[Alternatives and access routes in hysterectomies. Are randomizations dangerous?]

Review OA: closed CC0
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-09 ⓘ

This review identified numerous deficiencies in existing randomized trials on hysterectomy routes and surgical approaches, necessitating new prospective studies adapted to European conditions.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Hysterectomy is a common gynaecological operation in Europe. Although the advantages of new minimally invasive procedures seem obvious, prospective randomised trials are essential for proper appraisal. We reviewed all randomised studies about routes for hysterectomy and comparison of conservative or radical surgery. This study points out the many deficiencies of such studies. Referred conclusions are then open to criticism. We concluded that new prospective studies should be performed, adapted to social, cultural and economic conditions in Europe.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

MeSH descriptors

Hysterectomy Laparoscopy Prospective Studies Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Bias Europe Female Health Services Needs and Demand Humans Hysterectomy Laparoscopy Research Design

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-08T21:59:49.088203+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK