143 1_s2_0_S0002937816303143 |
| Genre | Randomized Controlled Trial Journal Article Comparative Study |
| GroupedDBID | --- --K --M -ET .1- .55 .FO .GJ .XZ .~1 0R~ 1B1 1CY 1P~ 1~. 1~5 23M 2KS 354 3O- 4.4 457 4CK 4G. 53G 5GY 5RE 5VS 6J9 7-5 85S 8F7 8P~ AAEDT AAEDW AAIKC AAIKJ AAKOC AALRI AAMNW AAOAW AAQFI AAQQT AAQXK AATTM AAWTL AAXKI AAXUO AAYJJ AAYWO ABBQC ABCQX ABDPE ABFNM ABFRF ABJNI ABMAC ABMZM ABOCM ABPMR ABWVN ABXDB ACDAQ ACGFO ACGFS ACIEU ACLOT ACRLP ACRPL ACVFH ADBBV ADCNI ADEZE ADMUD ADNMO ADVLN AEBSH AEFWE AEIPS AEKER AENEX AEUPX AEVXI AFCHL AFFNX AFJKZ AFPUW AFRHN AFTJW AFXIZ AGHFR AGNAY AGQPQ AGUBO AGYEJ AHDLI AI. AIEXJ AIGII AIIUN AIKHN AITUG AJRQY AJUYK AKBMS AKRWK AKYEP ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMRAJ ANKPU ANZVX APXCP ASPBG AVWKF AXJTR AZFZN BKOJK BLXMC BNPGV C45 C5W CAG COF CS3 EBS EFJIC EFKBS EFLBG EJD EO8 EX3 F5P FDB FEDTE FGOYB FIRID FNPLU FYGXN G-Q GBLVA HVGLF HZ~ IH2 IHE J1W K-O KOM LPU M41 MO0 N4W N9A NEJ NQ- O-L O9- OAUVE OBH OCB OGEVE OHH OHT OMK OQ. OVD P-8 P-9 P2P PC. PH~ Q38 R2- ROL RPZ RXW SDF SEL SES SEW SJN SPCBC SSH SSZ T5K TAE TEORI TWZ UDS UGJ UHB UHS UHU UKR UNMZH UV1 VH1 VVN WH7 WOQ WOW X6Y X7M XFW YFH YOC YYQ YZZ Z5R ZGI ZXP ZY1 ~G- ~H1 ~HD AACTN AFCTW AFKWA AJOXV AMFUW NCXOZ RIG AAIAV ABLVK ABYKQ ADOJD AFDAS AHPSJ AJBFU G8K LCYCR ZA5 AAYXX CITATION XRW CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-798fa9f14f592ef6d59fd485accca7260b9e5979965440899068693eeaa8abf3 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 135 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000389513700008&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 0002-9378 1097-6868 |
| IngestDate | Sun Sep 28 04:49:32 EDT 2025 Wed Feb 19 02:40:46 EST 2025 Sat Nov 29 07:30:43 EST 2025 Tue Nov 18 21:52:55 EST 2025 Fri Feb 23 02:29:19 EST 2024 Tue Feb 25 20:07:42 EST 2025 Tue Oct 14 19:31:01 EDT 2025 |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 5 |
| Keywords | endometrial cancer operation time gynecologic surgery robotic-assisted surgery traditional laparoscopic surgery |
| Language | English |
| License | Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
| LinkModel | OpenURL |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c528t-798fa9f14f592ef6d59fd485accca7260b9e5979965440899068693eeaa8abf3 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-3 |
| PMID | 27288987 |
| PQID | 1826706723 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_1826706723 pubmed_primary_27288987 crossref_citationtrail_10_1016_j_ajog_2016_06_005 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajog_2016_06_005 elsevier_sciencedirect_doi_10_1016_j_ajog_2016_06_005 elsevier_clinicalkeyesjournals_1_s2_0_S0002937816303143 elsevier_clinicalkey_doi_10_1016_j_ajog_2016_06_005 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2016-11-01 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2016-11-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 11 year: 2016 text: 2016-11-01 day: 01 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | United States |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States |
| PublicationTitle | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Am J Obstet Gynecol |
| PublicationYear | 2016 |
| Publisher | Elsevier Inc |
| Publisher_xml | – name: Elsevier Inc |
| References | Schiavone, Bielen, Gardner (bib29) 2016; 140 Wright, Burke, Wilde (bib28) 2012; 30 Cardenas-Goicoechea, Adams, Bhat, Randall (bib13) 2010; 117 Mäenpää, Nieminen, Tomas, Luukkaala, Mäenpää (bib8) 2015; 94 Lönnerfors, Reynisson, Persson (bib18) 2015; 22 Ferlay, Soerjomataram, Dikshit (bib1) 2015; 136 Gehrig, Cantrell, Shafer, Abaid, Mendivil, Boggess (bib23) 2008; 111 Seamon, Cohn, Henretta (bib19) 2009; 113 Mettler, Schollmeyer, Boggess, Magrina, Oleszczuk (bib9) 2008; 20 Reza, Maeso, Blasco, Andradas (bib27) 2010; 97 Shuster (bib10) 1990 Gaia, Holloway, Santoro, Ahmad, Di Silverio, Spinillo (bib26) 2010; 116 Lowe, Johnson, Kamelle, Kumar, Chamberlain, Tillmanns (bib6) 2009; 114 Paley, Veljovich, Shah (bib24) 2011; 204 Bell, Torgerson, Seshadri-Kreaden, Suttle, Hunt (bib12) 2008; 111 Sarlos, Kots, Stevanovic, von Felten, Schar (bib16) 2012; 120 Liu, Lawrie, Lu, Song, Wang, Shi (bib4) 2014; 12 Corrado, Cutillo, Pomati (bib14) 2015; 41 Colombo, Creutzberg, Amant (bib2) 2016; 27 Scalici, Laughlin, Finan, Wang, Rocconi (bib3) 2015; 136 Cardenas-Goicoechea, Soto, Chuang, Gretz, Randall (bib25) 2013; 24 Boggess, Gehrig, Cantrell (bib11) 2008; 199 Seamon, Cohn, Richardson (bib5) 2008; 112 Paraiso, Ridgeway, Park (bib17) 2013; 208 Lim, Kang, Park (bib7) 2011; 120 Coronado, Herraiz, Magrina, Fasero, Vidart (bib21) 2012; 165 Seror, Bats, Huchon, Bensaïd, Douay-Hauser, Lécuru (bib15) 2014; 21 Kuoppala, Tomas, Heinonen (bib22) 2004; 270 Hoekstra, Jairam-Thodla, Rademaker (bib20) 2009; 5 Gehrig (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib23) 2008; 111 Coronado (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib21) 2012; 165 Liu (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib4) 2014; 12 