Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: our experience

Feasibility and early oncologic outcomes of Total Intracorporeal Robotic Radical Hysterectomy with Vaginal Cerclage (TIRRHVC) for the treatment of clinical stage IB cervical cancer: A tumor containment technique

Introduction

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) has been reported to have a four-fold increase in recurrence compared to open radical hysterectomy (ORH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. The cause for the inferior outcomes with MIRH is unclear. However, the use of a uterine manipulator and the lack of tumor containment strategies may contribute to tumor seeding in previous MIRH approaches.

Objective

Determine the feasibility and early oncologic outcomes of a novel robotic-assisted surgical technique for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer, Total Intracorporeal Robotic Radical Hysterectomy with Vaginal Cerclage (TIRRHVC).

Methods

Retrospective cohort study.

Results

Twenty-six patients between 2018 and 2022 underwent the TIRRHVC procedure after being counseled on the risks and benefits of ORH and TIRRHVC; these 26 patients' demographics, clinical, surgical, and oncologic outcomes were reviewed retrospectively. Seventeen patients (65.4 %) had clinical stage IB1 and 9 (34.6 %) were IB2 cervical cancer according to FIGO 2018 guidelines. Following hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy, 4 patients were upstaged. The average pathologic tumor size was 2.66 cm (0 cm - 5.6 cm); 65 % of tumors were > 2 cm. There were no intraoperative complications. There were 13 postoperative complications, including 10 urinary tract infections. Eleven patients (42.3 %) received adjuvant therapy. The average follow-up period was 2.8 years (IQR 2.3-3.6). Only one patient has recurred at 3.6 years. One patient expired from causes unrelated to gynecologic cancer. The 3-year disease free survival is 95.5 %.

Conclusion

These promising early oncologic outcomes are encouraging that TIRRHVC may be a treatment option that offers the benefits of minimally invasive surgery without compromising oncologic outcomes.

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.

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

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

Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in FIGO 2018 early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma: Long-term survival outcomes after propensity score matching

OBJECTIVE

To compare the long-term survival outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and open radical hysterectomy (ORH) in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Based on the clinical diagnosis and treatment for cervical cancer in mainland China (Four C) database, the medical records of 1098 patients with FIGO 2018 early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma were retrospectively reviewed. Long-term and short-term survival outcomes of the two groups were compared using a multivariate Cox regression model and the log-rank method in the whole study population and after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

There was no difference in disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.921, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.532-1.595, p = 0.770) and overall survival (HR 1.168, 95% CI: 0.526-2.592, p = 0.702) between LRH (n = 468) and ORH (n = 468) in the risk-adjusted analysis. LRH resulted in significantly lower estimated blood loss (342.7 vs. 157.5 mL, p < 0.001) and shorter postoperative anal exhaust time (2.8 vs. 2.5 days, p < 0.001) in risk-adjusted analysis. The overall rates of intraoperative complications (2.4% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.100) and postoperative complications (7.5% vs. 6.2%, p = 0.437) showed no significant difference between the two groups. However, the LRH group had a significantly higher incidence of ureter injury (0.4% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.012) and great vessel injury (0.0% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.045) compared to the other group. No statistical variation in the site of recurrence was observed between the two groups (p = 0.613).

CONCLUSIONS

LRH has comparable survival outcomes with ORH and was associated with earlier recovery in FIGO 2018 early-stage adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. However, the LRH group had higher risk of ureter injury and great vessel injury.

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.

Comparison of long-term bowel symptoms after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The objective of this study was to compare the long-term bowel symptoms between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in patients with cervical cancer.

