A case-controlled study of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in a fellowship training program

A meta-analysis examining the impact of open surgical therapy versus minimally invasive surgery on wound infection in females with cervical cancer

A meta-analysis study was executed to measure the effect of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgical management (OSM) on wound infection (WI) in female's cervical cancer (CC). A comprehensive literature study till February 2023 was applied and 1675 interrelated investigations were reviewed. The 41 chosen investigations enclosed 10 204 females with CC and were in the chosen investigations' starting point, 4294 of them were utilizing MIS, and 5910 were utilizing OSM. Odds ratio (OR) in addition to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were utilized to compute the value of the effect of MIS and OSM on WI in female's CC and by the dichotomous approaches and a fixed or random model. The MIS had significantly lower WI (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.15-0.35, p < 0.001) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%) and postoperative aggregate complications (PACs) (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.64, p < 0.001) in females with CC and compared OSM. However, MIS compared with OSM in females with CC and had no significant difference in pelvic infection and abscess (PIA) (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.31-1.16, p = 0.13). The MIS had significantly lower WI, and PACs, though, had no significant difference in PIA in females with CC and compared with OSM. However, care must be exercised when dealing with its values because of the low sample size of some of the nominated investigations for the meta-analysis.

Comparison of survival outcome of open, total laparoscopic, and laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy for stage IB2 cervical cancer patients: A multicenter retrospective study

The aim of this study was to compare survival outcomes of 3 different radical hysterectomy (RH) types, namely total abdominal radical hysterectomy (TARH), total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH), and laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH), in patients with FIGO stage IB2 cervical cancer. We retrospectively identified a cohort of patients who underwent RH for cervical cancer between 2010 and 2017. Patients with stage IB2 cervical cancer were included and were classified into TARH, TLRH, and LARVH treatment groups. Survival outcomes were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to estimate the independent association of RH technique with outcome. 194 patients were included in this study: 79 patients in the TARH group, 55 in the TLRH group, and 60 in the LARVH group. No significant differences were found in clinicopathological characteristics between the 3 RH groups. On comparing survival outcomes with TARH, both TLRH and LARVH showed no significant difference in terms of 5-year overall survival (TARH vs TLRH, P = .121 and TARH vs LARVH, P = .436). Conversely, compared to the TARH group, 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly worse in the TLRH group (P = .034) but not in the LARVH group (P = .288). Multivariate analysis showed that TLRH surgical approach (hazard ratio, 3.232; 95% confidence interval, 1.238-8.438; P = .017) was an independent prognostic factor for PFS in patients with IB2 cervical cancer. Our study suggests that in patients with FIGO stage IB2 cervical cancer, among the minimally invasive RH approaches, TLRH and LARVH, only TLRH approach was associated with worse PFS when compared with the TARH approach.

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.

The Future in Standards of Care for Gynecologic Laparoscopic Surgery to Improve Training and Education

Standards of care offer doctors and patients the confidence that an established quality, evidence-based, care is provided, and represent a tool for optimal responding to the population’s needs. It is expected that they will increasingly express a multimodal relationship with gynecologic laparoscopy. Laparoscopy is, now, a standard procedure in operative gynecology, standards are embedded in many laparoscopic procedures, standardization of the skills/competency assessment has been progressively developed, and the proof of competency in laparoscopy may become a standard of care. A continuous development of surgical education includes standard equipment (that may bring value for future advance), standardized training, testing (and performance) assessment, educational process and outcome monitoring/evaluation, patients’ care, and protection, etc. Standards of care and training have a reciprocally sustaining relationship, as training is an essential component of standards of care while care is provided at higher standards after a structured training and as credentialing/certification reunites the two. It is envisaged that through development and implementation, the European wide standards of care in laparoscopic surgery (in close harmonization with personalized medicine) would lead to effective delivery of better clinical services and provide excellent training and education.

Comparison of the complications between minimally invasive surgery and open surgical treatments for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis comprehensively compared intraoperative and postoperative complications between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and laparotomy in the management of cervical cancer. Even though the advantages of laparotomy over MIS in disease-free survival and overall survival for management of gynecological diseases have been cited in the literature, there is a lack of substantial evidence of the advantage of one surgical modality over another, and it is uncertain whether MIS is justifiable in terms of safety and efficacy.

METHODS

In this meta-analysis, the studies were abstracted that the outcomes of complications to compare MIS (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) and open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics classification stage IA1-IIB) cervical cancer. The primary outcomes were intraoperative overall complications, as well as postoperative aggregate complications. Secondary outcomes included the individual complications. Two investigators independently performed the screening and data extraction. All articles that met the eligibility criteria were included in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis finally included 39 non-randomized studies and 1 randomized controlled trial (8 studies were conducted on robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) vs open radical hysterectomy (ORH), 27 studies were conducted on laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) vs ORH, and 5 studies were conducted on all three approaches). Pooled analyses showed that MIS was associated with higher risk of intraoperative overall complications (OR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.07-1.86, P<0.05) in comparison with ORH. However, compared to ORH, MIS was associated with significantly lower risk of postoperative aggregate complications (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.34-0.48, P = 0.0143). In terms of individual complications, MIS appeared to have a positive effect in decreasing the complications of transfusion, wound infection, pelvic infection and abscess, lymphedema, intestinal obstruction, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and urinary tract infection. Furthermore, MIS had a negative effect in increasing the complications of cystotomy, bowel injury, subcutaneous emphysema, and fistula.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrates that MIS is superior to laparotomy, with fewer postoperative overall complications (wound infection, pelvic infection and abscess, lymphedema, intestinal obstruction, pulmonary embolism, and urinary tract infection). However, MIS is associated with a higher risk of intraoperative aggregate complications (cystotomy, bowel injury, and subcutaneous emphysema) and postoperative fistula complications.

