Radical hysterectomy during the transition period from traditional to nerve-sparing technique

Gynecological cancers and urinary dysfunction: a comparison between endometrial cancer and other gynecological malignancies

The purpose of this paper is to provide a narrative overview of the available literature about voiding dysfunction in women with gynecological cancer before and after surgical, chemo- and radiotherapy treatments. Radical surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy may cause lower urinary tract dysfunction such as stress and urge urinary incontinence, and voiding difficulties. However, nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy may be a valid surgical approach in order to reduce bladder innervation impairment and maintain normal urinary function. Also, newer radiotherapy techniques significantly reduce the number of adverse effects, including bladder dysfunction. Pelvic floor muscle physiotherapy and training with biofeedback and urethral bulking agents represent some additional therapies that can be used in oncologically treated patients with urinary symptoms in order to improve a significant aspect of their quality of life. Considering the important impact on the patients' quality of life, a full urogynecological evaluation should be considered as an important part of oncological treatment and follow-up.

Efficacy of nerve‑sparing radical hysterectomy vs. conventional radical hysterectomy in early‑stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta‑analysis

The aim of the present study was to compare the oncological outcome of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) and conventional radical hysterectomy (CRH) for early-stage cervical cancer using a meta-analysis. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, including 4 randomized controlled trials (RCT), 8 case-control and 11 comparative cohort studies comparing the morbidity, pelvic dysfunctions and oncological outcome between the two surgical methods. A total of 23 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The studies reported data of patients affected by cervical cancer; were written in English; included ≥20 patients; and reported data of patients with a comparison of clinical outcomes between NSRH and CRH. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by four independent reviewers. A total of 1,796 patients were included: 884 patients (49.2%) undergoing NSRH and 912 (50.8%) undergoing CRH. The meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager version 5.3 software, which is designed for conducting Cochrane reviews. As regards perioperative parameters, NSRH was found to be associated with a lower intraoperative blood loss and a shorter length of hospital stay in comparison with CRH. Patients undergoing NSRH experienced lower incidence of urinary, colorectal and sexual dysfunction compared with patients undergoing CRH. However, the resected parametrial width was favorable in patients with CRH, suggesting that NSRH was inferior to CRH in terms of radicality. The 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates were similar between the two groups. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the collected data to date demonstrated that the nerve-sparing approach guarantees minimized surgical-related pelvic dysfunction, with similar oncological outcomes as CRH. However, further RCTs should be conducted to confirm the superiority and safety of NSRH.

Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy compared to standard radical hysterectomy for women with early stage cervical cancer (stage Ia2 to IIa)

BACKGROUND

Radical hysterectomy is one of the standard treatments for stage Ia2 to IIa cervical cancer. Bladder dysfunction caused by disruption of the pelvic autonomic nerves is a common complication following standard radical hysterectomy and can affect quality of life significantly. Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy is a modified radical hysterectomy, developed to permit resection of oncologically relevant tissues surrounding the cervical lesion, while preserving the pelvic autonomic nerves.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in women with stage Ia2 to IIa cervical cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 4), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to May week 2, 2018), and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 2018, week 21). We also checked registers of clinical trials, grey literature, reports of conferences, citation lists of included studies, and key textbooks for potentially relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy compared to standard radical hysterectomy for women with early stage cervical cancer (stage Ia2 to IIa).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We applied standard Cochrane methodology for data collection and analysis. Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant RCTs, extracted data, evaluated risk of bias of the included studies, compared results and resolved disagreements by discussion or consultation with a third review author, and assessed the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 1332 records as a result of the search (excluding duplicates). Of the 26 studies that potentially met the review criteria, we included four studies involving 205 women; most of the trials had unclear risks of bias. We identified one ongoing trial.The analysis of overall survival was not feasible, as there were no deaths reported among women allocated to standard radical hysterectomy. However, there were two deaths in among women allocated to the nerve-sparing technique. None of the included studies reported rates of intermittent self-catheterisation over one month following surgery. We could not analyse the relative effect of the two surgical techniques on quality of life due to inconsistent data reported. Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy reduced postoperative bladder dysfunctions in terms of a shorter time to postvoid residual volume of urine ≤ 50 mL (mean difference (MD) -13.21 days; 95% confidence interval (CI) -24.02 to -2.41; 111 women; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) and lower volume of postvoid residual urine measured one month following operation (MD -9.59 days; 95% CI -16.28 to -2.90; 58 women; 2 study; low-certainty evidence). There were no clear differences in terms of perioperative complications (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.26; 180 women; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) and disease-free survival (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.00 to 106.95; 86 women; one study; very low-certainty evidence) between the comparison groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy may lessen the risk of postoperative bladder dysfunction compared to the standard technique, but the certainty of this evidence is low. The very low-certainty evidence for disease-free survival and lack of information for overall survival indicate that the oncological safety of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for women with early stage cervical cancer remains unclear. Further large, high-quality RCTs are required to determine, if clinically meaningful differences of survival exist between these two surgical treatments.

Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy versus conventional radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis of survival and quality of life

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Survival after radical hysterectomy (RH) for early-stage cervical cancer is good. Hence quality of life (QOL) after treatment is an important issue. Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) improves QOL by selectively sparing innervation of bladder, bowel and vagina, reducing therapy-induced morbidity. However, the oncological outcome and the functional outcome after NSRH are subjects of debate. We aim to present the best possible evidence available regarding both QOL and survival after NSRH in early-stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis on studies comparing NSRH and RH.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies were included, and 27 were used for the meta-analysis. There was no difference in 2-, 3- and 5-year overall survival: the risk ratios (RRs) were respectively 1.02 (95% CI 0.99-1.05, n=879), 1.01 (95% CI 0.95-1.08, n=1324) and 1.03 (95% CI 0.99-1.08, n=638). No difference was found in 2-, 3- and 5-year disease-free survival: RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.95-1.05, n=1175), 0.99 (95% CI 0.94-1.03, n=1130) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.95-1.06, n=933) respectively. Post-operative time to micturition was significantly shorter in the NSRH group: standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.84 (CI 95% -1.07 to -0.60).

CONCLUSIONS

NSRH can be considered safe and effective for early-stage cervical cancer since short- and long-term survival do not differ from those of conventional RH, while bladder function after NSRH is significantly less impaired.

Conventional versus nerve-sparing radical surgery for cervical cancer: a meta-analysis

Objective

Although nerve-sparing radical surgery (NSRS) is an emerging technique for reducing surgery-related dysfunctions, its efficacy is controversial in patients with cervical cancer. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes, and urinary, anorectal, and sexual dysfunctions between conventional radical surgery (CRS) and NSRS.

Methods

After searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, two randomized controlled trials, seven prospective and eleven retrospective cohort studies were included with 2,253 patients from January 2000 to February 2014. We performed crude analyses and then conducted subgroup analyses according to study design, quality of study, surgical approach, radicality, and adjustment for potential confounding factors.

Results

Crude analyses showed decreases in blood loss, hospital stay, frequency of intraoperative complications, length of the resected vagina, duration of postoperative catheterization (DPC), urinary frequency, and abnormal sensation in NSRS, whereas there were no significant differences in other clinical parameters and dysfunctions between CRS and NSRS. In subgroup analyses, operative time was longer (standardized difference in means, 0.948; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.642 to 1.253), while intraoperative complications were less common (odds ratio, 0.147; 95% CI, 0.035 to 0.621) in NSRS. Furthermore, subgroup analyses showed that DPC was shorter, urinary incontinence or frequency, and constipation were less frequent in NSRS without adverse effects on survival and sexual functions.

Conclusion

NSRS may not affect prognosis and sexual dysfunctions in patients with cervical cancer, whereas it may decrease intraoperative complications, and urinary and anorectal dysfunctions despite long operative time and short length of the resected vagina when compared with CRS.

Assessment of selected perioperative parameters in patients undergoing laparoscopic and abdominal supracervical hysterectomy

Introduction

Subtotal hysterectomy is a method of treatment of patients with mild changes in the uterine body. Laparoscopic methods are increasingly used in surgical gynaecology. One of the limitations of laparoscopy is the proper level of operating surgeon's training, which may be assessed with the use of the learning curve. The aim of the study was to compare data regarding the perioperative period in patients who underwent subtotal hysterectomy with the two methods, and to establish a learning curve for laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy.

Material and methods

One hundred and twenty-seven patients qualified for subtotal hysterectomy due to mild disturbances in the uterine body participated in the study. The study was conducted at the Clinical Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics of Fryderyk Chopin Provincial Specialist Hospital in Rzeszów in 2012-2013.

Results

The time of laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy is longer than that of the classical surgical procedure. Uterine myomas are the main indication for subtotal hysterectomy. Laparoscopic operation results in lower blood loss compared to the classical surgical method. The mean age of the patients operated due to mild changes in the uterine body is similar in both groups. Patients who are obese or have undergone Caesarean sections are more frequently qualified for the classical surgery. The study revealed a reduction in time of laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy by ca. 31 minutes (33%).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy is a method chosen by operating surgeons for patients with a lower perioperative risk. The period of the study made it possible to determine a learning curve for laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy.