METHODS

A total of 207 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy (79 underwent LRH and 128 underwent ARH) at Peking University First Hospital from January 2010 to August 2020 were enrolled and their bowel symptoms were investigated using the Colorectal Anal Distress Inventory-8 (CRADI-8) of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20. The prevalence and severity of bowel symptoms were compared in the LRH and ARH groups, and multivariate analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with bowel symptoms.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the CRADI-8 scores between the two groups. However, the prevalence of straining at stool was significantly higher in the ARH group than in the LRH group (19.5% versus 1.3%, p<0.001), and the score was significantly higher in the ARH group than in the LRH group too (0.4 versus 0, p<0.001). The prevalence of incomplete defecation was significantly higher in the ARH group than in the LRH group (13.3% versus 3.8%, p=0.029), and the ARH group also had a significantly higher score than the LRH group (0.3 versus 0.1, p=0.028). Multivariate analysis showed that ARH and postoperative interval were independent risk factors for the development of straining at stool.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with cervical cancer who underwent ARH may be more likely to develop symptoms related to constipation than those who underwent LRH. This finding has to be interpreted with caution owing to the study design.

Surgical and oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic and radical abdominal hysterectomy for IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

To compare sugrical and survival outcomes between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH).

METHODS

All the patients with IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer who performed LRH or RAH in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center between 1/2016 and 12/2017 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between LRH and RAH groups except deep stromal invasion (35.2% vs 54.4%, p = 0.000), operating time (232.3 ± 61.9 min vs. 106.7 ± 36.2 min, p = 0.000), blood loss (169.5 ± 96.2 ml vs. 219.6 ± 149.3 ml, p = 0.000), and lymph node counts (21.1 ± 7.1 vs. 23.2 ± 8.7 min, p = 0.012). The LRH group displayed poorer disease-free survival (DFS) (5-year rate, 79.4% vs. 90.0%; p = 0.046) and overall survival (OS) (5-year rate, 74.7% vs. 90.0%; p = 0.026) compared to the RAH group. On multivariate analysis, LRH was an independent risk factor for DFS (hazard ratio, 0.377; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.227-0.625; p = 0.000) and OS (hazard ratio, 0.434; 95% CI, 0.254-0.740; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

LRH affected the survival of cervical cancer patients with tumor size >2 cm (p < 0.05). Adjuvant therapy could not improve the prognosis of laparoscopic patients (p < 0.05).

Evaluation of Surgical Approaches and Use of Adjuvant Radiotherapy with Respect to Oncologic Outcomes in the Management of Clinically Early-Stage Cervical Carcinoma

The standard of care for early-stage cervix cancer is radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy. Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy may be administered to reduce the risk of recurrence in patients considered to be at elevated risk based on a combination of pathologic factors. We performed a retrospective review to determine oncologic outcomes in patients treated for early-stage cervix cancer and to determine if surgical approach impacted oncologic outcomes or the decision to use adjuvant therapy. In total, 174 women underwent radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy over the 15-year period. Most of these women (146) had open surgery and 28 had minimally invasive surgery (MIS). In total, 81 had adjuvant pelvic RT; 76 in the open surgery group (52%) and 5 in the MIS group (18%). Five-year PFS and OS, respectively, were 84% and 91%. Five-year PFS was significantly lower in patients who had MIS vs. open surgery, without a difference in 5-year OS, suggesting MIS should be avoided. Five-year PFS was the same with RT or with its omission, despite those treated with RT having higher risk disease. We have demonstrated excellent outcomes in patients with early-stage cervix cancer after primary surgery and selective use of RT, with few recurrences and excellent survival.

Evaluation of Surgical Outcomes of Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy and Total Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis of Data Collected before the LACC Trial

Although a surgical approach is one of the key treatments for stages IA1-IIA2, results of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) published in 2018 radically changed the field, since minimally invasive surgery was associated with a four-fold higher rate of recurrence and a six-fold higher rate of all-cause death compared to an open approach. We aimed to evaluate surgical outcomes of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) for cervical cancer, including data collected before the LACC trial. In our retrospective analysis, operative time was significantly longer in TLRH compared to ARH (p < 0.0001), although this disadvantage could be considered balanced by lower intra-operative estimated blood loss in TLRH compared with ARH (p < 0.0001). In addition, we did not find significant differences for intra-operative (p = 0.0874) and post-operative complication rates (p = 0.0727) between ARH and TLRH. This was not likely to be influenced by age and Body Mass Index, since they were comparable in the two groups (p = 0.0798 and p = 0.4825, respectively). Finally, mean number of pelvic lymph nodes retrieved (p = 0.153) and nodal metastases (p = 0.774), as well as death rate (p = 0.5514) and recurrence rate (p = 0.1582) were comparable between the two groups. Future studies should be aimed at assessing whether different histology/grades of cervical cancer, as well as particular subpopulations, may have significantly different outcomes using minimally invasive surgery or laparotomy, with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

