Cited by 137Endometriosis Research and TreatmentMinimally Invasive Surgical TechniquesGynecological conditions and treatments

Laparoscopy vs. Robotic Surgery for Endometriosis (LAROSE): a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial

Open access
Soto, Enrique, Luu, Thanh Ha, Liu, Xiaobo, Magrina, Javier F., Wasson, Megan N., Einarsson, Jon I., Cohen, Sarah L., Falcone, Tommaso·2017·Fertility and Sterility

Abstract

Objective To determine whether the use of the robot for surgical treatment of endometriosis is better than traditional laparoscopy in terms of operative length, perioperative parameters, and quality of life outcomes. Design Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Setting University teaching hospitals. Patient(s) Women aged >18 years with suspected endometriosis who elected to undergo surgical management. Intervention(s) Randomization to conventional or robot-assisted laparoscopic removal of endometriosis. Main outcome measure(s) The primary outcome measured was operative time. Secondary outcomes were perioperative complications and quality of life. Result(s) The mean operative time for robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis was 106.6 ± 48.4 minutes vs. 101.6 ± 63.2 minutes. There were no differences in blood loss, intraoperative or postoperative complications, or rates of conversion to laparotomy in the two arms. Both groups reported significant improvement on condition-specific quality of life outcomes at 6 weeks and 6 months. Conclusion(s) There were no differences in perioperative outcomes between robotic and conventional laparoscopy. Clinical trial registration number NCT01556204.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.12.033

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The results of the first RCT comparing RAS and conventional laparoscopy for endometriosis excision confirm the findings of previous observational studies.

    “The results of the first RCT comparing RAS and conventional laparoscopy for endometriosis excision (Soto et al., 2017) confirm the findings of previous observational studies (Berlanda et al., 2017).”
  • No significant differences were observed between RAS and conventional laparoscopy for endometriosis excision in terms of operative time, complications, and clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up.

    “In fact, no significant differences were observed between the two surgical approaches in terms of operative time, complications, and clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Soto, E., Luu, T. H., Liu, X., Magrina, J. F., Wasson, M. N., Einarsson, J. I., Cohen, S. L., & Falcone, T.
Affiliations
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
  • Mayo Clinic in Arizona (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Falcone, Tommaso
Venue
Fertility and Sterility
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-04
Volume
107
Issue
4
Pages
996-1002.e3
ISSN
0015-0282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2589501886
Cited by
137
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 2
FWCI
11.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Fertility and Sterility (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Cleveland Clinic
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gynecological conditions and treatments
Keywords
endometriosis, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery, conventional laparoscopy, operative time, perioperative complications, conversion to open surgery, blood loss, quality of life, endometriosis surgery
MeSH terms
Adult, Endometriosis, Female, Hospitals, University, Humans, Laparoscopy, Postoperative Complications, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Time Factors, United States, Blood Loss, Surgical, Treatment Outcome, Operative Time, Conversion to Open Surgery, Robotic Surgical Procedures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review