Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (Coelio-Schauta): a comparison with open Wertheim/Meigs hysterectomy

Effect of laparoscopic-assisted transvaginal hysterectomy on wound complications in patients with early stage cervical cancer: A meta-analysis

Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy (LARVH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) have been widely applied to treat cervical carcinoma. But LARVH and ARH have not been fully investigated in treating cervical carcinoma after injury associated with injury. This research is intended to provide an up-to-date basis for comparing LARVH with ARH in early stage cervical carcinoma. Comparison between LARVH and ARH in cervical carcinoma was carried out through a combination of related research. Eligible articles from databases such as PubMed and Embase were screened using an established search strategy. This report covered the results of LARVH versus ARH in cervical carcinoma. The average difference and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for the combination of consecutive variables. The combination of categorical variables was performed with the odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval. Through the identification of 1137 publications, eight of them were chosen to be analysed. Among them, 363 were treated with LARVH and 326 were treated with ARH. Eight trials showed that LARVH was associated with a reduced risk of postoperative wound infection than ARH (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.1-0.55, p = 0.0009). Five trials showed that there was no difference in the risk of postoperative bleeding after surgery (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.42-3.29, p = 0.76). We also did not differ significantly in the duration of the surgery (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, -6.58 to 10.15, p = 0.68). So, the two surgical methods differ significantly only in the risk of postoperative wound infection.

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.

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.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, excluding robotic assisted versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer

Recent evidence has shown an increase in recurrence and a decrease in overall survival in patients treated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and robotic assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) open techniques (ORH). In addition, several high quality trials were recently published regarding the laparoscopic treatment of early stage cervical cancer. We sought out to reassess the recurrence rates, overall survival, complications and outcomes associated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) techniques against open techniques (ORH) when robotic assisted techniques were excluded. We searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.Gov and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials and observational studies. We included all studies that compared with early stage cervical cancer receiving LRH compared with ORH. We included randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort trials. We included studies that included LRH and RRH as long as data was available to separate the two arms. We excluded studies that combined LRH and RRH without supplying data to differentiate. Of 1244 total studies, we used a manual three step screening process. Sixty studies ultimately met our criteria. We performed this review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We analyzed continuous data using mean difference (MD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI), while dichotomous data were analyzed using odds ratio (OR) and a 95% CI. Review Manager and Endnote software were utilized in the synthesis. We found that when excluding RRH, the was no significant difference regarding 5-year overall Survival (OR = 1.24 [0.94, 1.64], (P = 0.12), disease free survival (OR = 1.00 [0.80, 1.26], (P = 0.98), recurrence (OR = 1.01 [0.81, 1.25], (P = 0.95), or intraoperative complications (OR = 1.38 [0.94, 2.04], (P = 0.10). LRH was statistically better than ORH in terms of estimated blood loss (MD = - 325.55 [- 386.16, - 264.94] (P < 0.001), blood transfusion rate (OR = 0.28 [0.14, 0.55], (P = 0.002), postoperative complication rate (OR = 0.70 [0.55, 0.90], (P = 0.005), and length of hospital stay (MD = - 3.64[- 4.27, - 3.01], (P < 0.001). ORH was superior in terms of operating time (MD = 20.48 [8.62, 32.35], (P = 0.007) and number of resected lymph nodes (MD = - 2.80 [- 4.35, - 1.24], (P = 0.004). The previously seen increase recurrence and decrease in survival is not seen in LRH when robotic assisted techniques are included and all new high quality is considered. LRH is also associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and lower complication rate.Prospero Prospective Registration Number: CRD42022267138.

Outcomes associated with different surgical approaches to radical hysterectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of five different approaches to cervical cancer surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for comparative studies on different radical hysterectomy types for cervical cancer in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. All included observational studies used survival analyses to compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing different radical hysterectomy types. All studies were assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale with scores of at least seven points. We extracted the relevant data and conducted a network meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes among five surgical approaches.

RESULTS

Thirty studies (n = 11 353) were included. Robotic surgery had the lowest blood loss volume and hospitalization duration; open surgery had the shortest operative time. Vaginal assisted laparoscopic surgery was associated with the highest number of resected lymph nodes and lowest rate of perioperative complications. Survival outcomes and tumor recurrence outcomes were similar among the approaches.

CONCLUSION

The current approaches to cervical cancer surgery have comparable efficacies.

Laparo-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy as a safe option for minimal invasive surgery in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy are considered the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer (ECC). Minimal Invasive approach to this surgery has been debated after the publication of a recent prospective randomized trial (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer, LACC trial). It demonstrated poorer oncological outcomes for Minimal Invasive Surgery in ECC. However, the reasons are still an open debate. Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (LAVRH) seems to be a logical option to Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy (ARH). This meta-analysis has the aim to prove it.

