Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 192

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative Effectiveness of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer

Open access
Wright, Jason D., Burke, William M., Wilde, Elizabeth T., Lewin, Sharyn N., Charles, Abigail S., Kim, Jin Hee, Goldman, Noah, Neugut, Alfred I., Herzog, Thomas J., Hershman, Dawn L.·2012·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Use of robotics in oncologic surgery is increasing; however, reports of safety and efficacy are from highly experienced surgeons and centers. We performed a population-based analysis to compare laparoscopic hysterectomy and robotic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Patients and Methods: The Perspective database was used to identify women who underwent a minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer from 2008 to 2010. Morbidity, mortality, and cost were evaluated using multivariable logistic and linear regression models. Results: We identified 2,464 women, including 1,027 (41.7%) who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy and 1,437 (58.3%) who underwent robotic hysterectomy. Women treated at larger hospitals, nonteaching hospitals, and centers outside of the northeast were more likely to undergo a robotic hysterectomy procedure, whereas black women, those without insurance, and women in rural areas were less likely to undergo a robotic hysterectomy procedure (P < .05 for all). The overall complication rate was 9.8% for laparoscopic hysterectomy versus 8.1% for robotic hysterectomy (P = .13). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for any morbidity for robotic hysterectomy was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.56 to 1.03). After adjusting for patient, surgeon, and hospital characteristics, there were no significant differences in the rates of intraoperative complications (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.08), surgical site complications (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.81 to 2.73), medical complications (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.01), or prolonged hospitalization (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.14) between the procedures. The mean cost for robotic hysterectomy was $10,618 versus $8,996 for laparoscopic hysterectomy (P < .001). In a multivariable model, robotic hysterectomy was significantly more costly ($1,291; 95% CI, $985 to $1,597). Conclusion: Despite claims of decreased complications with robotic hysterectomy, we found similar morbidity but increased cost compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy. Comparative long-term efficacy data are needed to justify its widespread use.

Overview

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 · 10.1200/jco.2011.36.7508

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 192

Metadata

Authors
Wright, J. D., Burke, W. M., Wilde, E. T., Lewin, S. N., Charles, A. S., Kim, J. H., Goldman, N., Neugut, A. I., Herzog, T. J., & Hershman, D. L.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2012-03-10
Volume
30
Issue
8
Pages
783-791
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2134066118
Cited by
192
References
1
FWCI
26.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative Effectiveness of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2011.36.7508
The paper
Wright, J. D., Burke, W. M., Wilde, E. T., Lewin, S. N., Charles, A. S., Kim, J. H., Goldman, N., Neugut, A. I., Herzog, T. J., & Hershman, D. L. (2012). Comparative Effectiveness of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2011.36.7508

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.