{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.035856573705179286, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03699487763232783, 'mean_word_length': 5.23404255319149, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Effect of minimally invasive surgery and laparotomy on wound infection and postoperative and intraoperative complications in the management of cervical cancer: A meta-analysis.

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of minimally invasive surgery and laparotomy on wound infection and postoperative and intraoperative complications in the management of cervical cancer. A systematic literature search up to July 2022 was performed and 10 231 subjects with cervical cancer at the baseline of the studies; 4307 of them were using the minimally invasive surgery, and 5924 were using laparotomy. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the effect of minimally invasive surgery and laparotomy on wound infection and postoperative and intraoperative complications in the management of cervical cancer using the dichotomous methods with a random or fixed-effect model. The minimally invasive surgery had significantly lower wound infection (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.13-0.30, P < .001), and postoperative complications (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.64, P < .001) in subjects with cervical cancer compared laparotomy. However, minimally invasive surgery compared with laparotomy in subjects with cervical cancer had no significant difference in intraoperative complications (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.36, P = 0.76). The minimally invasive surgery had significantly lower wound infection, and postoperative complications however, had no significant difference in intraoperative complications in subjects with cervical cancer compared with laparotomy. The analysis of outcomes should be with caution because of the low sample size of 22 out of 41 studies in the meta-analysis and a low number of studies in certain comparisons.