METHODS

Following the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, the Pubmed database and Scopus database were systematically searched in January 2022 since early first publications. No limitation of the country was made. Only English article were considered. The studies containing data about Disease-free Survival (DFS) and/or Overall Survival (OS) and/or Recurrence Rate (RcR) were included.

RESULTS

18 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. 8 comparative studies were enrolled in meta-analysis. Patients were analyzed concerning surgical approach (Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Radical Hysterectomy) and compared with ARH Oncological outcomes such as DFS and OS were considered. 3033 patiets were included. Meta-analysis highlighted a non-statistic significant difference between LARVH and ARH (RR 0.82 [95% CI 0.55-1.23] p = 0.34; I2 = 0%; p = 0.96). OS was feasible only for 3 studies (RR 1.14 [95% CI 0.28-4.67] p = 0.43; I2 = 0 p = 0.86). Data about the type of recurrences (loco-regional vs distant) were collected.

CONCLUSION

LARVH does not appear to affect DFS and OS in ECC patients. The proposed results seem to be comparable with the open approach group of the LACC trial, which today represents the reference standard for the treatment of this pathology. More studies will be needed to test the safety and efficacy of LARVH in the ECC.

Laparo-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy as a safe option for Minimal Invasive Surgery in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy are considered the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer (ECC). Minimal Invasive approach to this surgery has been debated after the publication of a recent prospective randomized trial (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer, LACC trial). It demonstrated poorer oncological outcomes for Minimal Invasive Surgery in ECC. However, the reasons are still an open debate. Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (LAVRH) seems to be a logical option to Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy (ARH). This meta-analysis has the aim to prove it.

METHODS

Following the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, the Pubmed database and Scopus database were systematically searched in January 2022 since early first publications. No limitation of the country was made. Only English article were considered. The studies containing data about Disease-free Survival (DFS) and/or Overall Survival (OS) and/or Recurrence Rate (RcR) were included.

RESULTS

19 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. 9 comparative studies were enrolled in meta-analysis. Patients were analyzed concerning surgical approach (Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Radical Hysterectomy) and compared with ARH Oncological outcomes such as DFS and OS were considered. 3196 patiets were included for the review. Meta-analysis of 1988 0f them highlighted a non-statistic significant difference between LARVH and ARH (RR 0.8 [95% CI 0.55-1.16] p = 0.24; I² = 0%; p = 0.98). OS was feasible only for 4 studies (RR 0.84 [95% CI 0.23-3.02] p = 0.79; I² = 0 p = 0.44). Sub-analysis for tumor with a maximum diameter greater than 2 cm was performed. Data about the type of recurrences (loco-regional vs distant) were collected.

CONCLUSION

LARVH does not appear to affect DFS and OS in ECC patients. The proposed results seem to be comparable with the open approach group of the LACC trial, which today represents the reference standard for the treatment of this pathology. More studies will be needed to test the safety and efficacy of LARVH in the ECC.

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

OPINION STATEMENT

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

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.

Comparison of Survival Outcomes after Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Patients with Cervical Cancer

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis was performed to compare survival outcomes including disease-free survival (DFS) between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in patients with cervical cancer.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Google scholar, and the Cochrane library for studies published between December 2004 and May 2020. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of published studies were also performed.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Two researchers independently extracted the data. Studies with survival outcome information were included.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

A total of 36 eligible clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis. When all studies were pooled, the hazard ratio (HR) of LRH for the risk of DFS and overall survival (OS) compared with ARH was 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.41; p = .001; I² = 37.5%) and 1.27 (95% CI, 1.04-1.56; p = .020; I² = 45.5%), respectively. In a subgroup analysis, significant harmful effects of DFS in patients with LRH increased in studies using the HR presented by the article (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21-1.64; p <.001), matched retrospective design (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.19-1.88; p = .001), large-scale studies (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.16-1.55; p <.001), and studies published after the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.25-1.71; p <.001). However, LRH did not affect DFS (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.59-1.81; p = .898) or OS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.31-1.05; p = .073) of patients with cervical cancer with cervical masses <2 cm.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that LRH was associated with higher recurrence rates than ARH. However, LRH showed similar recurrence and OS among patients with cervical masses <2 cm (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 42020191713).

Laparoscopic Regional Radical Hysterectomy Showed Promising Clinical Outcomes in Early-stage Cervical Cancer

Objectives:

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of standardized and region-specific excision in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for early-stage cervical cancer (ECC).

Materials and Methods:

This is a retrospective case–controlled study from 2011 to December 2016. A total of 328 women with ECC (IA1, IA2, IB1, or IIA1) underwent primary surgery by laparoscopy or laparotomy in our institute. Women diagnosed as stage IB1 or IIA1 were treated with radical hysterectomy (RH) by open or laparoscopic route. The total parametrium excision in the process of RH was measured and highlighted in the study.

