Nerve sparing technique in robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy: results

Key Anatomical Concepts, Landmarks, and Proposed Terminology for Nerve-Sparing Gynecologic Surgery: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the terminology utilized in nerve-sparing surgical literature and propose standardized and nonconflicting terms to allow for consistent vocabulary.

DESIGN

We performed a literature search on PubMed using the search terms "pelvis" and "nerve-sparing." Nongynecologic surgery and animal studies were excluded. A narrative review was performed, focusing on nerves, fasciae, ligaments, and retroperitoneal spaces. Terms from included papers were discussed by all authors, who are surgeons versed in nerve-sparing procedures and one anatomist, and recommendations were made regarding the most appropriate terms based on the frequency of occurrence in the literature and the possibility of overlapping names with other structures.

RESULTS

224 articles were identified, with 81 included in the full-text review. Overall, 48% of articles focused on cervical cancer and 26% on deeply infiltrating endometriosis. Findings were synthesized both narratively and visually. Inconsistencies in pelvic anatomical nomenclature were prevalent across publications. The structure with the most varied terminology was the rectal branch of the inferior hypogastric plexus with 14 names. A standardized terminology for pelvic autonomic nerve structures, fasciae, ligaments, and retroperitoneal spaces was proposed to avoid conflicting terms.

CONCLUSION

Surgeons and anatomists should use consistent terminology to facilitate increased uptake of nerve-sparing techniques in gynecologic surgery through a better understanding of surgical technique description. We have proposed a standardized terminology believed to facilitate this goal.

Laparoscopic nerve‑sparing radical hysterectomy for the treatment of cervical cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The effects and safety of laparoscopic nerve‑sparing radical hysterectomy (LNSRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in cervical cancer treatment remain unclear. This article aims to evaluate the role of LNSRH versus LRH in the treatment of cervical cancer. This is because the updated meta-analysis with synthesized data may provide more reliable evidence on the role of LNSRH and LRH.

Methods

We searched Pubmed et al. databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving laparoscopic nerve‑sparing radical hysterectomy (LNSRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer treatment from the inception of databases to June 15, 2021. The RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analyses. This meta-analysis protocol had been registered online (available at: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2021-9-0047/).

Results

Thirteen RCTs involving a total of 1002 cervical cancer patients were included. Synthesized results indicated that the duration of surgery of the LNSRH group was significantly longer than that of the LRH group [SMD 1.11, 95% CI (0.15 ~ 2.07), P = 0.02]. The time to intestinal function recovery [SMD −1.27, 95% CI (−1.84 ~ −0.69), P < 0.001] and the time to postoperative urinary catheter removal of the LNSRH group [SMD −1.24, 95% CI (−1.62 ~ −0.86), P < 0.001] were significantly less than that of the LRH group. There were no significant differences in the estimated blood loss [SMD 0.10, 95% CI (−0.14 ~ 0.34), P = 0.41], the length of parauterine tissue resection [SMD −0.10, 95% CI (−0.25 ~ 0.05), P = 0.19], length of vaginal excision [SMD 0.04, 95% CI (−0.26 ~ 0.34), P = 0.78], and incidence of intraoperative adverse events [RR 0.97, 95% CI (0.44 ~ 2.13), P = 0.94] between the LNSRH group and the LRH group.

Conclusions

LNSRH significantly results in earlier bladder and bowel function after surgery. Limited by sample size, LNSRH should be considered with caution in the future.

Nerve-sparing versus non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: surgical and long-term oncological outcomes

Objectives

There are controversies regarding the long-term oncological safety of preservation of pelvic innervation during radical hysterectomy (RH). This study aimed to analyze the feasibility and safety of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) for cervical cancer compared with non-NSRH following 17 years of experience in a tertiary cancer referral center.

Materials and Methods

Between May 1999 and June 2016, all patients who underwent RH for cervical cancer were followed-up prospectively. Comparison analyses regarding surgical outcomes, complications, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were performed between patients treated with NSRH and non-NSRH.

Results

A total of 188 patients were included (113 non-NSRH and 75 NSRH). The median follow-up was 112 months. Estimated blood loss and hospital stay were all significantly lower in the NSRH group. Overall intraoperative complication rate (p = 0.02) and need for transfusion (p = 0.016) were lower in the NSRH group. There were no differences in the median operation time, OS, DFS, CSS, or recurrence rates between the NSRH and non-NSRH group.