A retrospective assessment of the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in Japan during the early years following its introduction: a Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group study (JGOG1081S)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer, in terms of morbidity and short-term oncologic outcome following LRH's introduction into Japan.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with early-stage cervical cancer (FIGO staging IA2, IB1, and IIA1) who underwent LRH from Dec 2014 to Dec 2016. We assessed the morbidity, overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS), and prognostic factors for RFS.

RESULTS

A total of 251 patients were included from 22 facilities across Japan. There were 8 cases of stage IA2 cervical cancer, 226 of IB1, and 17 of IIA1. The median operating time was 343 min and the median blood loss was 190 ml. Two patients (0.8%) had a postoperative complication with a Clavien-Dindo classification of grade 3 or higher. After a median follow-up time of 15.6 months, the 2-year RFS was 87.4%, and the 2-year OS was 97.8%. When the 2-year RFS rate was compared with whether the patient pathologically had tumors of less than 2 cm, versus 2 cm or more, the RFS was 95.8% and 80.4%, respectively. Multivariate analysis found that tumor size and the route of lymph node removal were independent prognostic factors for recurrence.

CONCLUSION

When LRH was first introduced into Japan, we found that the route of lymph node removal was an independent prognostic factor for recurrence in addition to large tumors (≥ 2 cm). Our results suggest that prognosis may be secured by paying attention to the lymph node removal route.

Comparison of long-term survival of total abdominal radical hysterectomy and laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: Korean multicenter, retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare survival outcomes of total abdominal radical hysterectomy (TARH) versus laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) in stage IA2-IB2 cervical cancer.

METHODS

812 patients who underwent RH between 2008 and 2017 were evaluated in 3 institutions. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank test. The clinical noninferiority of the LARVH to TARH was assessed with a margin of -7.2%. Noninferiority was demonstrated if the low limit of 95% confidence interval (CI) exceeded its predefined margin.

RESULTS

258 patients were treated with TARH and 252 patients with LARVH. TARH and LARVH group had similar 5-year PFS (84.4% vs 86.6%, p = 0.467) and OS rates (85.8% vs 88.0%, p = 0.919). Noninferiority of LARVH to TARH were confirmed with 5-year PFS and OS difference rates of 2.2% (95% CI -2.9-7.3, p = 0.001) and 2.2% (95% CI -2.7-7.1, p = 0.001), respectively. In subgroup of patients with tumors size >2 cm, 5-year PFS (77.6% vs 79.0%, p = 0.682) and OS rates (79.2% vs 81.5%, p = 0.784) did not differ statistically between the two groups. Noninferiority of LARVH to TARH were also confirmed with 5-year PFS and OS difference rates of 1.4% (95% CI -7.0-9.8, p = 0.046) and 2.3% (95% CI -5.8-10.4, p = 0.027), respectively.

CONCLUSION

LARVH showed significant noninferiority for PFS and OS versus TARH in early cervical cancer, suggesting the potential oncologic safety of LARVH.

Survival After Minimally Invasive vs. Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background: The comparison of survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery for cervical cancer patients remains controversial. We evaluated the survival outcomes of cervical cancer patients who underwent different surgical approaches.

Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to February 2020, using the MESH terms “minimally invasive surgical procedures” and “Uterine Cervical Neoplasms.” Included were all original comparative studies and trials both published and unpublished in English that were related to minimally invasive surgery and open surgery for cervical cancer patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage < IIB. Begg's and Egger's regressions were used to evaluate publication bias.

Results: This meta-analysis included 28 studies enrolling 18,961 patients with cervical cancer. The overall analyses indicated that cervical cancer patients with FIGO 2009 stage < IIB who underwent minimally invasive surgery had a lower rate of OS (HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.06–1.92, P = 0.019) and DFS (HR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.21–1.85, P < 0.001) than those who underwent open surgery. Moreover, minimally invasive surgery could lower OS (HR = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.50–3.52, P < 0.001) and DFS (HR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.36–2.76, P < 0.001) of cervical cancer patients with FIGO 2009 stage ≤ IB1 compared to open surgery. However, there were no significant differences in OS (HR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.65–1.76, P = 0.801) and DFS (HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.65–2.19, P = 0.559) in patients with tumors < 2 cm between the two groups.

Conclusions: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with poor survival outcomes compared to open surgery. Patients with FIGO 2009 stage ≤ IB1 cervical cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery have lower OS and DFS rates than those who underwent open surgery. Therefore, open surgery should be performed for cervical cancer patients. However, patients with tumors < 2 cm might take the most advantage of minimally invasive surgery without increasing poor prognosis. There are some limitations in the meta-analysis, which needs further high-quality multicenter studies to confirm and update our findings.

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy has higher risk of perioperative urologic complication than abdominal radical hysterectomy: a meta-analysis of 38 studies

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis was performed to assess risks of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).

METHODS

We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library for studies published up to December, 2018. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of published studies were also performed. Two researchers independently performed data extraction. Inclusion criteria of studies were: (1) had information of perioperative complications, and (2) had at least ten patients per group.

RESULTS

A total of 38 eligible clinical trials were collected. Intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications were reported by 34 studies and 35 studies, respectively. When all studies were pooled, odd ratios (OR) of LRH for the risk of intraoperative urologic complications compared to abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) was 1.40 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.87]. The OR of LRH for postoperative complication risk compared to ARH was 1.35 [95% CI 1.01-1.80]. However, significant adverse effects of intraoperative urologic complications in LRH were not observed among articles published after 2012 (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.77-1.62) in cumulative meta-analysis or subgroup analysis. The incidence of bladder injury was statistically higher than that of ureter injury (p = 0.001). In subgroup analysis, obesity and laparoscopic type (laparoscopic assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy) were associated with intraoperative urologic complications.