Results:

A total of 186 patients underwent open surgery and 142 ones were treated with laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with less blood loss (194.43 ± 84.40 ml vs. 362.68 ± 253.36 ml, P < 0.01), shorter hospital stay (11 vs. 14 days, P < 0.01), and lower risk of blood transfusion (2.8% vs. 18.8%, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the postoperative complications between two groups (18/142, 12.7% vs. 21/186, 11.3%; P > 0.05). The rate of 5-year overall survival (OS) was 92.8% in laparoscopy group, similar to that of 94.4% in the open group (P = 0.762). Disease-free survival (DFS) rate at 3 years in laparoscopy group was decreased when compared to open group (91.8% vs. 95.0%, P = 0.030), but there was no significant difference in 3-year DFS among the women with tumor size <2 cm (100% vs. 97.0%, P = 0.818).

Conclusion:

Laparoscopic surgery was associated with better surgical outcomes compared to open surgery in ECC. 5-Year OS was comparable between the groups and cases with tumor size <2 cm showed no difference in 3-year DFS. LRH may be a better fit for women with tumor size <2 cm. Standardized region-specific RH helps to optimize the clinical outcomes of LRH in ECC.

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.

Safety and effectiveness of robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer in China

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of robotic hysterectomy (RH) with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) for the treatment of cervical cancer using multivariate regressions.

METHODS

We designed a retrospective single-center study and consecutively collected patients with cervical cancer from February 2014 to October 2017. Data extraction was performed by two independent researchers. The surgical outcomes include operative time, estimated blood loss, number of lymph nodes, time to first flatus, time to a full diet, time to remove drainage tube, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complication.

RESULTS

A total of 152 patients with cervical cancer were collected in our study including 92 patients who underwent RH and 60 patients who underwent LH. Both groups have similar characteristics. The RH group showed shorter operative time (Coe - 42.89; 95% CI - 74.39 to 11.39; P = 0.008) and more number of lymph nodes (Coe 6.06; 95% CI 2.46-9.66; p = 0.001) than the LH group. As for the postoperative parameters, the RH group showed shorter time to remove drainage tube (Coe - 0.89; 95% CI -1.62 to -0.15; p = 0.019) and length of hospital stay (Coe - 6.40; 95% CI - 10.19 to - 2.95; p = 0.001). No significant difference was found between the groups in estimated blood loss (Coe 34.64; 95% CI - 33.08 to 102.37; p = 0.314), time to first flatus (Coe 0.11; 95% CI - 0.38 to 0.61; p = 0.652), time to a full diet (Coe - 0.24; 95% CI - 0.54 to 0.06, p = 0.118), and postoperative complication (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.35-1.98; p = 0.685).

CONCLUSION

The results from this study suggest that RH is safe and effective as LH but robotic surgery significantly contributed to the feasibility of alternative treatment options for cervical cancer patients.

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.

Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy Results in Better Surgical Outcomes Compared With the Traditional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Cervical Cancer

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) with traditional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer in a large retrospective cohort of a total of 933 patients.

Methods

We have enrolled 100 patients into the RRH and 833 patients into the TLRH group. The surgical outcomes include operating time, blood loss, transfusion rate, pelvic lymph node yield, hospitalization days, duration of bowel function recovery, catheter removal before and after 3 weeks, conversion to laparotomy, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Follow-up results were also analyzed for all patients.

Results

Both groups have similar patient and tumor characteristics but patients with a larger lesion size were preferably enrolled in the TLRH treatment group. The treatment with RRH was generally superior to TLRH with respect to operating time, blood loss, length of hospitalization, duration of bowel function recovery, and postoperative complications. On follow-up of patients, there were no relapses reported in the RRH group compared with 4% of relapse cases and 2.9% of deaths because of metastasis in the TLRH group. No conversion of laparotomy occurred in the RRH group. No significant difference was found with respect to intraoperative complications and blood transfusion between both groups.

Conclusions

The results from this study suggest that RRH is superior to TLRH with regard to surgical outcome and may pose a safe and feasible alternative to TLRH. The operating time and lymph node yield is acceptable. Our study is one of the largest single-center studies of surgical outcomes comparing RRH with TLRH during cervical cancer treatment and will significantly contribute to the safety of alternative treatment options for patients. Furthermore, the difference detected between TLRH and RRH group is further strengthened by the great expertise of the surgeon performing laparoscopic surgeries.

Surgical and Pathological Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy With Pelvic Lymphadenectomy and/or Para-aortic Lymph Node Sampling for Bulky Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility, morbidity, and recurrence rate of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) with those of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for bulky early-stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 112 patients with stage IB1 or IIA2 cervical cancer in which the tumor diameter was 3 cm or greater. All patients underwent LRH (n = 30) or ARH (n = 82) with pelvic lymphadenectomy and/or para-aortic lymph node sampling between May 2011 and November 2014. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the 2 surgical groups.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic approach consisted of 4 trocar insertions. Age, tumor diameter, and pelvic lymph nodes significantly differed between the 2 cohorts. Body mass index, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, histologic type and grade, deep stromal invasion, lymphovascular space invasion, positive margins, and adjuvant therapy were not significantly different between the 2 cohorts. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy exhibited favorable results compared with ARH in terms of operating time, blood loss, intestinal exhaust time, and length of hospital stay. In addition, recurrence was observed in 5 LRH patients (16.7%) and 9 ARH patients (11.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical outcomes of LRH with pelvic lymphadenectomy and/or para-aortic lymph node sampling exhibited a similar therapeutic efficacy to those of the ARH approach.

Comparison of laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the safety and survival outcomes of early stage cervical cancer patients treated by laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) versus abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).

METHODS

Since March 2008 to July 2012, the patients with early stage cervical cancer undergoing LARVH or ARH in Beijing hospital have been entered into this study. Statistical analysis used Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) and significance was defined as P < .05.

RESULT

Forty-two patients were included in LARVH group and 35 patients in ARH group. Both groups were similar with respect to age, body mass index (BMI), histological diagnosis, and stage. There were no differences in operative time, vaginal length, and postoperative complications, but blood loss, rate of transfusion, length of catheterized, and length of hospital stay were significantly less in LARVH. Number of lymph node retrieved was less than ARH. No differences were seen regarding recurrence rate, length of disease free survival, overall survival, and mortality rate after a median follow up of 58.5 and 48.5 months.

CONCLUSION

LARVH is a suitable alternative to ARH for early-stage cervical cancer, which shows less blood loss, shorter catheterized and hospital stay, and similar survival outcomes.

Laparoscopically Assisted Radical Vaginal Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes and recurrence of laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) to abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library search trial (central) databases was conducted from database inception through December 2015. We included studies comparing surgical approaches with radical hysterectomy (LARVH vs ARH) in women with stages IA1 to IIB cervical cancer. Outcomes included blood loss, operative time, number of lymph nodes retrieved, intraoperative complications, hospital stay, and prognosis.

RESULT

Seven studies were included (4 prospective cohort studies and 3 case control studies) enrolling 794 women; 349 women were treated by LARVH, and 445 were treated by ARH. Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy was associated with less blood loss (weight mean difference [WMD], -237.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], -453.42 to -21.47), wound-related complications (odds ratio, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05-0.61), shorter hospital stay (WMD, -2.01; 95% CI, -2.52 to -1.51), and longer operative time (WMD, 48.95; 95% CI, 42.08 to 55.82) versus ARH. Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy was comparable with ARH in number of lymph nodes retrieved, urinary-related complications, rectal injury, lymphedema, and all prognosis indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that LARVH is superior to ARH with lower blood loss, less wound-related complications, and shorter hospital stay. Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and ARH seem equivalent in number of lymph nodes retrieved, urinary-related complications, rectal injury, lymphedema, and prognosis.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for FIGO stage IB and IIA cervical cancer with tumor diameter of 3 cm or greater

OBJECTIVE

There have been many comparative reports on laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) versus abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for early-stage cervical cancer. However, most of these studies included patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IA2 and small (tumor diameter ≤2 or 3 cm) IB1 disease. The purpose of this study was to compare the feasibility, morbidity, and recurrence rate of LRH and ARH for FIGO stage IB and IIA cervical cancer with tumor diameter of 3 cm or greater.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 88 patients with FIGO stage IB and IIA cervical cancer with tumor diameter of 3 cm or greater. All patients had no evidence of parametrial invasion and lymph node metastasis in preoperative gynecologic examination, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography-computed tomography, and they all underwent LRH or ARH between February 2006 and March 2013.

RESULTS

Among 88 patients, 40 patients received LRH whereas 48 underwent ARH. The mean estimated blood loss was 588.0 mL for the ARH group compared with 449.1 mL for the LRH group (P < 0.001). The mean operating time was similar in both groups (246.0 minutes in the ARH vs 254.5 minutes in the LRH group, P = 0.589). Return of bowel motility was observed earlier after LRH (1.8 vs 2.2 days, P = 0.042). The mean hospital stay was significantly shorter for the LRH group (14.8 vs 18.0 days, P = 0.044). There were no differences in histopathologic characteristics between the 2 groups. The mean tumor diameter was 44.4 mm in the LRH and 45.3 mm in the ARH group. Disease-free survival rates were 97.9% in the ARH and 97.5% in the LRH group (P = 0.818).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy might be a feasible therapeutic procedure for the management of FIGO stage IB and IIA cervical cancer with tumor diameter of 3 cm or greater. Further randomized studies that could support this approach are necessary to evaluate long-term clinical outcome.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer Patients: A Matched-Case Comparative Study

Objective

This study aimed to compare initial surgical outcomes and complication rates of patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) and conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH).