Conclusions

Our study provides a wide perspective on the developments of nerve-sparing procedures for the management of women with early-stage cervical cancer. Our results suggest that NSRH is a feasible and safe procedure, with reduced morbidity 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.

Role of robotic surgery in cervical malignancy

Surgical treatment is the mainstay of the management of early-stage cervical cancer. Abdominal radical hysterectomy and trachelectomy have long been the standard surgical approach to early-stage cervical cancer, achieving excellent survival outcomes. Recently, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and trachelectomy have become the preferred alternative to abdominal surgery because laparoscopic approaches lead to better surgical outcomes without compromising survival outcomes. Since the robotic surgery platform was approved for the use of gynaecologic surgery in 2005, robotic radical hysterectomy and trachelectomy have been increasingly used in the surgical management of early-stage cervical cancer. However, the role of robotic surgery is poorly defined. This review examines the role of robotic surgery in the surgical management of cervical cancer by comparing the published data on its use with those of abdominal and laparoscopic surgeries.

Robotic surgery for early stage cervical cancer: Evolution and current trends

The management of early stage cervical cancer often includes surgery in the form of radical hysterectomy, radical trachelectomy, or radical parametrectomy. Surgical techniques have evolved to include minimal invasive approaches, and more recently, to include robotic assisted techniques. This review highlights the evolution of surgical management of early cervical cancer and specifically explores robotic assisted radical hysterectomy, radical trachelectomy, radical parametrectomy, and the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Robot-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Carcinoma: The Belgian Experience

Objective

The purpose of this study was to report the experience and oncological outcome of robot-assisted radical hysterectomies (RRHs) for cervical cancer performed in Belgium.

Methods

Patients undergoing RRH for cervical cancer (n = 109) were prospectively collected between July 2007 and April 2014 in the 5 Belgian centers performing RRH for cervical cancer.

Results

The median age of the patients was 46 years (range, 31–80 years). Histological types included squamous cell carcinoma in 61 patients, adenocarcinoma in 22 patients, adenosquamous in 8 patients, endometrioid carcinoma in 2 patients, and other types (n = 16). The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage distribution was IA (n = 9), stage IB1 (n = 71), stage IB2 (n = 4), stage II (n = 24), and unknown (n = 1). Twenty-four patients received adjuvant therapy, 17 patients underwent radiochemotherapy, and 7 underwent adjuvant radiation. Eighteen patients relapsed, and 5 died of disease. The median follow-up was 27.5 months (range, 3–82 months). The 2- and 5-year overall survivals were 96% and 89%, respectively. The 2- and 5-year disease-free survivals (DFSs) were 88% and 72%, respectively. The 2-year DFS per stage was 100% for IA, 88% for IB1, 100% for IB2, and 83% for II. The 5-year DFS per stage was 100% for stage IA and 75% for IB1. The complications were as expected for radical hysterectomy.

Conclusions

This series confirms the feasibility and safety of RRH not only in cervical cancer stage IA to IB1, but also after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage IB2 to IIB.

Oncological outcomes of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to review the oncologic outcomes of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) in cervical cancer and to compare them with those of standard conventional radical hysterectomy (CRH).

METHODS

A search of the MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases for studies published to March 3, 2014 was performed using the search term "nerve sparing or radical hysterectomy and cervical cancer." The main outcome measure was the recurrence rate after NSRH. The hazard ratio for recurrence was used to compare NSRH and CRH.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies reported data on oncologic outcomes of NSRH. The recurrence rate after NSRH was reported to be 0 to 19.6 %. Of the 21 studies, 10 comparing outcomes between NSRH and CRH were assessed for their eligibility to be included in a meta-analysis. However, the scarcity and heterogeneity of effect estimates in these comparison trials precluded performance of a meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed that the evidence addressing the oncologic safety of NSRH over that of CRH in cervical cancer is neither adequate nor statistically relevant. A properly designed, prospective randomized noninferiority trial is needed to assess the oncologic outcomes of NSRH before this surgical approach is adopted as the standard of care for patients with tumors that have unfavorable prognostic features. Until then, NSRH should be considered primarily for patients with small tumors due to the very low risk of parametrial and lymph node involvement, with maximum benefit conferred to the patient from autonomic nerve preservation without any requirement for adjuvant treatment.