Multicenter study of minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy for radical hysterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: Survival outcomes

Brandt, Benny; Sioulas, Vasileios; LaVigne, K.; Shahin, Mark S.; Bruce, S.F.; Black, Destin; Gandhi, Mai; Scalici, Jennifer; Jones, Nathaniel; Paladugu, Rajesh; Brown, Jubilee; Levine, Melvin D.; Naumann, R. Wendel; Mendivil, Alberto A.; Goldstein, Bram H.; Lim, Peter; Kang, E.Y.; Cantrell, L.A.; Sullivan, Mackenzie W.; Abu‐Rustum, Nadeem R.; Leitao, Mario M.

doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.04.063

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This has prompted a review of experience with minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. Some centers have reviewed their data and also report an increase in local recurrence, whereas others have not shown any difference in outcome [22,23]. Regardless of how this affects the use of minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer, this trial has alerted us to a previously unrecognized local recurrence rate that can be associated with this procedure and, at the very least, will drive the continued refinement in the technique of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy.…”

Section: Interpretation Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Re-evaluating “Success” as It Pertains to Surgical Trials

Naumann

2021

Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this article is to review the difficulties with the design and interpretation of surgical clinical trials. Few surgical procedures are evaluated in a randomized fashion. There are a number of factors that make the design of surgical trials diffiuclt, and many surgical questions cannot be answered with a clinical trial. Issues with standardization of the surgical procedure, variability of surgical skills, and changes in surgical expertise over time further complicate the design and implementation of surgical trials. Statistical methods for surgical trials often require a noninferiorty design and are more complicated to interpret than the more common superiority trial. Even when properly conducted, both superiority and noninferiority trials are often misinterpreted. Because of the relatively high success rate in surgery, trials require large numbers of patients and noninferiority trials are often inconclusive with respect to the primary outcome. Surgical trials are often misinterpreted or over interpreted, and there can be confusion in how the findings of these trials should be incorportated into clinical practice. The interpretation of the results of a surgical trial often differ significantly from the primary and secondary outcomes that were specified in the trial design.

show abstract

Section: Interpretation Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Re-evaluating “Success” as It Pertains to Surgical Trials

Naumann

2021

Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Multicenter study of minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy for radical hysterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: Survival outcomes

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

Re-evaluating “Success” as It Pertains to Surgical Trials

Re-evaluating “Success” as It Pertains to Surgical Trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About