Seamon (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib5) 2008; 112 Scalici (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib3) 2015; 136 Ferlay (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib1) 2015; 136 Boggess (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib11) 2008; 199 Schiavone (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib29) 2016; 140 Seror (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib15) 2014; 21 Lim (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib7) 2011; 120 Seamon (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib19) 2009; 113 Cardenas-Goicoechea (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib13) 2010; 117 Paley (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib24) 2011; 204 Colombo (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib2) 2016; 27 Mettler (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib9) 2008; 20 Lowe (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib6) 2009; 114 Kuoppala (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib22) 2004; 270 Cardenas-Goicoechea (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib25) 2013; 24 Paraiso (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib17) 2013; 208 Wright (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib28) 2012; 30 Mäenpää (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib8) 2015; 94 Bell (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib12) 2008; 111 Gaia (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib26) 2010; 116 Lönnerfors (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib18) 2015; 22 Hoekstra (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib20) 2009; 5 Shuster (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib10) 1990 Reza (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib27) 2010; 97 Corrado (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib14) 2015; 41 Sarlos (10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib16) 2012; 120 28143701 - Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun;216(6):619-620 28143703 - Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun;216(6):619 |
| References_xml | – volume: 5 start-page: 392 year: 2009 end-page: 397 ident: bib20 article-title: The impact of robotics on practice management of endometrial cancer: transitioning from traditional surgery publication-title: Int J Med Robot – volume: 94 start-page: 482 year: 2015 end-page: 488 ident: bib8 article-title: Implementing robotic surgery to gynecologic oncology: the first 300 operations performed at a tertiary hospital publication-title: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand – volume: 24 start-page: 21 year: 2013 end-page: 28 ident: bib25 article-title: Integration of robotics into two established programs of minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer appears to decrease surgical complications publication-title: J Gynecol Oncol – volume: 20 start-page: 581 year: 2008 end-page: 589 ident: bib9 article-title: Robotic assistance in gynecological oncology publication-title: Curr Opin Oncol – volume: 111 start-page: 407 year: 2008 end-page: 411 ident: bib12 article-title: Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques publication-title: Gynecol Oncol – volume: 30 start-page: 783 year: 2012 end-page: 791 ident: bib28 article-title: Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer publication-title: J Clin Oncol – volume: 116 start-page: 1422 year: 2010 end-page: 1431 ident: bib26 article-title: Robotic-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer compared with traditional laparoscopic and laparotomy approaches: a systematic review publication-title: Obstet Gynecol – volume: 114 start-page: 236 year: 2009 end-page: 243 ident: bib6 article-title: A multiinstitutional experience with robotic-assisted hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer publication-title: Obstet Gynecol – volume: 208 start-page: 368.e1 year: 2013 end-page: 368.e7 ident: bib17 article-title: A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol – volume: 140 start-page: 383 year: 2016 end-page: 386 ident: bib29 article-title: Herniation formation in women undergoing robotically assisted laparoscopy or laparotomy for endometrial cancer publication-title: Gynecol Oncol – volume: 21 start-page: 120 year: 2014 end-page: 125 ident: bib15 article-title: Laparoscopy vs robotics in surgical management of endometrial cancer: comparison of intraoperative and postoperative complications publication-title: J Minim Invasive Gynecol – volume: 136 start-page: 359 year: 2015 end-page: 386 ident: bib1 article-title: Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012 publication-title: Int J Cancer – volume: 204 start-page: 551 year: 2011 end-page: 559 ident: bib24 article-title: Surgical outcomes in gynecologic oncology in the era of robotics: analysis of first 1000 cases publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol – volume: 113 start-page: 36 year: 2009 end-page: 41 ident: bib19 article-title: Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: Robotics or laparoscopy? publication-title: Gynecol Oncol – volume: 41 start-page: 1074 year: 2015 end-page: 1081 ident: bib14 article-title: Surgical and oncological outcome of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic and abdominal surgery in the management of endometrial cancer publication-title: Eur J Surg Oncol – volume: 199 start-page: 360.e1 year: 2008 end-page: 360.e9 ident: bib11 article-title: A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol – volume: 27 start-page: 16 year: 2016 end-page: 41 ident: bib2 article-title: ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up publication-title: Ann Oncol – volume: 112 start-page: 1207 year: 2008 end-page: 1213 ident: bib5 article-title: Robotic hysterectomy pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer publication-title: Obstet Gynecol – volume: 12 start-page: CD011422 year: 2014 ident: bib4 article-title: Robot-assisted surgery in gynecology publication-title: Cochrane Database Syst Rev – volume: 165 start-page: 289 year: 2012 end-page: 294 ident: bib21 article-title: Comparison of perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer publication-title: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol – year: 1990 ident: bib10 article-title: CRC handbook of sample size guidelines for clinical trials – volume: 97 start-page: 1772 year: 2010 end-page: 1783 ident: bib27 article-title: Meta-analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynecological surgery publication-title: Br J Surg – volume: 117 start-page: 224 year: 2010 end-page: 228 ident: bib13 article-title: Surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer are equivalent to traditional laparoscopic staging at minimally invasive surgical center publication-title: Gynecol Oncol – volume: 111 start-page: 41 year: 2008 end-page: 45 ident: bib23 article-title: What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman? publication-title: Gynecol Oncol – volume: 120 start-page: 413 year: 2011 end-page: 418 ident: bib7 article-title: A comparative detail analysis of the learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in treatment of endometrial cancer: a case matched controlled study of the first one hundred twenty two patients publication-title: Gynecol Oncol – volume: 120 start-page: 604 year: 2012 end-page: 611 ident: bib16 article-title: Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial publication-title: Obstet Gynecol – volume: 22 start-page: 78 year: 2015 end-page: 86 ident: bib18 article-title: A randomized trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy vs robot-assisted hysterectomy publication-title: J Minim Invasive Gynecol – volume: 270 start-page: 25 year: 2004 end-page: 30 ident: bib22 article-title: Clinical outcome and complications of laparoscopic surgery compared with traditional surgery in women with endometrial cancer publication-title: Arch Gynecol Obstet – volume: 136 start-page: 512 year: 2015 end-page: 515 ident: bib3 article-title: The trend towards minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for endometrial cancer: an ACS–NSQIP evaluation of surgical outcomes publication-title: Gynecol Oncol – volume: 165 start-page: 289 year: 2012 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib21 article-title: Comparison of perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer publication-title: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.07.006 – volume: 270 start-page: 25 year: 2004 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib22 article-title: Clinical outcome and complications of laparoscopic surgery compared with traditional surgery in women with endometrial cancer publication-title: Arch Gynecol Obstet doi: 10.1007/s00404-003-0488-7 – volume: 27 start-page: 16 year: 2016 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib2 article-title: ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up publication-title: Ann Oncol doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv484 – volume: 111 start-page: 407 year: 2008 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib12 article-title: Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques publication-title: Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.022 – volume: 120 start-page: 413 year: 2011 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib7 publication-title: Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.11.034 – volume: 136 start-page: 359 year: 2015 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib1 article-title: Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012 publication-title: Int J Cancer doi: 10.1002/ijc.29210 – volume: 112 start-page: 1207 year: 2008 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib5 article-title: Robotic hysterectomy pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer publication-title: Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818e4416 – volume: 208 start-page: 368.e1 year: 2013 