CONCLUSION

LRH is associated with significantly higher risk of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications than abdominal radical hysterectomy.

The two Achilles heels of surgical randomized controlled trials: differences in surgical skills and reporting of average performance

Randomized controlled trials of surgery are fundamentally different from randomized controlled trials of medications because it is difficult to blind or mask a surgical procedure or perform "sham" operations. An additional challenge is the variation in skills and surgical proficiency of participating centers and surgeons. Addressing heterogeneity in surgical proficiency remains of paramount importance, especially when randomized controlled trials involve a new or complex procedure such as minimally invasive radical surgery. In the presence of such heterogeneity, it is very cumbersome to evaluate objectively and monitor surgical skills so that most trials simply report associations that are averaged across surgeons and hospitals/centers. Such reporting is not transparent because the rates of complications and adverse outcomes are reported only as averages, and these averages may not apply to the individual participating surgeons or centers. These factors, coupled with the inherent nongeneralizability of findings from such randomized controlled trials, because of the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria for enrollment, may lead to conclusions that no longer apply to real life for individual surgeons or centers. Case in point is a recently published noninferiority randomized controlled trial that reported that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with lower rates of disease-free survival (86% vs 96.5% at 4.5 years) and overall survival (93.8% vs 99% at 3 years) than open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer. However, randomized controlled trials that involve 2 competing complex or new procedures may be affected by tremendous confounding because of variations in surgical proficiency and also nonstandardization for other confounding factors such as patient selection categories (ie, stage of cancer) and adjuvant postoperative therapies that may affect long-term survival. The purpose of this Viewpoint is not to provide an exhaustive review of the trial's shortcomings but to use it as an illustration to focus on 2 challenging areas that most randomized controlled trials of a new complex surgical procedure suffer from: (1) unadjusting or not correcting for surgical skill variability and (2) nontransparent reporting of averaged results. We provide suggestions to overcome these deficiencies through robust methods and statistical approaches.

Impact of hospital care volume on clinical outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In cervical cancer, the impact of hospital volume of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) has not been investigated systematically as in ovarian cancer.The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of hospital care volume of LRH on treatment outcomes of patients with cervical cancer.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched with the terms "cervical cancer," "radical hysterectomy," and "laparoscopy." The selection criteria included studies presenting operative outcomes and/or perioperative complications of LRH from high-volume hospitals (HVHs) (≥15 cases/year) and low-volume hospitals (LVHs) (<15 cases/year). Fifty-nine studies including 4367 cases were selected. Linear regression analysis weighted by the average annual case number in each study was performed to evaluate differences between the groups.

RESULTS

In HVH, a higher number of lymph nodes (24.5 vs 21.1; P = .037) were retrieved by LRH in older women (48.4 vs 44.5 years; P = .010) with tendencies of shorter operation time (224.4 vs 256.4 minutes; P = .096) and less blood loss (253.1 vs 322.2 mL; P = .080). Compared with LVH, HVH had fewer patients with stage IA disease (13.8 vs 24.4%; P = .003) and more patients with stage IIA disease (15.3 vs 7.1%; P = .052) with comparable 5-year overall survival (93.1 vs 88.6%; P = .112).

CONCLUSION

HVH is a prognostic factor for operative outcome and perioperative complications in patients with cervical cancer undergoing LRH. The exact effect of hospital volume on survival outcome needs to be evaluated.

Predictive factors of severe perioperative morbidity of radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: A French prospective multicentric cohort of 248 patients

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the postoperative morbidity after radical hysterectomy (RH) for early-stage cervical cancer and to determine risk factors of severe perioperative morbidity.

METHODS

Data of two prospective trials on sentinel node biopsy for cervical cancer (SENTICOL I & II) were analysed. Patients having a radical hysterectomy were included between 2005 and 2012 from 25 French oncologic centers. Postoperative complications were prospectively recorded in a pre-specified analysis.

RESULTS

248 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median age was 44.5 years [25-85]. 88.7% of patients had a stage IB1 disease. There were 71.4% epidermoid carcinomas and 25% adenocarcinomas. 125 patients (50.4%) had a laparoscopic-assisted vaginal RH, 88 patients (35.5%) had a total laparoscopic RH, 26 patients (10.5%) had an open RH and 9 patients (3.6%) had a robotic-assisted RH. Sixteen patients (6.4%) had intraoperative complications. On a multivariate analysis, intraoperative complications were significantly associated with BMI >30 kg/m². The urinary, lymphovascular and neurologic complications rates were respectively 34.3%, 20.6% and 19.8%. 31 patients (12.5%) had severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 or CTCAE ≥ 3). On multivariate analysis, severe postoperative complications were associated with parametrial involvement, preoperative brachytherapy and inclusion in low surgical skills center.

CONCLUSIONS

This study based on prospective data showed that RH has low severe postoperative complications. The main complications were urinary infections and lower limb lymphedema. Patients with early-stage cervical cancer should be referred to expert center to ensure best surgical outcomes.

Radical Hysterectomy: Efficacy and Safety in the Dawn of Minimally Invasive Techniques

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effect that the introduction of minimally invasive procedures has had on surgical and oncologic outcomes when compared with conventional open radical hysterectomy (ORH) in a national reference cancer after 17 years of experience in radical hysterectomy.