Methods

Patients diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I-IIA) who underwent RRH (n = 23) at Samsung Medical Center from January 2008 to May 2013 were compared with matched patients who underwent LRH (n = 69) during the same period. The 2 surgical groups were matched 3:1 for variables of age, body mass index, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, histological subtype, tumor size, and node positivity. All patient information and surgical and postoperative follow-up data were retrospectively collected.

Results

Operating time was significantly longer (317 vs 236 minutes; P < 0.001) in the RRH group compared with the LRH group but mean estimated blood loss was significantly reduced in the RRH group (200 vs 350 mL; P = 0.036). Intraoperative and postoperative complications were not significantly different between the 2 groups (4.3% for RRH vs 1.45% for LRH; P = 0.439). Recurrences were 2 (8.7%) in the RRH and 7 (10.1%) in the LRH group. The overall 3-year recurrence-free survival was 91.3% in RRH group and 89.9% in the LRH group (P = 0.778).

Conclusions

Although operating time was longer in the RRH cases because of lesser experience on robotic platform, we showed that surgical outcomes and complication rate of RRH were comparable to those of LRH. In addition, surgical skills for LRH easily and safely translated to RRH in case of experienced laparoscopic surgeon.

Robot versus laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a comparison of the intraoperative and perioperative results of a single surgeon's initial experience

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the initial surgical outcomes and learning curve of nerve-sparing robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) with nerve-sparing total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer in the first 50 cases.

METHODS

Between January 2008 and March 2012, 50 consecutive patients underwent nerve-sparing RRH. These patients were compared with a historic cohort of the first 50 consecutive patients who underwent nerve-sparing TLRH.

RESULTS

Both groups were similar with respect to patients and tumor characteristics. The mean operating time in the RRH group was significantly longer than that in the TLRH group (230.1 ± 35.8 vs 211.2 ± 46.7 minutes; P = 0.025). The mean blood loss for the robotic group was significantly lower compared with the laparoscopic group (54.9 ± 31.5 vs 201.9 ± 148.4 mL; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the mean pelvic lymph nodes between the 2 groups (25.0 ± 9.9 vs 23.1 ± 10.4; P = 0.361). The mean days to normal residual urine were 9.6 ± 6.4 in RRH and 11.0 ± 6.2 in TLRH (P = 0.291). The incidence of intraoperative complication was profoundly lower in RRH compared with that of TLRH (0% vs 8%; P = 0.041). Moreover, no intraoperative transfusion was required in RRH, whereas 4 (8%) were required in TLRH (P = 0.041). In both groups, we found no evidence of a learning effect during the first 50 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

During the first 50 cases, surgical outcomes and complication rates of nerve-sparing RRH were found to be comparable to those of nerve-sparing TLRH. Moreover, the mean blood loss and intraoperative complication rate in the robotic group were significantly lower than those in the laparoscopic group. Surgical skills for nerve-sparing TLRH easily and safely translated to nerve-sparing RRH in case of experienced laparoscopic surgeon.

Vaginal-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (VALRH) versus laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) in the treatment of cervical cancer: surgical results and oncologic outcome

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the morbidity and survival rates of patients with early-stage cervical cancer treated by vaginal-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (VALRH) with pair-matched laparoscopic-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy (LARVH) controls.

METHODS

One hundred nine patients who underwent VALRH for cervical cancer stage FIGO Ia1, L1 to IIb between 2007 and 2009 and 200 patients who underwent LARVH between 1994 and 2002 were analysed in their entirety and in a group of matched pairs.

RESULTS

In both groups, there was no conversion to laparotomy due to an intraoperative complication. Prevalence of blood transfusions was significantly lower in the VALRH group (2 vs. 39 patients; P < 0.001). Bladder function resumed sooner (P < 0.001), and patients were discharged earlier after VALRH (P < 0.001). There were no intraoperative injuries in the VALRH group. In the LARVH group, the most common intraoperative injury occurred to the bladder (7.0 %). Postoperatively, the most common complication in the VALRH group was ureterovaginal fistula (2.7 %) and fever (2.7 %) and in the LARVH ureterostenosis (3.5 %), uretero/bladder fistula (1 %), and fever (7 %). For patients with tumour stage Ib1 the 5-year recurrence-free survival was 92.8 % and 5-year overall survival 95.2 % following VALRH and 88.2 and 90.5 %, respectively, following LARVH. No significant difference in the survival rate was found (log rank, P = 0.740).

CONCLUSION

VALRH is a feasible and oncologically safe surgical option for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. We believe the complication rate is lowered in VALRH by the combination of the laparoscopic and vaginal approach.

Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy for the treatment of early cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women and is the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Standard surgical management for selected early-stage cervical cancer is radical hysterectomy. Traditionally, radical hysterectomy has been carried out via the abdominal route and this remains the gold standard surgical management of early cervical cancer. In recent years, advances in minimal access surgery have made it possible to perform radical hysterectomy with the use of laparoscopy with the aim of reducing the surgical morbidity and promoting a faster recovery.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) and radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH) in women with early-stage (1 to 2A) cervical cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 7, 2013, MEDLINE, and EMBASE up to July 2013. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared laparoscopically assisted radical hysterectomy and radical abdominal hysterectomy, in adult women diagnosed with early (stage 1 to 2A) cervical cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We found one RCT, which included 13 women, that met our inclusion criteria and this trial reported data on LARVH versus RAH.Women who underwent LARVH for treatment of early-stage cervical cancer appeared to have less blood loss compared with those who underwent RAH. The trial reported a borderline significant difference between the two types of surgery (median blood loss 400 mL (interquartile range (IQR): 325 to 1050) and 1000 mL (IQR: 800 to 1025) for LARVH and RAH, respectively, P value = 0.05). RAH was associated with significantly shorter operation time compared with LARVH (median: 180 minutes with LARVH versus 138 minutes with RAH, P value = 0.05).There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of perioperative complications in women who underwent LARVH and RAH. The trial reported two (29%) and four (57%) cases of intraoperative and postoperative complications, respectively, in the LARVH group and no (0%) reported cases of intraoperative complications and five (83%) cases of postoperative complications in the RAH group. There were no reported cases of severe perioperative complications.Bladder and bowel dysfunction of either a transient or chronic nature remain major morbidities after radical hysterectomy, and the one included study showed that there may be significantly less after LARVH.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The included trial lacked statistical power due to the small number of women in each group and the low number of observed events. Therefore, the absence of reliable evidence, regarding the effectiveness and safety of the two surgical techniques for the management of early-stage cervical cancer, precludes any definitive guidance or recommendations for clinical practice. The trial did not report data on long-term outcomes, but was at moderate risk of bias due to very low numbers of included women.

Vaginal-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: rationale, technique, results

The authors conclude that vaginal-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy is an oncologic viable alternative to abdominal radical hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy, totally laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, and robotic radical hysterectomy.

Objective:

Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) makes it difficult to resect adequate vaginal cuff according to tumor size and to avoid tumor spread after opening the vagina. Laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) is associated with higher risk for urologic complications.

Methods:

The vaginal-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (VALRH) technique comprises 3 steps: (1) comprehensive laparoscopic staging, (2) creation of a tumor-adapted vaginal cuff, and (3) laparoscopic transsection of parametria. We retrospectively analyzed data of 122 patients who underwent VALRH for early stage cervical cancer (n=110) or stage II endometrial cancer (n=12) between January 2007 and December 2009 at Charité University Berlin.

Results:

All patients underwent VALRH without conversion. Mean operating time was 300 minutes, and mean blood loss was 123cc. On average, 36 lymph nodes were harvested. Intra- and postoperative complication rates were 0% and 13.1%, respectively. Resection was in sound margins in all patients. After median follow-up of 19 months, disease-free survival and overall survival for all 110 cervical cancer patients was 94% and 98%, and for the subgroup of patients (n=90) with tumors ≤pT1b1 N0 V0 L0/1 R0, 97% and 98%, respectively.

Conclusion:

VALRH is a valid alternative to abdominal radical hysterectomy and LARVH in patients with early-stage cervical cancer and endometrial cancer stage II with minimal intraoperative complications and identical oncologic outcomes.

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.

From laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy to vaginal assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy

Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy is the standard surgical treatment for patients with early stage cervical cancer. The majority of radical hysterectomies are performed with the open technique. However, laparoscopic, combined laparoscopic and vaginal, and robotic-assisted approaches may also be used. Compared with the abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH), laparoscopic techniques are associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, better cosmesis, and faster recovery. A further breakthrough in laparoscopic technique can only be made if safety and oncological clearance are comparable with ARH. We describe the technique and results of laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and the transition to vaginal assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy.

Radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: laparoscopy versus laparotomy

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy appears to be a feasible alternative to laparotomy for early stage cervical cancer with similar surgical outcomes and lessened morbidity.

Objectives:

Gynecologic oncologists have recently begun using laparoscopic techniques to treat early stage cervical cancer. We evaluated a single institution's experience of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and staging compared with laparotomy.

Methods:

A retrospective chart review identified stage IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection from July 2003 to April 2009. A 2:1 cohort of patients treated with laparotomy were matched by stage.

Results:

Nine laparoscopic patients (3 stage IA2, 6 stage IB1) with 18 matched controls (6 and 12) were identified. Demographics for each group were similar. None had positive margins or lymph nodes. An average of 11.2 vs.13.9 pelvic lymph nodes (P=0.237) were removed. Average operating time was 231.7 vs. 207.2 minutes (P=0.434), and average estimated blood loss was 161.1 vs. 394.4mL (P=0.059). Average length of stay was 2.9 vs. 5.5 days (P=0.012). No transfusions or operative complications were noted in the laparoscopic group vs. 3 each in the open group (P=0.194). No laparoscopic patients and 5 open patients had a postoperative wound infection (P=0.079). No recurrences were noted.