The incidence of postoperative symptomatic lymphocele after pelvic lymphadenectomy between abdominal and laparoscopic approach: a systemic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risks of symptomatic lymphocele after pelvic lymphadenectomy between the laparoscopic and abdominal approach in uterine cervical and endometrial cancer.

METHODS

We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid EMBASE, and the Cochrane library through April 2020. We selected the comparative studies contained information on symptomatic lymphoceles in postoperative complications. All articles searched were independently reviewed and selected by two researchers. A meta-analysis was performed using the Stata MP version 16.0 software package.

RESULTS

A total of 33 eligible clinical trials were ultimately enrolled in this meta-analysis. When all studies were pooled, the odds ratios (OR) of the laparoscopic approach for the risk of symptomatic lymphoceles compared to the abdominal approach was 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42-0.81, p = 0.022, I-squared = 0.0%]. The risk of postoperative symptomatic lymphoceles in the laparoscopic group tended to decrease over time in the cumulative meta-analysis. In the subgroup analysis, there was no evidence for an association between cancer type, quality of the study methodology, hysterectomy type, and postoperative symptomatic lymphoceles. However, in a recently published article, being overweight (body mass index ≥ 25) and studies conducted in oriental area were associated with a lower incidence of postoperative symptomatic lymphoceles.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic lymphadenectomy was associated with a significantly lower risk of postoperative symptomatic lymphoceles than abdominal lymphadenectomy (PROSPERO registration number: CRD 42,020,187,165).

Is less more in the surgical treatment of early-stage cervical cancer?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article discusses recent developments towards less radical surgical treatment for early-stage cervical cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Surgery is the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. In the last decades, new treatment strategies have been developed aiming to reduce morbidity, without hampering oncological safety. We provide an update of the latest knowledge on safety and morbidity following less radical surgical procedures in early-stage cervical cancer. In cervical cancer with a tumour size of 2 cm or less, radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-sparing conisation) may be a well tolerated option. For patients with larger lesions (>2 cm) and wishing to preserve fertility, administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by less extensive surgery appears to be a feasible and well tolerated alternative to abdominal trachelectomy. With regard to lymph node assessment, increasing evidence shows the feasibility of the sentinel lymph node procedure instead of full pelvic lymphadenectomy. Prospective trials reporting on oncological safety are awaited.It is important to exercise caution when new surgical strategies are introduced. Despite promising retrospective data, prospective randomized studies may present unexpected results, for instance, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy showed inferior results compared to laparotomy.

SUMMARY

There is a shift towards less radical treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. This review explores whether and when less is really more.

Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Background

Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was commonly used to treat patients with early-stage cervical cancer, its efficacy remained controversial.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases until March 2021 to compare the prognosis of early-stage cervical cancer patients who underwent MIS (laparoscopic or robot-assisted radical hysterectomy) or ARH. The primary outcomes included rates of 3- and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42021258116.

Results

This meta-analysis included 48 studies involving 23346 patients (11220, MIS group; 12126, ARH group). The MIS group had a poorer medium-term (3-year) DFS (HR=1.08, 95% CI: 1.01-1.16, p=0.031) than the ARH group, without significant difference in medium-term OS as well as long-term (5-year) DFS and OS. Subgroup analysis of 3-year prognosis revealed that although patients in Western countries who underwent MIS had shorter DFS than those who underwent ARH (HR=1.10, p=0.024), no difference was observed in DFS among those in Asian countries. Moreover, MIS was linked to poorer 3-year DFS in patients with stage I cervical cancer (HR=1.07, p=0.020). Notably, subgroup analysis of 5-year prognosis revealed that patients with tumor size ≥2 cm undergoing MIS exhibited a shorter DFS than those who underwent ARH (HR=1.65, p=0.041).