DESIGN

A prospective controlled study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

A university teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

All patients who underwent radical hysterectomy as primary treatment for cervical cancer in our institution between May 1999 and June 2016, with a total of 188 patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients underwent ORH or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (i.e., laparoscopic or robotically assisted radical hysterectomy).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-six patients underwent ORH, 90 laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, and 22 robotically assisted radical hysterectomy. Blood loss and hospital stay were inferior in the MIS group (p <.0001). The laparotomic group presented shorter operation times (p = .0001). With a median follow-up of 112.4 months, a total of 156 patients (83%) were alive and free of disease at the time of the data analysis. Overall survival was higher in the MIS group when compared with the ORH group (91 vs 78.9, p = .026). There were no differences regarding recurrence rates between the surgical approaches.

CONCLUSION

With 1 of the largest follow-up periods in the literature, this study provides added evidence that MIS could become the preferable surgical approach for early-stage cervical cancer since it appears to reduce morbidity without affecting oncologic results.

Surgical Treatment of Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

Surgical treatment of cervical cancer has been a cornerstone in the management of this malignancy for more than 100 years. Today, for early-stage and low-risk cervical cancer, surgery is still considered the gold standard. If the preoperative assessment of the tumor reveals a situation prompting postoperative adjuvant radiochemotherapy, the latter should be planned as the primary treatment option, being preceded by staging laparoscopy including pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection. As an alternative to the open approach, the definitive surgical treatment should be either performed laparoscopically, or be laparoscopic-assisted, or laparoscopically robotic-assisted.

Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer

Background

The possible advantages of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) versus open radical hysterectomy (RH) have not been well reviewed systematically. The aim of this study was to systematically review the comparative effectiveness between LRH and RH in the treatment of cervical cancer based on the evaluation of the Perioperative outcomes, oncological clearance, complications and long-term outcomes.

Methods

The systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and BIOSIS databases. All original studies that compared LRH with RH were included for critical appraisal. Data were pooled and analyzed.

Results

A total of twelve original studies that compared LRH (n = 754) with RH (n = 785) in patients with cervical cancer fulfilled quality criteria were selected for review and meta-analysis. LRH compared with RH was associated with a significant reduction of intraoperative blood loss (weighted mean difference = −268.4 mL (95 % CI −361.6, −175.1; p < 0.01), a reduced risk of postoperative complications (OR = 0.46; 95 % CI 0.34–0.63) and shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference = −3.22 days; 95 % CI–4.21, −2.23 days; p < 0.01). These benefits were at the cost of longer operative time (weighted mean difference = 26.9 min (95 % CI 8.08–45.82). The rate of intraoperative complications was similar in the two groups. Lymph nodes yield and positive resection margins were similar between the two groups. There were no significant differences in 5-year overall survival (HR 0.91, 95 % CI 0.48–1.71; p = 0.76) and 5-year disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95 % CI 0.56–1.68; p = 0.91).

Conclusions

LRH shows better short term outcomes compared with RH in patients with cervical cancer. The oncologic outcome and 5-year survival were similar between the two groups.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1818-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prognostic and Safety Roles in Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: A Meta-analysis

Objective: Studies comparing the prognostic results between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in cervical cancer reported contradictory results. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic and safety roles of LRH by pooling studies in a meta-analysis.

Materials and Methods: Original articles were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The survival results (5-year disease-free survival [DFS], 5-year overall survival [OS], and recurrence rate [RR]), safety parameters (intra-, peri-, and postoperative complication rates and postoperative bowel or bladder recovery days), efficiency parameters (pelvic/para-aortic lymph nodes removed), and other parameters (operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital of stay) between the two approaches were reviewed.

Results: For the 2922 cases identified, DFS, OS, and RR did not differ in balanced prognostic factors, including lymph node metastasis, Stage IIB or above, non–squamous cancer histology, grade G3, lymphovascular space invasion, tumor size ≥4 cm, and positive parametrial and vaginal margin rates. Meanwhile, LRH was associated with higher complication rates and a shorter time to the recovery of bowel or bladder function than for ARH. The number of removed pelvic or para-aortic lymph nodes did not significantly differ. Other parameters showed LRH was associated with a longer operative time, less blood loss, and a shorter length of hospital stay. The survival and prognostic results did not differ in balanced prognostic factors.

Conclusions: LRH is safe and has lower operative complication rates than ARH.

Total Laparoscopic Versus Laparotomic Radical Hysterectomy and Lymphadenectomy in Cervical Cancer: An Observational Study of 13-Year Experience

This article aims to review our 13-year experience in the treatment of patients with cervical cancer by comparing total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy with laparotomy.We reviewed all patients undergoing total laparoscopic or laparotomic radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy because of cervical cancer between 2001 and 2014 in our hospital.In total, 154 eligible patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Ia-IIb were enrolled, including 106 patients undergoing total laparoscopic procedure and 48 patients undergoing laparotomic procedure. In the present study, patients in total laparoscopy group were associated with superior surgical outcomes, such as significantly lower blood transfusion compared to those in laparotomy group. Furthermore, patients had significantly lower postoperative complication rate in total laparoscopy group compared with that in laparotomy group (24.5% vs 52.1%) (P = 0.001). Three patients (2.8%) in total laparoscopy group had unplanned conversion to laparotomy. Disease-free survival rates were 89.7% and 88.9% in total laparoscopy and laparotomy groups (P = 0.39), respectively, and overall survival rates were 90.2% in total laparoscopy group and 91.3% in laparotomy group (P = 0.40).Total laparoscopic procedure is a surgically and oncologically safe and reliable alternative to laparotomic procedure in the treatment for cervical cancer.