Conclusions:

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy is a feasible alternative to laparotomy for early stage cervical cancer. Similar surgical outcomes are achieved with significantly less morbidity.

Comparative evaluation of surgical stress of laparoscopically assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy and laparotomy for early-stage cervical cancer

The aim of this study was to objectively evaluate the benefits of laparoscopically assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Clinical data were prospectively collected from patients with IA-IIB cervical cancer who underwent laparoscopically assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy (n1=33) and laparotomy (n2=30). Peripheral blood samples were obtained prior to surgery and at 1 and 2 h into the operation, as well as on days 1, 4 and 7 following surgery to measure serum interleukin-6, C-reaction protein and cortisol. Results showed that there was no conversion to laparotomy in the laparoscopy group. The average blood loss was 317.23±217.20 ml (laparoscopy group) and 872.58±693.16 ml (laparotomy group). No significant difference was found in the number of resected pelvic lymph nodes (19.74±7.43 in the laparoscopy group and 20.35±6.62 in the laparotomy group). At days 1 and 7 after surgery, the serum IL-6 level was significantly different in the laparoscopy and laparotomy groups (day 1: laparoscopy group 17.14±16.53 pg/ml and laparotomy group 34.32±20.97 pg/ml, p=0.001; day 7: laparoscopy group 6.7±7.21 pg/ml and laparotomy group 17.54±16.47 pg/ml, p=0.001). The serum CRP level was significantly different at days 1 and 7 after the operation (day 1: laparoscopy group 7024.72±949.12 ng/ml and laparotomy group 7586.61±869.42 ng/ml, p=0.018; day 7: laparoscopy group 4357.71±2108.85 ng/ml and laparotomy group 6967.96±995.02 ng/ml, p<0.001). A significant difference was noted in the serum cortisol level at day 4 after the operation (122.29±65.17 ng/ml in the laparoscopy group and 186.76±68.61 ng/ml in the laparotomy group, p<0.001). In conclusion, the differences in clinical data and the various parameters pertinent to surgical stress evaluated in this study suggest that laparoscopic surgery for cervical cancer causes less postoperative stress than conventional open surgery.

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.

Asian society of gynecologic oncology workshop 2010

This workshop was held on July 31-August 1, 2010 and was organized to promote the academic environment and to enhance the communication among Asian countries prior to the 2nd biennial meeting of Australian Society of Gynaecologic Oncologists (ASGO), which will be held on November 3-5, 2011. We summarized the whole contents presented at the workshop. Regarding cervical cancer screening in Asia, particularly in low resource settings, and an update on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination was described for prevention and radical surgery overview, fertility sparing and less radical surgery, nerve sparing radical surgery and primary chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer, were discussed for management. As to surgical techniques, nerve sparing radical hysterectomy, optimal staging in early ovarian cancer, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, one-port surgery and robotic surgery were introduced. After three topics of endometrial cancer, laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, role of lymphadenectomy and fertility sparing treatment, there was a special additional time for clinical trials in Asia. Finally, chemotherapy including neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, optimal surgical management, and the basis of targeted therapy in ovarian cancer were presented.

Laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy for cervical carcinoma: morbidity and long-term follow-up

OBJECTIVES

To study the feasibility, morbidity and outcome of cervical cancer patients treated with laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH).

METHODS

The study group included 53 women with cervical cancer (stage-Ib). They included women undergoing LARVH at the joint cancer-centres between 1994 and 2002. Data was collected on operating-time, nodal-yield, hospital-stay, complications recurrence rate and survival rate. The group was followed up until 2006.

RESULTS

Of 53 women who were selected for LARVH, in 2 women LARVH was abandoned when nodes were positive at frozen section. The median age was 42 years while the operating-time was 210 min with a nodal-yield of 23 and a hospital-stay of 5 days. Final histology revealed 10 women with lympho-vascular invasion, 1 nodal metastases and invasion of parametrium/vagina in 2 women. 7 received adjuvant radiotherapy. 3 had chemo-radiation. Complications included voiding difficulty (6), urinary tract infection (5), pyrexia (4), haemorrhage (2), pain (1), port-site haematoma (1) and nerve injury (1). Late complications included lymphoedema (4), urinary incontinence (4), voiding-problems (2), lymphocyst (1), venous-thrombosis (1) and rectocele (1). The median follow-up was 41 months. 4 women had recurrence, of which 3 women died. The five-year survival was 89%.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaginal radical hysterectomy with laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy is feasible and safe with regards to mortality and has low morbidity.