Conclusion

Patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing MIS may have a poorer prognosis than those undergoing ARH. Therefore, applying MIS in early-stage cervical cancer patients should be conducted with caution.

Systematic Review Registration

The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42021258116.

A meta-analysis of survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: center-associated factors matter

Purpose

To explore the possible factors that contributed to the poor performance of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus abdominal surgery regarding progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in cervical cancer.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched (January 2000 to April 2021). Study selection was performed by two researchers to include studies reported oncological safety. Summary hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined using random-effect model. Subgroup analyses were stratified by characteristics of disease, publication, study design and treatment center.

Results

Sixty-one studies with 63,369 patients (MIS 26956 and ARH 36,049) were included. The overall-analysis revealed a higher risk of recurrence (HR 1.209; 95% CI 1.102–1.327) and death (HR 1.124; 95% CI 1.013–1.248) after MIS versus ARH expect in FIGO IB1 (FIGO 2009 staging) patients with tumor size less than 2 cm. However, subgroup analyses showed comparable PFS/DFS and OS in studies published before the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial, published in European journals, conducted in a single center, performed in centers in Europe and in centers with high sample volume or high MIS sample volume.

Conclusion

Our findings highlight possible factors that associated with inferior survival after MIS in cervical cancer including publication characteristics, center-geography and sample volume. Center associated factors were needed to be taken into consideration when evaluating complex surgical procedures like radical hysterectomy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy

Purpose

Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy is the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Studies have shown superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, but peri- and postoperative complication rates were shown vice versa. This meta-analysis evaluates the peri- and postoperative morbidities and complications of robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy compared to open surgery.

Methods

Embase and Ovid-Medline databases were systematically searched in June 2020 for studies comparing robotic, laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy. There was no limitation in publication year. Inclusion criteria were set analogue to the LACC trial. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the operative technique, the study design and the date of publication for the endpoints intra- and postoperative morbidity, estimated blood loss, hospital stay and operation time.

Results

27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference between robotic radical hysterectomy (RH) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) concerning intra- and perioperative complications. Operation time was longer in both RH (mean difference 44.79 min [95% CI 38.16; 51.42]), and LH (mean difference 20.96 min; [95% CI − 1.30; 43.22]) than in open hysterectomy (AH) but did not lead to a rise of intra- and postoperative complications. Intraoperative morbidity was lower in LH than in AH (RR 0.90 [0.80; 1.02]) as well as in RH compared to AH (0.54 [0.33; 0.88]). Intraoperative morbidity showed no difference between LH and RH (RR 1.29 [0.23; 7.29]). Postoperative morbidity was not different in any approach. Estimated blood loss was lower in both LH (mean difference − 114.34 [− 122.97; − 105.71]) and RH (mean difference − 287.14 [− 392.99; − 181.28]) compared to AH, respectively. Duration of hospital stay was shorter for LH (mean difference − 3.06 [− 3.28; − 2.83]) and RH (mean difference − 3.77 [− 5.10; − 2.44]) compared to AH.

Conclusion

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy appears to be associated with reduced intraoperative morbidity and blood loss and improved reconvalescence after surgery. Besides oncological and surgical factors these results should be considered when counseling patients for radical hysterectomy and underscore the need for new randomized trials.

Adjuvant Radiotherapy After Minimally Invasive Surgery in Patients With Stage IA1-IIA1 Cervical Cancer

To estimate whether adjuvant radiotherapy is necessary for patients with stage IA1-IIA1 cervical cancer after laparoscopic hysterectomy, 221 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Sixty-two of them were treated with laparoscopic hysterectomy and adjuvant radiotherapy (group A), 115 underwent open surgery (group B) and 44 received laparoscopic hysterectomy alone (group C). Results showed that the 3-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) rates of group A, B and C were 98.4%, 97.4% and 86.4%, respectively. The LRFS rates of group A and B surpassed C (A vs. B, p=0.634; A vs. C, p=0.011; B vs. C, p=0.006). The inter-group differences of 3-year overall survival (OS) and distant metastasis free survival (DMFS) were not statistically significant. In subgroup analysis of stage IB disease, the 3-year LRFS rates of group A, B and C were 100%, 98.8% and 83.1%, the 3-year OS rates of group A, B and C were 100%, 98.9% and 91.5%, respectively. The 3-year LRFS and OS rates of group A and B were significantly superior to group C (p<0.05). Our findings suggest that adjuvant radiotherapy can reduce the risk of recurrence for women with early-stage cervical cancer after laparoscopic hysterectomy and bring survival benefits for patients with stage IB disease.