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib17 article-title: A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.02.008 – volume: 116 start-page: 1422 year: 2010 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib26 article-title: Robotic-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer compared with traditional laparoscopic and laparotomy approaches: a systematic review publication-title: Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f74153 – volume: 111 start-page: 41 year: 2008 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib23 article-title: What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman? publication-title: Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.06.030 – volume: 12 start-page: CD011422 year: 2014 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib4 article-title: Robot-assisted surgery in gynecology publication-title: Cochrane Database Syst Rev – volume: 97 start-page: 1772 year: 2010 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib27 article-title: Meta-analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynecological surgery publication-title: Br J Surg doi: 10.1002/bjs.7269 – year: 1990 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib10 – volume: 204 start-page: 551 year: 2011 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib24 article-title: Surgical outcomes in gynecologic oncology in the era of robotics: analysis of first 1000 cases publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.01.059 – volume: 94 start-page: 482 year: 2015 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib8 article-title: Implementing robotic surgery to gynecologic oncology: the first 300 operations performed at a tertiary hospital publication-title: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand doi: 10.1111/aogs.12620 – volume: 41 start-page: 1074 year: 2015 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib14 article-title: Surgical and oncological outcome of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic and abdominal surgery in the management of endometrial cancer publication-title: Eur J Surg Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.04.020 – volume: 20 start-page: 581 year: 2008 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib9 article-title: Robotic assistance in gynecological oncology publication-title: Curr Opin Oncol doi: 10.1097/CCO.0b013e328307c7ec – volume: 21 start-page: 120 year: 2014 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib15 article-title: Laparoscopy vs robotics in surgical management of endometrial cancer: comparison of intraoperative and postoperative complications publication-title: J Minim Invasive Gynecol doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.07.015 – volume: 113 start-page: 36 year: 2009 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib19 article-title: Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: Robotics or laparoscopy? publication-title: Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.12.005 – volume: 22 start-page: 78 year: 2015 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib18 article-title: A randomized trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy vs robot-assisted hysterectomy publication-title: J Minim Invasive Gynecol doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.07.010 – volume: 199 start-page: 360.e1 year: 2008 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib11 article-title: A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.08.012 – volume: 117 start-page: 224 year: 2010 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib13 article-title: Surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer are equivalent to traditional laparoscopic staging at minimally invasive surgical center publication-title: Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.01.009 – volume: 120 start-page: 604 year: 2012 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib16 article-title: Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial publication-title: Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318265b61a – volume: 24 start-page: 21 year: 2013 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib25 article-title: Integration of robotics into two established programs of minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer appears to decrease surgical complications publication-title: J Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.3802/jgo.2013.24.1.21 – volume: 140 start-page: 383 year: 2016 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib29 article-title: Herniation formation in women undergoing robotically assisted laparoscopy or laparotomy for endometrial cancer publication-title: Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.01.010 – volume: 114 start-page: 236 year: 2009 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib6 article-title: A multiinstitutional experience with robotic-assisted hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer publication-title: Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181af2a74 – volume: 136 start-page: 512 year: 2015 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib3 article-title: The trend towards minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for endometrial cancer: an ACS–NSQIP evaluation of surgical outcomes publication-title: Gynecol Oncol doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.11.014 – volume: 5 start-page: 392 year: 2009 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib20 article-title: The impact of robotics on practice management of endometrial cancer: transitioning from traditional surgery publication-title: Int J Med Robot doi: 10.1002/rcs.268 – volume: 30 start-page: 783 year: 2012 ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005_bib28 article-title: Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer publication-title: J Clin Oncol doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.36.7508 – reference: 28143703 - Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun;216(6):619 – reference: 28143701 - Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun;216(6):619-620 |
| SSID | ssj0002292 |
| Score | 2.5601778 |
| Snippet | Previous studies comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery to traditional laparoscopic or open surgery in gynecologic oncology have been retrospective.... Background Previous studies comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery to traditional laparoscopic or open surgery in gynecologic oncology have been... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed crossref elsevier |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
| StartPage | 588.e1 |
| SubjectTerms | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant Chemotherapy, Adjuvant Conversion to Open Surgery - statistics & numerical data endometrial cancer Endometrial Neoplasms - pathology Endometrial Neoplasms - surgery Female gynecologic surgery Humans Hysterectomy - methods Laparoscopy - methods Lymph Node Excision - methods Middle Aged Neoplasm Staging Obstetrics and Gynecology operation time Operative Time Ovariectomy - methods Pelvis Postoperative Complications - epidemiology Radiotherapy, Adjuvant Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods robotic-assisted surgery Salpingectomy - methods traditional laparoscopic surgery |
| Title | Robotic-assisted vs traditional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a randomized controlled trial |
| URI | https://www.clinicalkey.com/#!/content/1-s2.0-S0002937816303143 https://www.clinicalkey.es/playcontent/1-s2.0-S0002937816303143 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27288987 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1826706723 |
| Volume | 215 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000389513700008&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVESC databaseName: Elsevier SD Freedom Collection Journals 2021 customDbUrl: eissn: 1097-6868 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0002292 issn: 0002-9378 databaseCode: AIEXJ dateStart: 20160801 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.sciencedirect.com providerName: Elsevier |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1bb9MwFLa6DSFeEHfKZQoSe6oyJU4c27xV0xAXbULQh75ZTuJMKW1SNV01-DX8Eh74ZRzHzmXTOuCBFyty7Djt-XLO8fG5IPSaYRrziEWuUiFxQ5l6bhxHoSuTSMYZyL80SupiE_T0lE2n_NNg8LOJhdnMaVGwiwu-_K-khj4gtg6d_Qdytw-FDrgGokMLZIf2rwj_uYxL6HRBK9YkTEebSheCSHNr9ZuDeNQpLMtlnowqExWtnQ0PjvDB2FNFWi6UqeWRaESsTDg0iDS4kX9XaePdPofLelxfv20PgHoZKcoYXkMXAjDpoM--FSq5ZMw_qU_rQ1UszYVta6f-opCdwfY016lQDKP8CJv8zkS-qOf4JrYin8nOGKwDv_O5tHFJ-Vr27Rx-ZAP-ajFleLPHqQuwYn3mjU0wqEUp6bFiwtih8q-VEsZgMTuUs_JMe_dFdQrXOvx73UPIclFDBFPMGLdqweXc3M2tHbSHKeHAVffG74-nH1pdAGOObaiW8Sq8uqRORm0fsk0z2rbzqTWgyT10125dnLGB3H00UMUDdPvEOmc8RF-vIs_ZVE4PeU4feY5FngPI-_WjhzrHoO6NI50Oc06HOace9QhN3h5Pjt65tpaHmxDM1i7lLJM888OMcKyyKCU8S0NGZAIshMKmOuaK6CPmiOga6KAjAaV5oJSUDJhG8BjtFmWhniInSCSQVpIAMx56UvFYUi-JcAj9gZ_xIfKbv1EkNs-9LrcyF41D40xoKghNBVF7dZIhGrVzlibLy42jg4Y6oolfBokrAF43zqLXzVKV_SAr4YsKC0980biBXQODrZIuLhEMEWlnWr3Y6Lt_XPFVAx0BQkOfBMpCleewEsMR1U4Y8OwnBlPt727g-GzrnefoTveBvkC769W5eoluJZt1Xq320Q6dsn37IfwGWCbpiw |
| linkProvider | Elsevier |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Robotic-assisted+vs+traditional+laparoscopic+surgery+for%C2%A0endometrial+cancer%3A+a+randomized+controlled+trial&rft.jtitle=American+journal+of+obstetrics+and+gynecology&rft.au=M%C3%A4enp%C3%A4%C3%A4%2C+Minna+M&rft.au=Nieminen%2C+Kari&rft.au=Tom%C3%A1s%2C+Eija+I&rft.au=Laurila%2C+Marita&rft.date=2016-11-01&rft.eissn=1097-6868&rft.volume=215&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=588.e1&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.ajog.2016.06.005&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F27288987&rft.externalDocID=27288987 |
| thumbnail_m | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/image/custom?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.clinicalkey.com%2Fck-thumbnails%2F00029378%2FS0002937816X00129%2Fcov150h.gif |