Current and Future Status of Laparoscopy in Gynecologic Oncology

Laparoscopy is playing an increasingly important role in gynecologic oncology. The benefits of minimally invasive surgery for oncology patients and the quality of this treatment are well documented. Outcomes and quality of minimally invasive surgical procedures to treat cervical cancer were evaluated based on retrospective and case-control studies; outcomes and quality after minimally invasive treatment für early-stage low-risk endometrial cancer were also assessed in prospective randomized studies. If indicated, laparoscopic lymphadenectomy is both technically feasible and oncologically safe. Adipose patients in particular benefit from minimally invasive procedures, where feasible. The potential role of laparoscopy in neoadjuvant therapy for ovarian cancer and in surgery for early-stage ovarian carcinoma is still controversially discussed and is currently being assessed in further studies. Using a minimally invasive approach in gynecologic oncology procedures demands strict adherence to oncological principles and requires considerable surgical skill.

Clinical efficacy and safety of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Backgroud and Objective

Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) may be associated with lower postoperative morbidity than radical hysterectomy (RH). We aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of abdominal or laparoscopic NSRH and RH for treating cervical cancer through systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were systematically searched for all relevant studies. Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers. A meta-analysis was performed to compare intra- and postoperative outcomes for the two techniques.

Results

A total of 17 clinical trials were identified. Meta-analysis showed that although operating time was significantly longer for abdominal or laparoscopic NSRH than for RH, NSRH based on laparotomy or laparoscopy proved more effective for postoperative recovery of bladder function. NSRH was also associated with lower bladder dysfunction morbidity and fewer postoperative complications. Two abdominal trials and one laparoscopic study further suggested that NSRH was associated with shorter time to recovery of anal/rectal function. In contrast, RH and NSRH based on laparotomy or laparoscopy were similar in terms of extent of resection, recurrence rate, survival rate, blood loss and frequency of intraoperative complications. The meta-analysis showed that abdominal NSRH was not significantly different from RH in length of hospital stay, while one trial suggested that length of hospital stay was shorter after laparoscopic NSRH than after the corresponding RH.

Conclusion

NSRH may be a reliable technique for treating early cervical cancer. Available evidence suggests that it is better than RH for postoperative recovery of pelvic organ function and postoperative morbidity, while the two techniques involve similar clinical safety and extent of resection. These results should be considered preliminary since they are based on a relatively small number of controlled trials, most of which were non-randomized. The findings should be verified in larger, well-designed studies.

Postoperative pain and perioperative outcomes after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Non-randomised studies have suggested that the postoperative complications of (Campos LS, Limberger LF, Stein AT, Kalil AN) laparoscopic radical hysterectomy are similar to those in abdominal radical hysterectomy. However, no study evaluating postoperative pain comparing both techniques has been published thus far. Our objective was to compare pain intensity and other perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in early cervical cancer.

METHODS

This single centre, randomised, controlled trial enrolled 30 cervical cancer patients who were clinically staged IA2 with lymph vascular invasion and IB according to the FIGO (International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics) classification, and underwent LRH or ARH between late 1999 and early 2004. Postoperative pain, as measured by a 10-point numerical rate scale, was considered the primary endpoint. Postoperative pain was assessed every six hours during a patient's usual postoperative care. Perioperative outcomes were also registered. Both surgical techniques were executed by the same surgical team. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative and other postoperative surgicopathological factors and 5-year survival rates.

RESULTS

IA2 patients with lymphatic vascular space invasion and IB cervical cancer patients were randomised to either the LRH group (16 patients) or the ARH group (14 patients). Four patients (25%) in the LRH group and 5 patients (36%) in the ARH group presented with transoperative or serious postoperative complications. All of the transoperative complications occurred in the LRH group. The relative risk of presenting with complications was 0.70; CI 95% (0.23-2.11); P = 0.694. LRH group mean pain score was significantly lower than ARH after 36 h of observation (P = 0.044; mean difference score: 1.42; 95% CI: 0.04-2.80). The survival results will be published elsewhere.

CONCLUSIONS

LRH provided lower pain scores after 36 h of observation in this series. The perioperative and serious postoperative complications ratios were comparable between the groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01258413.

Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB2 and IIA2 cervical cancer

OBJECTIVES

To compare survival and surgical outcomes of laparoscopic (LRH) and open radical hysterectomy (ORH) in patients with stage IB2 and IIA2 cervical cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 303 patients with stage IB2 and IIA2 cervical cancer who underwent LRH (n = 115) or ORH (n = 188).

RESULTS

Two patients (1.7%) in the LRH group required conversion to laparotomy. There was no difference with respect to operating time, perioperative change in hemoglobin level, and need for transfusion. However, in the LRH group, estimated blood loss (P = 0.003) was significantly lower, time to recovery of bowel movement (P < 0.001) and length of postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001) were significantly shorter, and postoperative complications were significantly less frequent (P = 0.036). The 5-year disease-free survival was 78% in the LRH group and 77% in the ORH group (P = 0.718), and 5-year overall survival was 83% in both groups (P = 0.746). There were no differences in pattern of recurrence (P = 0.225) and median time to recurrence (12 vs. 13 months; P = 0.240).

CONCLUSIONS

LRH has similar therapeutic efficacy to ORH in patients with bulky early-stage cervical cancer. However, LRH has more favorable surgical outcomes. Therefore, LRH is not only a reasonable alternative to ORH but also the preferred surgical procedure for these patients.

Two-Port Access Laparoscopic Surgery in Gynecologic Oncology

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of 2-port access (TPA) laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology.

Methods

This was a retrospective review of 81 consecutive patients who underwent TPA laparoscopic surgery for various gynecologic cancers from March 2009 to September 2011. The TPA system consisted of a single multichannel port at the umbilicus and an ancillary 5-mm port in the suprapubic area.