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.

Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Results in Higher Recurrence Rate Versus Open Abdominal Surgery for Stage IB1 Cervical Cancer Patients With Tumor Size Less Than 2 Centimeter: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Study

Objective

To compare the oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer lesion less than 2 cm.

Methods

Patients diagnosed FIGO (2009) stage IB1 (tumor diameter <2 cm) and underwent radical hysterectomy in our hospital between March 2008 and November 2018 were studied. A propensity-matched comparison (1:2) was conducted to minimize selection biases. Demographic and baseline oncologic characteristics were balanced between groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier model, along with univariable and multivariable regression analysis.

Results

A total of 261 patients were enrolled in this study after propensity-matching, with 174 in the open group and 87 in the laparoscopic group. Disease relapsed in seven patients in laparoscopy group, and the recurrence rate was 8.0% (7/87). There were eight patients underwent abdominal radical hysterectomy experienced recurrence, and the recurrence rate was 4.6% (8/174). The multivariate analysis model revealed that laparoscopic operation was associated with higher risk of recurrence than abdominal radical hysterectomy (HR, 3.789; 95% CI, 1.143–12.559; p = 0.029). There were five patients or 2.9% (5/174) died in open surgery group and the corresponding percentage in laparoscopy group was 2.3% (2/87). No difference was found in OS between the two groups (HR, 1.823; 95% CI, 0.2673–12.44; log-rank p = 0.5398). All the recurrence occurred within two years after operation in the laparoscopy group, among which pelvic recurrence (85.7%) was dominant.

Conclusion

Traditional laparotomy radical hysterectomy has a lower recurrence rate when compared with laparoscopic operation in those cervical cancer patients with a foci diameter less than 2 cm. However, no detrimental effect on survival was found in minimal invasive operation group. Further multi-center prospective trials are needed to confirm our results on a large scale.

Protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups

Purpose

Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy presents the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Recently, studies have shown a superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, however, the reasons remain to be speculated. This meta-analysis evaluates the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to open hysterectomy. Risk groups including the use of uterine manipulators or colpotomy were created.

Methods

Ovid-Medline and Embase databases were systematically searched in June 2020. No limitation in date of publication or country was made. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the surgical approach and the endpoints OS and DFS.

Results

30 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Patients were analyzed concerning the surgical approach [open surgery (AH), laparoscopic surgery (LH), robotic surgery (RH)]. Additionally, three subgroups were created from the LH group: the LH high-risk group (manipulator), intermediate-risk group (no manipulator, intracorporal colpotomy) and LH low-risk group (no manipulator, vaginal colpotomy). Regarding OS, the meta-analysis showed inferiority of LH in total over AH (0.97 [0.96; 0.98]). The OS was significantly higher in LH low risk (0.96 [0.94; 0.98) compared to LH intermediate risk (0.93 [0.91; 0.94]). OS rates were comparable in AH and LH Low-risk group. DFS was higher in the AH group compared to the LH group in general (0.92 [95%-CI 0.88; 0.95] vs. 0.87 [0.82; 0.91]), whereas the application of protective measures (no uterine manipulator in combination with vaginal colpotomy) was associated with increased DFS in laparoscopy (0.91 [0.91; 0.95]).

Conclusion

DFS and OS in laparoscopy appear to be depending on surgical technique. Protective operating techniques in laparoscopy result in improved minimal invasive survival.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00404-021-06082-y.

