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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cites
Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases
DEYO, R. (1992) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(92)90133-8 · Cited by 10,452
Cited by
Robotic Compared With Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Anger, J. T., Mueller, E. R., Tarnay, C., Smith, B., Stroupe, K., Rosenman, A., Brubaker, L., Bresee, C., & Kenton, K. (2014) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000000006 · Cited by 263
Carbon footprint of robotically‐assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy: a comparison
Woods, D. L., McAndrew, T., Nevadunsky, N., Hou, J. Y., Goldberg, G., Yi‐Shin Kuo, D., & Isani, S. (2015) · The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery · doi:10.1002/rcs.1640 · Cited by 129
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.