Protective Maneuver to Avoid Tumor Spillage during Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy: Vaginal Cuff Closure

Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Minimally invasive surgery on treatment of early-stage cervical cancer is debatable. Traditional approaches of colpotomy are considered responsible for an inferior oncological outcome. Evidence on whether protective colpotomy could optimize minimally invasive technique and improve prognoses of women with early-stage cervical cancer remains limited. We produced a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare oncological outcomes of the patients treated by minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy to those treated by open surgery according to existing literature. We explored PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomized controlled trials or observational studies published in English, (2) studies comparing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy to abdominal radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer, and (3) studies comparing survival outcomes. Two reviewers performed the screening, data extraction, and quality assessment independently. A total of 8 retrospective cohort studies with 2020 women were included in the study, 821 of whom were in the minimally invasive surgery group, and 1199 of whom were in the open surgery group. The recurrence-free survival and overall survival in the minimally invasive surgery group were both similar to that in the open surgery group (pooled hazard ratio, 0.88 and 0.78, respectively; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.38 and 0.42-1.44, respectively). Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy on treatment of early-stage cervical cancer had similar recurrence-free survival and overall survival compared to abdominal radical hysterectomy. Protective colpotomy could be a guaranteed approach to modifying minimally invasive technique.

Robotic radical hysterectomy after conization for patients with small volume early-stage cervical cancer

Laparoscopy and robotics are recommended for managing gynecological cancer, as they are associated with lower morbidity and comparable outcomes to open surgery. However, in the case of early cervical cancer, new evidence suggests worse oncological outcomes with these approaches compared to open surgery, though the limited number of robotic cases makes it challenging to draw definitive conclusions for this particular approach. The prior conization has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of tumor spillage and contamination during minimally invasive (MIS) radical hysterectomy (RH). Retrospective studies have indicated that undergoing conization before RH is linked to a reduced risk of recurrences, especially in cervical tumors measuring less than 2 cm. Nevertheless, these studies lack the statistical power needed to definitively establish conization as a recommended step before RH. Furthermore, these studies do not have enough cases utilizing the robotic approach and specific conclusions cannot be drawn from this technique. The question of whether a subset of cases would benefit from preoperative conization and whether conization should be performed to recommend MIS over open surgery remains unanswered. Prospective clinical trials involving women diagnosed with early-stage cervical cancer <2 cm, randomized between undergoing conization before robotic RH or without prior conization are mandatory to assess the role of conization before robotic RH in cervical cancer.

Comparison of survival outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomies for early-stage cervical cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Survival outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) remain controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate survival outcomes between RRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

Studies comparing between RRH and LRH published up to November 2022 were systemically searched in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of the published studies were also performed. Two researchers independently extracted data. Studies with information on recurrence and death after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy were also included. The extracted data were analyzed using the Stata MP software package version 17.0.

RESULTS

Twenty eligible clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. When all studies were pooled, the odds ratios of RRH for recurrence and death were 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.91-1.55; p=0.613; I²=0.0%) and 0.96 (95% CI=0.65-1.42; p=0.558; I²=0.0%), respectively. In a subgroup analysis, the quality of study methodology, study size, country where the study was conducted, and publication year were not associated with survival outcomes between RRH and LRH.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrates that the survival outcomes are comparable between RRH and LRH.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Identifier: CRD42023387916.

An optimized robotic surgical technique for cervical cancer: investigating whether the use of the pulling robotic arm has better surgical outcomes

Objective

The evidence for adopting the 3^rd robotic arm (RA) called the pulling RA rather than a uterine manipulator to manipulate the uterus in the robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) for cervical cancer is still limited. We present a single-center retrospective experience comparing using the pulling RA to replace a uterine manipulator vs. using a uterine manipulator to manipulate the uterus in RRH.

Methods

106 patients diagnosed with IA, IB1-IB2 and IIA1 cervical cancer were retrospectively included for intraoperative and postoperative parameters analysis. 50 patients received RRH by adopting the pulling RA instead of a uterine manipulator to pull the uterus (3-RA RRH group), and another 56 patients were performed RRH with a uterine manipulator (2-RA RRH group). RRH with the pulling RA consisted of a camera arm, 3 RAs including a pulling RA, and 2 conventional assistant arms (3-RA RRH group). In comparison, RRH with a uterine manipulator included 2 RAs and 2 conventional assistant arms (2-RA RRH group). Besides, 3-RA' RRH group was selected from the 25^th-50^th cases in the 3-RA RRH group based on the learning curve and was compared with the 2-RA RRH group in terms of intraoperative and postoperative parameters.