Results of a German wide survey towards current surgical approach in early stage cervical cancer NOGGO MONITOR 11

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become the standard approach in early stage cervical cancer (ECC). However, the recently published “LACC” trial and even others could show inferior PFS and OS of MIS compared to open radical hysterectomy. The results led to a widespread debate about the best surgical approach in ECC. The present survey aimed to get first insights after publication. NOGGO and AGE conducted a nationwide digital survey among 186 Gynecological Cancer Centers. Descriptive statistics and t-tests were performed using SPSS. A majority of the centers were of high expertise and/or experience in treatment of ECC and were highly aware of the LACC trial results. Trial quality and scientific value were rated as very good/good. However, still 40% would not change the standard of care to open surgery. Centers with higher volume and participating in clinical trials were more likely to change. This survey represents insights after the surprising results of recently published trials towards the surgical approach of ECC. There still seems to be a high need of future trials and possible explanations for the unexpected worse outcomes in the MIS group.

Analysis of abdominal vs. robotic radical hysterectomies for patients with cervical cancer: a Bulgarian experience

To assess and compare the peri-operative, oncologic, and survival outcomes for women with cervical cancer (CC) treated with abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) versus robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) approaches in Bulgaria. We retrospectively analyzed patients with histologically diagnosed CC operated via ARH or RRH methods during January-2008 to April-2019. The data analyzed include patients and tumor characteristics, peri-operative outcomes, and disease status. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis were performed to determine disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). There were consecutive 1347 patients (ARH = 1006, RRH = 341), which formed the basis of study analyses. Women in the RRH group had significantly shorter median hospital length-of-stay than ARH cases (7 vs. 11 days, p < 0.001), higher post-operative hemoglobin (116 vs. 108 g/L, p < 0.001), and fewer blood transfusions (7.3% vs. 21.5%, p < 0.001), respectively. The overall incidence of post-operative complications was also lower in the RRH vs. ARH group (2.1% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.001). Median follow-up time for ARH vs. RRH groups was 4.32 vs. 5.24 years, respectively (p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that the RRH cohort had a significantly higher survival rate compared to the ARH group (CC-specific death 8.5% vs. 16.5% respectively). Mean time to recurrence did not differ significantly in either surgical approach (p = 0.495). Cox multivariate regression showed no significant impact of surgical approach on DFS or OS. No significant difference in DFS or OS between ARH vs. RRH for CC was observed. RRH approach does not lead to inferior oncologic outcomes and is associated with better peri-operative outcomes. In regard to "all stages" of CC, we found robotic surgery safer compared to laparotomy, and thus consider RRH a better surgical treatment option for patients with CC.

A Comparative Analysis of Robotic Single-Site Surgery and Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery as Therapeutic Options for Stage IB1 Cervical Squamous Carcinoma

Purpose

To compare perioperative outcomes between robotic single-site surgical technique and conventional laparoendoscopic single-site surgical technique.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study involving 67 patients who received robotic single-site surgery or laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for the treatment of stage IB1 cervical squamous carcinoma. The robotic single-site radical hysterectomy technique combined with pelvic lymph node dissections were performed in 32 patients while the laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy technique combined with pelvic lymph node dissections were performed in 35 patients.

Results

The enrolled patients had been diagnosed with stage IB1 cervical squamous carcinoma. The perioperative outcomes were mean age (51.63±8.32 years in the lymph node dissection (RSS group) and 53.14±8.14 years in the lymph node dissection (LESS group), p=0.453); BMIs (23.76±2.72 in the RSS group and 23.46±2.28 in the LESS group, p=0.629); shorter operative times (223.56±15.43 min in the RSS group and 248.61±20.89 min in the LESS group, p<0.01) and less estimated blood loss (217.25±16.77 mL in the RSS group and 294.74±24.00 mL in the LESS group, p<0.01). None of the study participants exhibited postoperative pain. There were no statistically significant differences in the length of hospital stay (p=0.865), perioperative complications (p=0.602), duration of closure and removal of catheter (p=0.518) as well as in pathological diagnoses between the two groups.