Results

The surgical procedures included comprehensive ovarian cancer staging (33 patients), radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection (19 patients), and endometrial cancer staging (29 patients). All surgical procedures were completed laparoscopically with no conversion to laparotomy. Two cases required 1 or 2 additional ports. The mean operating time, estimated blood loss, and number of lymph nodes were 253.8 minutes, 170.7 mL, and 34.9, respectively. Three patients (9.1%) with ovarian cancer and 4 patients (13.8%) with endometrial cancer were upstaged after surgery. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 6.6 days, and the mean postoperative pain scores (0–10 scale) were 3.4 at 6 hours, 3.0 at 24 hours, and 2.5 at 48 hours. Postoperative complications occurred at a low incidence (4.9%) and included one umbilical hernia, one vault dehiscence, and one lumbosacral nerve injury.

Conclusions

Two-port access laparoscopic surgery using a single multichannel port system is a feasible and safe procedure in selected patients with gynecologic cancers. Prospective randomized trials will permit the evaluation of the potential benefits of this minimally invasive surgical technique.

Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy for elderly patients with early-stage cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare surgical and survival outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) vs open radical hysterectomy (ORH) in elderly patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective analysis was performed on elderly patients (≥65 years) who underwent either LRH (n = 99) or ORH (n = 159) due to stage IA2-IIA2 cervical cancer.

RESULTS

One patient (1%) in LRH group required conversion to laparotomy. Operating time (P = .035), estimated blood loss (P = .002), recovery of bowel movement (P < .001), and postoperative hospital stay (P < .001) were significantly shorter or lower in LRH group. Postoperative complications were significantly less frequent in LRH group (P = .026). After the median follow-up time of 45 months, the 5-year disease-free survival (95% vs 93%, P = .350) and overall survival (96% vs 95%, P = .361) did not differ between LRH and ORH groups.

CONCLUSION

Elderly patients tolerated well both LRH and ORH. LRH was associated with better surgical outcomes compared to ORH without increasing intraoperative complications or decreasing survival.

Laparoscopic, robotic and open method of radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Over the last two decades, numerous studies have indicated the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery for early cervical cancer without compromising the oncological outcome.

OBJECTIVE

Systematic literature review and meta analysis aimed at evaluating the outcome of laparoscopic and robotic radical hysterectomy (LRH and RRH) and comparing the results with abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).

SEARCH STRATEGY

Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and Reference lists were searched for articles published until January 31(st) 2011, using the terms radical hysterectomy, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, robotic radical hysterectomy, surgical treatment of cervical cancer and complications of radical hysterectomy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies that reported outcome measures of radical hysterectomy by open method, laparoscopic and robotic methods were selected.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent reviewers selected studies, abstracted and tabulated the data and pooled estimates were obtained on the surgical and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Mean sample size, age and body mass index across the three types of RH studies were similar. Mean operation time across the three types of RH studies was comparable. Mean blood loss and transfusion rate are significantly higher in ARH compared to both LRH and RRH. Duration of stay in hospital for RRH was significantly less than the other two methods. The mean number of lymph nodes obtained, nodal metastasis and positive margins across the three types of RH studies were similar. Post operative infectious morbidity was significantly higher among patients who underwent ARH compared to the other two methods and a higher rate of cystotomy in LRH.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery especially robotic radical hysterectomy may be a better and safe option for surgical treatment of cervical cancer. The laparoscopic method is not free from complications. However, experience of surgeon may reduce the complications rate.

Laparoscopic compared with open radical hysterectomy in obese women with early-stage cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

To compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in obese women with early-stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

The medical records of 166 patients with stage IA2-IIA2 cervical cancer and a body mass index of at least 30 who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (n=54) or open radical hysterectomy (n=112) at the Asan Medical Center between 1998 and 2011 were reviewed.

RESULTS

None of the patients in the laparoscopic radical hysterectomy group required conversion to laparotomy. The resection margin was negative in 98.1% of the laparoscopic radical hysterectomy group and 98.2% of the open radical hysterectomy group (P=.976). No difference between the two groups was observed in terms of operating time, perioperative hemoglobin level change, transfusion requirement, or the number of retrieved lymph nodes. Compared with open radical hysterectomy, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was associated with a significant reduction in the following: interval to return of bowel movements (2 days compared with 2.7 days, P<.001); duration of postoperative hospital stay (9.3 days compared with 21 days, P<.001), postoperative complications (5.6% compared with 17.9%, P=.032), and estimated blood loss (494 mL compared with 620 mL, P=.009). After a median follow-up period of 44 months, the 5-year disease-free survival rate was 88% for the laparoscopic radical hysterectomy group and 85% for the open radical hysterectomy group (P=.682). The 5-year overall survival rate was 97% for the laparoscopic radical hysterectomy group and 90% for the open radical hysterectomy group (P=.220).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was a preferred alternative to open radical hysterectomy in the present cohort of obese women with early-stage cervical cancer because it is associated with a more favorable surgical outcome without compromising survival outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Early Stage Cervical Cancer: No Difference in Surgical or Disease Outcome

Objective

This study aimed to investigate in a retrospective study the effect of laparoscopic surgery, introduced in our center in 1994 as part of the standard treatment of early stage cervical cancer, on surgical and disease outcomes.

Patients and Methods

A total of 169 women with cervical carcinoma stage IB1 (n = 150) or IB2 (n = 19) were included in the study. Seventy-six patients who underwent laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND), followed either by open radical hysterectomy (n = 63) or, in case of positive lymph nodes, by primary chemoradiation (n = 13), were compared with an historic cohort of 93 patients who underwent a fully open, traditional Wertheim-Meigs procedure (WM). Recorded clinical characteristics of patients included age, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, histologic diagnosis, differentiation grade, tumor diameter, lymph node status, and adjuvant therapy. Operation time; lymph node yield; intraoperative, early, and late complications; site of recurrences; and disease-free and overall survival rates were analyzed and compared between groups.