Results

The patients' early post-operative complication (≤7 days) (p=0.022) and post-operative anemia (p < 0.001) of the 3-RA RRH were significantly lower than that in the 2-RA RRH group. The results of comparing the 2-RA RRH group with the 3-RA' RRH group were consistent with the aforementioned results, except for the operative time (220.4 vs. 197.4 minutes, p=0.022) and hospital stay (7.8 vs. 8.7 days, p=0.034). The median follow-up in the 3-RA RRH and 2-RA RRH groups was 29 and 50 months till March 2023. The 3-RA RRH and 2-RA RRH groups' recurrence rates were 2% (1/50) and 5.4% (3/56), respectively. The mortality in the 3-RA RRH and 2-RA RRH groups was 2% (1/50) and 3.5% (2/56), respectively.

Conclusion

Our study suggested that replacing the uterine manipulator via the 3^rd RA is viable; the results showed comparable surgical outcomes between the two methods. Thus, 3-RA RRH could be considered a well-executed surgical option in well-selected patients.

Effect of modified radical laparoscopic hysterectomy versus open radical hysterectomy on short-term clinical outcomes in early-stage cervical cancer: a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The long-term prognosis of minimally invasive surgery and open surgery for early cervical cancer is controversial. This study mainly discusses the feasibility and effectiveness of the endocutter in radical laparoscopic hysterectomy for early cervical cancer.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial of modified radical laparoscopic hysterectomy on patients with FIGO stage IA1 (lymphovascular invasion), IA2, and IB1 cervical cancer, between January 2020 and July 2021. Patients were randomly assigned into laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and open radical hysterectomy (ORH) groups. The ORH group used right-angle sealing forceps for vaginal stump closure, whereas the LRH group used endoscopic staplers. The primary outcomes included the evaluation of the patient's perioperative indicators, as well as short- and long-term complications. Recurrence and overall survival were considered secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

As of July 2021, 17 patients were enrolled in the laparoscopic surgery group and 17 in the open surgery group. The hospitalization time of the laparoscopic group was significantly shorter than those of the open group (15 min vs. 9 min, P < 0.001). The vaginal stump closure time in the laparoscopic group was longer than that in the open surgery group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Post-operative catheter removal (P = 0.72), drainage tube removal time (P = 0.27), number of lymph node dissections (P = 0.72), and incidence of intraoperative and post-operative complications between the two groups (P > 0.05). The median blood loss in the laparoscopic group was 278 ml, and it was 350 ml in the laparotomy group. The intraoperative blood transfusion rate was lower in the laparoscopic group; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.175). Vaginal margin pathology and peritoneal lavage cytology were negative, and all the patient's vaginal stumps healed without infection. The median follow-up time of the laparoscopic group was 20.5 months, and it was 22 months for the open surgery group. There was no recurrence in all patients during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Modified LRH with endocutter closure of the vaginal stump is an effective approach and not inferior to ORH in treating patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2000030160, date of registration February 26, 2020 ( https://www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=49809 ).

Beyond Sentinel Lymph Node: Outcomes of Indocyanine Green-Guided Pelvic Lymphadenectomy in Endometrial and Cervical Cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of our study was to compare the number of lymph nodes removed during indocyanine green (ICG)-guided laparoscopic/robotic pelvic lymphadenectomy with standard systematic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (EC) and cervical cancer (CC).

METHODS

This is a multicenter retrospective comparative study (Clinical Trial ID: NCT04246580; updated on 31 January 2023). Women affected by EC and CC who underwent laparoscopic/robotic systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy, with (cases) or without (controls) the use of ICG tracer injection within the uterine cervix, were included in the study.

RESULTS

The two groups were homogeneous for age (p = 0.08), Body Mass Index, International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages (p = 0.41 for EC; p = 0.17 for CC), median estimated blood loss (p = 0.76), median operative time (p = 0.59), and perioperative complications (p = 0.66). Nevertheless, the number of lymph nodes retrieved during surgery was significantly higher (p = 0.005) in the ICG group (n = 18) compared with controls (n = 16).

CONCLUSIONS

The accurate and precise dissection achieved with the use of the ICG-guided procedure was associated with a higher number of lymph nodes removed in the case of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy for EC and CC.

Does Vaginal Cuff Creation and Avoidance of a Uterine Manipulator Improve the Prognosis of Total Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for Early Cervical Cancer? A Retrospective Multicenter Study

Our goal was to compare the treatment outcomes of open-abdominal radical hysterectomy (O-RH) and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLRH) with vaginal cuff creation and without using a uterine manipulator in stage IB1-B2 (tumor size < 4 cm) cervical cancer cases. In this retrospective multicenter analysis, 94 cervical cancer stage IB1-B2 patients who underwent O-RH or TLRH in six hospitals in Japan between September 2016 and July 2020 were included; 36 patients underwent TLRH. Propensity score matching was performed because the tumor diameter was large, and positive cases of lymph node metastases were included in the O-RH group due to selection bias. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and recurrence sites of TLRH and O-RH. PFS and OS (overall survival) were not significant in both the TLRH (n = 27) and O-RH (n = 27) groups; none required conversion to laparotomy. The maximum tumor size was <2 and ≥2 cm in 12 (44.4%) and 15 (55.6%) patients, respectively, in both groups. Reportedly, the TLRH group had lesser bleeding than the O-RH group (p < 0.001). Median follow-up was 33.5 (2−65) and 41.5 (6−75) months in the TLRH and O-RH groups, respectively. PFS and OS were not significantly different between the two groups (TLRH: 92.6%, O-RH: 92.6%; log-rank p = 0.985 and 97.2%, 100%; p = 0.317, respectively). The prognosis of early cervical cancer was not significantly different between TLRH and O-RH. Tumor spillage was prevented by creating a vaginal cuff and avoiding the use of a uterine manipulator. Therefore, TLRH might be considered efficient.

Retrospective Comparison of Laparoscopic versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer in a Single Tertiary Care Institution from Lithuania between 2009 and 2019

Background and Objectives: A great debate within the academic arena was evoked by the LACC study, giving rise to doubt regarding the oncological outcomes of the laparoscopic approach for early-stage cervical cancer. This encouraged us to conduct a retrospective analysis of CC treatment surgical approaches applied to the patients at tertiary level Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Clinics, Vilnius, Lithuania, between 2009 and 2019. Materials and Methods: The retrospective study was carried out to evaluate the outcomes after 28 laparoscopic and 62 laparotomic radical hysterectomies for early cervical cancer in a single tertiary care institution performed during the period 2009–2019. For statistical analysis of patients’ parameters, SPSS v. 17.0 was applied, together with the Kaplan–Meier method with a long-rank test and the Cox proportional hazard regression model used for bi-variate analysis determining OS outcomes between MIS and open-surgery groups. Results: After computing data with the Cox regression model, there was no significant difference of the 36-months overall survival between laparoscopy and laparotomy groups, as opposed to the LACC study. Conclusions: Our tertiary institution faces a considerable challenge, and we acknowledge the limitations of the study and also feel a responsibility to follow the latest guidelines. Currently, it appears that the most substantial attention should be focused on the cessation of uterine manipulator use as well as laparoscopic technique learning curves.

Radical Hysterectomy After the LACC Trial: Back to Radical Vaginal Surgery

OPINION STATEMENT

Classical radical vaginal hysterectomy first performed by Anton Pawlik in Prague in 1888 and popularized by Frederic Schauta is now a historical technique virtually abandoned due to painful perineal incision, a high rate of urinary dysfunction, and the inability to perform lymph node assessment. However, the heritage of this approach has been still used and taught in a few centers outside their Austrian birthplace. A combined vaginal and laparoscopic approach was developed in the 1990s by French and German surgeons who designed diverse surgical techniques for which a novel classification is proposed. All these techniques are different from the so-called laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH), a term widely used for laparoscopic radical hysterectomies with vaginal extraction of the specimen. Interestingly, after the publication of the LACC trial (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer), the radical vaginal approach has found a very timely application. The creation of a vaginal cuff before performing radical laparoscopic hysterectomy described in 2007 by Leblanc as "Schautheim" operation can be used as a protective maneuver to avoid tumor spillage and potentially overturn the negative outcome of minimally invasive surgery in early-stage cervical cancer. As a result, the combination of radical vaginal and laparoscopic steps of surgery is one possible evolution after the LACC trial that needs further investigation. The forgotten vaginal surgical technique needs a specific learning curve. The creation of a vaginal cuff should be mastered by every gynecological oncologist.