Conclusion

Robotic single-site surgery can be used in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer as it exhibits acceptable operative times and perioperative outcomes. This surgical technique is feasible and safe.

Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in women with early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This review aimed to evaluate the short term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) versus abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for early-stage cervical cancer. A search of PubMed, Medline and Scopus databased from 2000 to 2018 was conducted. Thirty studies were retrieved including 22 retrospective cohort studies and 8 prospective cohort studies. LRH was comparable with ARH in 5-year overall survival (RR = 1.0. 95%CI 0.98-1.03; p = 0.33) and 5-year disease-free survival (RR = 1.02 95%CI 0.97-1.06; p = 0.98). The majority of included studies reported the negative cancer factors which drive adjuvant therapy were similar between two approaches. LRH was associated with lower blood loss and blood transfusion, less postoperative complication, shorter hospital stays and similar intraoperative complication rate compared to ARH. Our data suggested LRH for early-stage cervical cancer was as safe and effective in terms of long-term outcomes, but with lower surgical morbidities.

Comparison of oncological outcomes and major complications between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer with a tumour size less than 2 cm

OBJECTIVE

To compare the oncological outcomes and major complications of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) with a tumour size less than 2 cm.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared the oncological outcomes and major complications of 1207 stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with a tumour size less than 2 cm who received LRH (n = 546) or ARH (n = 661) in 37 hospitals.

RESULTS

(1) There was no significant difference in 3-year overall survival (OS; 97.3% vs. 98.5%, P = 0.288) or 3-year disease-free survival (DFS; 95.1% vs. 95.4%, P = 0.792) between LRH (n = 546) and ARH (n = 661).(2) The rate of any 1 complication refers to the incidence of one or more complications in a patient, which was higher with LRH than ARH (OR = 4.047, 95% CI = 2.035-8.048, P < 0.001). Additionally, intraoperative complications occurred with LRH (OR = 12.313, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.571-96.493, P = 0.017), and postoperative complications (OR = 3.652, 95% CI = 1.763-7.562, P < 0.001) were higher with LRH than ARH. The ureteral injury rate was higher with LRH than with ARH (1.50% vs. 0.20%, OR = 9.814, 95% CI = 1.224-78.712, P = 0.032). The ureterovaginal fistula rate was higher with LRH than ARH. The rates of obturator nerve injury, bladder injury, vesicovaginal fistula, rectovaginal fistula, venous thromboembolism, bowel obstruction, chylous leakage, pelvic haematoma, and haemorrhage were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The oncological outcomes of LRH and ARH for stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with a tumour size less than 2 cm do not differ significantly. However, incidences of any 1 complication, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications were higher with LRH than ARH, with complications manifesting mainly as ureteral injury and uterovaginal fistula.

Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Minimally invasive techniques are increasingly common in cancer surgery. A recent randomized clinical trial has brought into question the safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

Objective

To quantify the risk of recurrence and death associated with minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer reported in observational studies optimized to control for confounding.

Data Sources

Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (inception to March 26, 2020) performed in an academic medical setting.

Study Selection

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, observational studies were abstracted that used survival analyses to compare outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) and open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stage IA1-IIA) cervical cancer. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and included studies with scores of at least 7 points that controlled for confounding by tumor size or stage.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) checklist was used to abstract data independently by multiple observers. Random-effects models were used to pool associations and to analyze the association between surgical approach and oncologic outcomes.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Risk of recurrence or death and risk of all-cause mortality.

Results

Forty-nine studies were identified, of which 15 were included in the meta-analysis. Of 9499 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy, 49% (n = 4684) received minimally invasive surgery; of these, 57% (n = 2675) received robot-assisted laparoscopy. There were 530 recurrences and 451 deaths reported. The pooled hazard of recurrence or death was 71% higher among patients who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy compared with those who underwent open surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.36-2.15; P < .001), and the hazard of death was 56% higher (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.16-2.11; P = .004). Heterogeneity of associations was low to moderate. No association was found between the prevalence of robot-assisted surgery and the magnitude of association between minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and hazard of recurrence or death (2.0% increase in the HR for each 10-percentage point increase in prevalence of robot-assisted surgery [95% CI, -3.4% to 7.7%]) or all-cause mortality (3.7% increase in the HR for each 10-percentage point increase in prevalence of robot-assisted surgery [95% CI, -4.5% to 12.6%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies found that among patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with an elevated risk of recurrence and death compared with open surgery.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare recurrence rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival for early-stage cervical cancer after minimally invasive (MIS) vs abdominal radical hysterectomy.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Library databases.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