New developments in the surgical therapy of cervical carcinoma

For almost a century abdominal radical hysterectomy has been the standard surgical treatment of early-stage macroscopic carcinoma of the uterine cervix. The excessive parametrial resection of the original procedures of Wertheim, Okabayashi, and Meigs has later been "tailored" to tumor extent. Systematic pelvic and eventually periaortic lymph node dissection is performed to identify and treat regional disease. Adjuvant (chemo)radiation therapy is liberally added to improve locoregional tumor control when histopathological risk factors are present. The therapeutic index of the current surgical treatment, particularly if combined with radiation, appears to be inferior to that of primary chemoradiation as an oncologically equivalent therapeutic alternative. Several avenues of new conceptual and technical developments have been used since the 1990s with the goal of improving the therapeutic index. These are: surgical staging, including sentinel node biopsy and nodal debulking; minimal access and recently robotic radical hysterectomy; fertility-preserving surgery; nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy; total mesometrial resection based on developmentally defined surgical anatomy; and supraradical hysterectomy. The superiority of these new developments over the standard treatment remains to be demonstrated by controlled prospective trials. Multimodality therapy including surgery for locally advanced disease represents another area of clinical research. Both neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery, with or without adjuvant radiation, and completion surgery after (chemo)radiation are feasible and have to be compared to primary chemoradiation as the new nonsurgical treatment standard. Surgical treatment of postirradiation persisting or recurrent cervical carcinoma has been traditionally limited to pelvic exenteration for central disease. Applying the principle of developmentally derived anatomical compartments increases R0 resectability. The laterally extended endopelvic resection allows even the extirpation of a subset of visceral pelvic side wall tumors with clear margins. Many questions regarding the indication for these "ultraradical" operations, the surgery of irradiated tissues, and the optimal reconstructive procedures are still open and demand multi-institutional controlled trials to be answered.

The outcome of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer: a prospective analysis of 295 patients

OBJECTIVES

Cervical carcinoma is likely to become one of the most important indications for laparoscopic radical surgery. The laparoscopic technique combines the benefits of a minimally invasive approach with established surgical principles. In our institution, the laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and transperitoneal approach for lymphadenectomy have become the standard techniques for invasive cervical cancer. We report the indications, techniques, results, and oncological outcome in a single center experience.

METHODS

Between February 2001 and June 2007 we performed laparoscopic radical hysterectomies for cervical cancer in 295 patients. Their initial techniques, operation data, complications, postoperative course, oncological outcome, and survival were evaluated.

RESULTS

Out of 295 procedures, 290 were successful. Para-aortic lymphadenectomy was performed in 156 patients (52.9%), and pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed in all 295 patients. The median blood loss was 230 mL (range, 50-1200 mL). The mean operation time was 162 min (range, 110-350), which included the learning curves of 3 surgeons. In 5 cases (1.7%), conversion to open surgery was necessary due to bleeding (3 cases), bowel injury (1 case), and hypercapnia (1 case). Other major intraoperative injuries occurred in 12 patients (4.1%). Positive lymph nodes were detected in 80 cases (27.1%), lymphovascular space invasion in 54 cases (18.3%), and surgical margins were negative for tumor in all patients. The mean hospital stay was 10.3 days. Postoperative complications occurred in 10.8% patients, ureterovaginal fistula in 5 cases, vesicovaginal fistula in 4, ureterostenosis in 3 cases, deep venous thrombosis in 9 cases, lymphocyst in 4 cases, lymphedema in 5 cases, and 1 case with trocar insertion site metastasis. Other medical problems included 47 cases (15.9%) of bladder dysfunction and 62 cases (21.0%) of rectum dysfunction or constipation. The median follow-up was 36.45 months (range, 8-76 months). Recurrences or metastasis occurred in 48 patients (16.3%). Of these patients, 43 (14.6%) have died of their disease, and 5 (1.7%) are alive with disease. The overall disease-free survival was 95.2% for Ia, 96.2% for Ib, 84.5% for IIa, 79.4% for IIb, 66.7% for IIIa, and 60.0% for IIIb.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy is a routine, effective treatment for patients with Ia2-IIb cervical carcinoma. With more experience it is envisaged that IIb stage patients can be managed safely offering all the benefits of minimal surgery to the patients. Although no long-term follow-up is available, our follow-up data for up to 76 months confirm the effectiveness of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in terms of surgical principles and oncological outcome.

Advances in Surgical Treatment of Cervical Cancer

Radical hysterectomy has been the standard surgical treatment for cervical cancer, achieving a good survival outcome. However, it is a major operation that has considerable potential long-term morbidity. With good prognosis achieved in most early cervical cancers, there is a trend towards more emphasis on maintaining good quality of life post-treatment. Many women diagnosed with cervical cancer are young, and fertility-sparing surgery such as trachelectomy would preserve their reproductive potential. Minimally invasive surgery, such as laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, can potentially improve post-operative recovery and cosmetic results while maintaining oncological safety. Sentinel lymph nodes assessment can minimize unnecessary systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy. Radicality of the hysterectomy may also be reduced in selected individuals with good prognostic factors, thus minimizing long-term pelvic floor dysfunction. This review aims to give a broad overview of the current status of these new trends in surgical management for cervical cancer.