Retrospective Analysis of Cervical Cancer Treatment Outcomes: Ten Years of Experience with the Vaginal Assisted Radical Laparoscopic Hysterectomy VARLH

Background

LACC trial demonstrated inferiority of laparoscopic approach for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. There are still limited data from retrospective trials regarding whether survival outcomes after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy are equivalent to those after open abdominal radical hysterectomy. In this study, we present results of combined vaginal radical laparoscopic hysterectomy in the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer.

Methods

This retrospective study was carried out at the Department of Gynecology in Mathilden Hospital (Herford, Germany). Between January 2008 and April 2018, all the patients with invasive cervical cancer who underwent combined vaginal assisted radical laparoscopic hysterectomy (VARLH) without the use of any uterine manipulator were enrolled to the study.

Results

A total number of 124 patients with diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer were enrolled in the study. All of the patients underwent minimally invasive surgery and were divided according to FIGO 2019: stage IA (25.9%), IB1 (25.0%), IB2-IIB (28.4%), and III/IV (20.7%). Overall, the mean age of the patients was 51.84 years. After a study collection, a median follow-up was 45.6 (range 23.7-76.5) months. The 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates for early-stage cervical cancer were both 98%, and the 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 100% and 97%, respectively. We have not observed any recurrence in our study group of patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

Conclusions

Combined VARLH can be considered a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. Surgical strategy with oncological principles determines the quality and long-term success of the operation in early cervical cancer regardless of laparoscopic approach.

Minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer

In recent years, minimally invasive surgery has replaced open surgery for almost all surgical indications in gynecological practice. Recently, the results of the laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer (LACC) trial questioned the role of minimally invasive surgery for patients affected by early-stage cervical cancer. In the present paper, we discussed the current evidence regarding the adoption of minimally invasive surgery for patients with cervical cancer. We evaluated the current evidence focusing on four interesting features: 1) the impact of tumor volume; 2) reasons explaining worse outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery; 3) methods to reduce the risk of recurrence during minimally invasive surgery; and 4) the effect of minimally invasive surgery in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. At the moment, in the light of current evidence, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy should be offered only in the context of clinical trials. Extensive counseling and appropriate patients' selection are needed. Further prospective evidence is warranted to identify the better approach for cervical cancer patients.

Surgical Approach and Use of Uterine Manipulator Are Not Associated with LVSI in Surgery for Early-stage Cervical Cancer

STUDY OBJECTIVE

In 2018, the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial reported that patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer (CC) had poorer outcomes than patients undergoing open surgery. Several hypotheses have been made to explain the results. We aimed to investigate whether laparoscopic procedures and use of a uterine manipulator increase the risk of lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) in early-stage CC.

DESIGN

A retrospective study.

SETTING

A Chinese women's and children's hospital.

PATIENTS

Patients with early-stage CC who underwent radical hysterectomy in West China Second University Hospital between April 2019 and May 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Laparoscopic surgery (with uterine manipulator and uterine manipulator-free) and open surgery.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 979 patients diagnosed with CC were registered in West China Second University Hospital for surgical treatment. Of these, 525 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery and 454 patients underwent open surgery. In total, 735 patients with early-stage cancer underwent radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, including 357 by laparoscopic surgery and 378 by open surgery. For those who underwent radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, the incidence of LVSI was 48.41% and 47.34% in laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (p = .771). After 1:1 propensity score matching with age, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, pathology, and tumor size, the incidence of LVSI was 45.54% and 51.79% in laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (p = .186). Subdividing the laparoscopic group into uterine manipulator and uterine manipulator-free groups, the incidence of LVSI was 45.22% and 48.35%, respectively (p = .580). After propensity score matching with age, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, pathology, and tumor size, the incidence of LVSI was 45.78% and 55.42% in these 2 groups, respectively (p = .214). Multiple factor analysis revealed that lymph node metastasis and deep stromal invasion were associated with LVSI (p value <.05 in both groups).

CONCLUSION

The surgical approach and use of a uterine manipulator are not associated with LVSI in surgery for early-stage CC. Lymph node metastasis and deep stromal invasion are associated with LVSI.