Results

Clinical characteristics did not differ between groups. Duration of total surgery time was longer in patients with LPLND followed by open radical hysterectomy compared with that in the WM group (P< 0.001). In patients with negative lymph nodes (n = 129), the number of resected nodes was higher (P= 0.002) in the LPLND (median, 26 nodes; range, 8–55 nodes) than in the WM group (median, 21 nodes; range, 7–50 nodes). In patients with positive lymph nodes (n = 40), no significant difference in the number of resected lymph nodes between the 2 groups (P= 0.904) was found. Intraoperative, early, and late complications did not differ between the 2 surgical procedures. The number of locoregional recurrences, but not of distant metastases, was significantly higher (P= 0.018) in the WM group compared with the LPLND group. No difference in disease-free or disease-specific survival was found between the LPLND and WM group, neither with nor without adjuvant or primary (chemo)radiation. A benefit in disease-free survival (P= 0.044), but not in disease-specific survival (P= 0.070), was found in the LPLND compared with the WM group in those patients who received adjuvant therapy or primary chemoradiation.

Conclusions

Introduction of a laparoscopic procedure in the surgical staging and treatment of cervical cancer patients did not have a detrimental effect on surgical or disease outcome, and this can be safely applied to the treatment of early stage cervical cancer.

Surgical and Oncological Outcome of Total Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Obese Women With Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

Objective

To evaluate the clinical experience of the total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) for the surgical management of cervical cancer in obese (body mass index [BMI] >30 kg/m2) and nonobese (BMI <30 kg/m2) women.

Methods

Data were collected prospectively on intraoperative and postoperative parameters and complications for all women undergoing a TLRH for cervical cancer. Patients were classified as obese, BMI >30 kg/m2, or nonobese, BMI <30 kg/m2. Assessment of surgical radicality was made by comparing the excision specimens in the 2 groups with a cohort of open radical hysterectomy cases performed before the introduction of the TLRH.

Results

A total of 58 women underwent a TLRH; 15 (25.9%) were obese and 43 (74.1%) were in the nonobese group. There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss or median duration of surgery between the obese and nonobese groups. The median hospital stay in both groups was 3 days (range, 2–13 days). Four cases were converted to laparotomy (7%); all were in the nonobese group. Postoperatively, 3 patients developed ischemic ureterovaginal fistulae (5%) between days 5 and 7 after surgery; all were in the nonobese group. There was no significant difference in the parametrial length, maximum vaginal cuff length, and number of lymph nodes excised between the 2 groups. To date, there has been one recurrence during the median follow-up period of 19 months (range, 3–42 months). She belonged to the nonobese group.

Conclusions

The TLRH is a surgically safe procedure for early-stage cervical cancer. Obesity did not adversely affect the performance of TLRH or the radicality of the excision. In obese women, TLRH should be the favored route of surgery for all women who require a radical hysterectomy owing to its favorable perioperative outcome and short hospital stay.

Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

To compare the long-term survival outcomes between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and open radical hysterectomy (ORH).

METHOD

We matched patients with stage IA2 to IIA cervical cancer with known risk factors for recurrence who underwent ORH and LRH.

RESULTS

Compared with ORH (n = 263), LRH (n = 263) did not have higher risks of recurrence [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-2.64] or death (HR = 1.46; 95% CI 0.62-3.43). Even in patients with tumors >2 cm in diameter, the risks of recurrence (HR = 0.82; 95% CI 0.31-2.16) or death (HR = 1.01; 95% CI 0.35-2.95) were not higher for LRH than for ORH. The LRH and ORH group had 5-year recurrence-free survival rates of 92.8% and 94.4%, respectively (P = 0.499). LRH resulted in significantly lower estimated blood loss (379.6 versus 541.1 ml, P < 0.001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (12.5 versus 20.3 days, P < 0.001). Intraoperative complication rates were similar in the two groups (6.8% versus 5.7%, P = 0.711), but postoperative complication rate was lower in the LRH than in the ORH group (9.2% versus 21%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

LRH is an oncologically safe alternative to ORH and was associated with fewer postoperative complication and earlier recovery.

A comparative study of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with radical abdominal hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a long-term follow-up study

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) is a feasible alternative to radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH) for early-stage cervical cancer.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective, matched case-control study of 24 consecutive cases with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I-II cervical cancer who underwent LRH by a single surgeon between January 1994 and December 2001. Cases were matched with controls (ratio 1:2) who underwent RAH by surgeon, age, stage and histology. Patient characteristics, clinical course, intra-operative complications and disease-free survival were compared between the two groups. Median counts were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Differences between means were compared using Student's t-test. Dichotomous groupings were analyzed using Chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test as appropriate. Survival data were estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared with the log-rank test.

RESULTS

The mean estimated blood loss in the RAH group was significantly greater than that in the LRH group (836.0 ml and 414.3 ml, respectively; p<0.001). Five patients (20.8%) from the LRH group and 23 patients (47.9%) from the RAH group received blood transfusion (p<0.03). The mean length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LRH group compared with the RAH group (10.7 days and 18.8 days, respectively; p<0.01). No statistically significant difference existed between the two groups with respect to operative time, pelvic lymph node count, frequency of lymph node involvement, extent of parametrial or vaginal resection margins, adjuvant treatment and intra-operative complications. Median follow-up was 78 months for the LRH group and 75 months for the RAH group. There was no significant difference in the 5-year disease-free survival rate between the groups (90.5% and 93.3% for LRH and RAH, respectively; p=0.918).

CONCLUSIONS

LRH is a useful alternative to RAH for the management of early-stage cervical cancer. The benefits of LRH include reduced blood loss, fewer transfusions and shorter hospital stay, with comparable oncologic outcome.