[Lower urinary tract dysfunction following nerve sparing radical hysterectomy: A systematic review]

INTRODUCTION

Radical hysterectomy represents the cornerstone in the management of localized cervical cancer. Despite its oncologic efficacy, radical hysterectomy is associated with a significant amount of complications and a negative impact on quality of life. Surgical technique seems to influence the functional outcomes.

AIM OF THE STUDY

A systematic review to provide an update on the lower urinary tract dysfunction following nerve sparing radical hysterectomy.

METHODS

An initial search was carried out to identify articles for further review, using Cochrane reviews and PubMed and Embase databases. The search terms used were: "nerve sparing" and "cervical cancer" or "radical hysterectomy". The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses process for reporting included and excluded studies was followed, with the recommended flowchart showing the numbers of papers identified and included or excluded at each stage.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine clinical studies were included. The absence of a standardized surgical technique for nerve sparing radical hysterectomy and the poor methodological quality of the studies assessing lower urinary tract dysfunction after such intervention limited clear conclusions. However, all studies reported lower incidence of urinary tract dysfunction, urodynamic abnormalities and clean intermittent catheterization following nerve sparing radical hysterectomy compared to conventional technique.

CONCLUSION

Nerve sparing radical hysterectomy is associated with reduced lower urinary tract dysfunction. A standardization of the surgical technique for nerve sparing radical hysterectomy, tailored to each individual is necessary to allow its wide spread diffusion.

Lower urinary tract dysfunction after nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the current role of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) in reducing the incidence of postoperative lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD) and in improving quality of life.

METHODS

A detailed online search was performed using the following keywords: nerve sparing, radical hysterectomy, cervical cancer, and all these terms in combination with urinary dysfunction or bladder dysfunction in order to analyze the effect of NSRH on urinary functional outcomes. Articles retrieved were analyzed and assigned a level of evidence (LE) according to the criteria of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine in Oxford, UK.

RESULTS

Our review highlights the heterogeneity of conducting and reporting studies in the literature. Autonomic pelvic nerve injuries during the procedure are thought to be the major cause of LUTD. The amount of LUTD depends upon the extent and type of nerve injury. Anatomically based surgical techniques are developed to avoid nerve injury without compromising oncological control. All studies comparing NSRH to standard RH yielded promising results with respect to postoperative LUTD. A recent meta-analysis showed similar cancer control rates between the two techniques. However, controversies remain about the ideal surgical approach for nerve sparing and there is no consensus as to the level and landmarks of dissection to preserve the maximal amount of nerves without compromising oncological outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence suggests that NSRH is safe and associated with lower incidence of LUTD. However, there is no standardized technique for NSRH and controversies remain about its oncological safety. Long-term oncological data from multicenter surgical trials are needed as well as a universally accepted standard to report studies on NSRH.

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.

Laparoscopic implantation of neural electrodes on pelvic nerves: an experimental study on the obturator nerve in a chronic minipig model

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic exposure of pelvic nerves has opened a new area in the field of neuromodulation. However, electrode design and material deterioration remain issues that limit clinical application. The objective of this study was to evaluate experimentally the laparoscopic implantation of different types of neural electrodes in order to achieve functional and selective electrical stimulation of pelvic nerves.

METHODS

This was a prospective comparative study of the laparoscopic implantation and tolerance and efficacy of three monopolar cuff electrodes implanted on the obturator nerve in ten Göttingen minipigs (18-20 months old; 14.5-24 kg body weight). Animals were allocated to two groups. A 3-mm-diameter laparoscopic instrument was used during dissection of paravesical fossa and obturator nerve on both sides in order to minimize nerve damage. In all animals, a "split-cylinder" cuff electrode was implanted around the left obturator nerve. On the right side, a "lasso" cuff electrode was implanted in the first group and a "closed-cylinder" cuff was implanted in the second group. Electrical stimulation (0-5 V, 20 Hz) was performed for implanted electrodes on days 0, 7, 15, 30, 45, 60, and 90. Current intensity thresholds were identified by palpation of muscle contraction. Strength developed according to stimulation level and was measured using weight transducers.

RESULTS

All procedures were performed by laparoscopy. Mean operative times differed significantly among groups, the shortest being for split-cylinder electrodes (P = 0.0002). No electrical spread phenomena were observed. Initial thresholds were below 1.5 V (range = 0.5-1.3); however, a significant rise was observed, with time to a maximum of 2.7 V (P < 0.0001). Only split-cylinder electrodes remained functional after 3 months. The mean value of maximum strength remained stable during the study period (P = 0.21, NS).

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic approach to implanting neuroprostheses seems to be very attractive. Furthermore, this approach could allow highly selective nerve stimulation to be achieved using simpler devices such as split-cylinder monopolar electrodes.