Place of Schauta's radical vaginal hysterectomy

Women affected by early stage invasive cancer of the cervix are usually treated by surgery. Radical abdominal hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy is the most widely used technique. Because the morbidity of the abdominal approach can be important, the radical vaginal hysterectomy has gained acceptance in gynaecologic oncology. New instrumentation in laparoscopy also opens the possibility of treating cervical cancer by laparoscopically assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy and also total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. Before these techniques become widely accepted, it has to be shown that safety and efficacy are comparable with the 'standard' abdominal approach. In this chapter, we review the technique of radical vaginal hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy and evaluate results of published studies, comparing the abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic approaches.

Twelve-year experience with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in cervical cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate the morbidity, oncological outcome, and prognostic factors of cervical cancer patients treated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy (LRH).

METHODS

Patients with cervical cancer undergoing LRH at the First People's Hospital of Foshan between August 1998 and March 2010 were enrolled in this study. The medical records were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 240 patients were identified. According to FIGO stage, the number of patients with stage Ia2, Ib1, Ib2, IIa, and IIb was 2, 163, 34, 35, and 6, respectively. The conversion rate was 1.25%. Intraoperative and postoperative complications occurred in 7.08% and 9.16% patients, respectively. Other medical problems included 74 cases (30%) of bladder dysfunction. Excluding the lost cases, the median follow-up of 221 cases was 35 months, and 5-year survival rate for Ia2, Ib1, Ib2, IIa was 100%, 82%, 66%, 60%, respectively. Univariate analysis showed factors impacting the survival rate were FIGO stage>Ib1, non-squamous histologic type, deep cervical stromal invasion, and lymph node metastasis (P=0.027, 0.023, 0.007, 0.000). The Cox-proportional hazards regression analysis indicated that only lymph node metastasis (OR=3.827, P=0.000) was independent of poor prognostic factor. The 5-year survival rates in Ib1 were 88% with negative lymph nodes and 59% with positive lymph nodes (P=0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate that LRH can be performed in stage Ia2-Ib1 or less advanced node negative cervical cancer patients without compromising survival. The feasibility of LRH for more advanced patients needs further investigations.

Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for treatment of uterine malignant tumors: analysis of short-term therapeutic efficacy

To investigate the efficacy and the clinical value of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) for the treatment of uterine malignancies, we performed a retrospective review of 87 patients with cervical cancer and 23 patients with endometrial carcinoma who underwent TLRH at Union hospital between June 2008 and September 2009. Data collected included operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph node count, time for the recovery of normal temperature and time to resumption of normal bladder function, intraoperative and postoperative complications. The procedure was completed laparoscopically in 108 patients. Two patients were converted to laparotomy due to common iliac vein injury. The mean overall operative time was 200.6+/-38.6 min; the mean operative blood loss was 280.5+/-128.3 mL; he mean number of pelvic lymph nodes that were resected wa26. 0+/-5.8. The time for recovery of normal temperature and the normal bladder function after the operation was 5.8+/-2.9 d and 15.2+/-4.3 d. There were 2 (1.8%) common iliac vein injuries during the operation and 10 (9.1%) bladder retentions post operation. It was concluded that TLRH is feasible, minimally invasive and provides promise for the treatment of uterine malignancies.

Nerve-sparing and individually tailored surgery for cervical cancer

Cancer of the cervix is the second most common cancer in women worldwide, with about 500,000 new cases and 273,000 deaths reported annually. Ideal surgical management of cervical cancer should reduce early and late morbidity without compromising oncological disease control. Type of surgical radicality in early cervical cancer should be a consequence of exact preoperative and intraoperative assessments of risk factors. During the past 15 years, substantial progress has been made in understanding the neuroanatomy of the autonomic pelvic plexus. This progress has resulted in individually tailored surgery for cervical cancer. The concept of preservation of autonomic nerves during radical hysterectomy has become standard in many oncogynaecological centres. Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy and individually tailored surgery, in comparison with standard radical hysterectomy, have led to a much improved quality of life. Since 2008, there has been a new classification of radical hysterectomy, which includes nerve-sparing techniques. 5-year survival in early stage cervical cancer is 88-97% and more than 50% of women are younger than 50 years of age. Thus, we must take into consideration the quality of life of these patients. In this Review, we focus on the neuroanatomy of the pelvis and the possible damage of autonomic nerves, and suggest options for the sparing of these nerves during surgery for cervical cancer.

Early cervical cancer managed by laparoscopy and conventional surgery: comparison of treatment results

INTRODUCTION

The goal of this retrospective analysis was to compare the results of treatment in patients with early cervical cancer managed by laparoscopy with those for patients observed after laparotomy.

METHODS

The retrospective analysis was carried out with 22 patients operated on with total laparoscopic hysterectomy and 58 patients treated by abdominal hysterectomy. Patients with clinical tumor stage IA, IB1, or IIA were eligible for surgery. The main efficacy end point was disease-free survival evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method. The survival curves were compared using log-rank tests. In addition, length of hospitalization, duration of surgery, and complication rate were compared. P < 0.05 was set as statistically significant.

RESULTS

Predicted 3-year disease-free survival rates in the "open surgery" and "laparoscopy" groups were 0.86 (standard deviation [SD], 0.049) and 0.82 (SD, 0.098), respectively (P = 0.53). Recurrence rate was 13.6% after laparoscopy and 12% in open surgery. In 2 patients, intraperitoneal spread occurred after laparoscopy. The operation time was longer and hospitalization shorter after laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3-year disease-free survival was similar in both groups. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy may be an option in early cervical cancer; however, the intraperitoneal spread in 2 patients compels a search for possible risk factors in patients managed by laparoscopy.