We identified studies from 1990 to 2020 that included women with stage I or higher cervical cancer treated with primary radical hysterectomy and compared recurrence and/or PFS and overall survival with MIS vs abdominal radical hysterectomy. (The review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD4202173600).

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

We performed random-effects meta-analyses overall and by length of follow-up. Fifty articles on 40 cohort studies and 1 randomized controlled trial that included 22 593 women with cervical cancer met the inclusion criteria. Twenty percent of the studies had <36 months of follow-up, and 24% had more than 60 months of follow-up. The odds of PFS were worse for women undergoing MIS radical hysterectomy (odds ratio 1.54; 95% CI [confidence interval], 1.24-1.94; 14 studies). When limited to studies with longer follow-up, the odds of PFS were progressively worse with MIS radical hysterectomy (HR [hazard ratio] 1.48 for >36 months; 95% CI, 1.21-1.82; 10 studies; HR 1.69 for >48 months; 95% CI, 1.26-2.27; 5 studies; and HR 2.020 for >60 months; 95% CI, 1.36-3.001; 3 studies). For overall survival, the odds were not significantly different for MIS vs abdominal hysterectomy (odds ratio 0.94; 95% CI, 0.66-1.35; 14 studies) (HR 0.99 for >36 months; 95% CI, 0.66-1.48; 9 studies; HR 1.05 for >48 months; 95% CI, 0.57-1.94; 4 studies; and HR 1.35 for >60 months; 95% CI, 0.73-2.51; 3 studies).

CONCLUSION

In our meta-analysis of 50 studies, MIS radical hysterectomy was associated with worse PFS than open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. The emergence of this finding with longer follow-up highlights the importance of long-term, high-quality studies to guide cancer and surgical treatments.

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).

Total laparoscopic vs. conventional open abdominal nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: clinical, surgical, oncological and functional outcomes in 301 patients with cervical cancer

Objective

Total laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (TL-NSRH) has been considered a promising approach, however, surgical, clinical, oncological and functional outcomes have not been systematically addressed. We present a large retrospective multi-center experience comparing TL-NSRH vs. open abdominal NSRH (OA-NSRH) for early and locally-advanced cervical cancer, with particular emphasis on post-surgical pelvic function.

Methods

All consecutive patients who underwent class C1-NSRH plus bilateral pelvic + para-aortic lymphadenectomy for stage IA2–IIB cervical cancer at 4 Italian gynecologic oncologic centers (Negrar, Varese, Bologna, Avellino) were enrolled. Patients were divided into TL-NSRH and OA-NSRH groups and were investigated with preoperative questionnaires on urinary, rectal and sexual function. Postoperatively, patients filled a questionnaire assessing quality of life, taking into account sexual function and psychological status. Oncological outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan-Meyer method.

Results

301 consecutive patients were included in this study: 170 in the TL-NSRH group and 131 in the OA-NSRH group. Patients in the OA-NSRH group were more likely to experience urinary incontinence and (after 12-months follow-up) urinary retention. No patient in the TL-NSRH group vs. 5 (5.5%) in the OA-NSRH group had complete urinary retention (at the >24-month follow-up [p=0.02]). A total of 20 (11.8%) in the TL-NSRH and 11 (8.4%) patients in the OA-NSRH had recurrence of disease (p=0.44) and 14 (8.2%) and 9 (6.9%) died of disease during follow-up, respectively (p=0.83).

Conclusion

Our study shows that TL-NSRH is feasible, safe and effective and conjugates adequate radicality and improvement in post-operative functional outcomes. Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic procedures deserve further investigation.

The Landmark Series: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Cancer

Cervical cancer incidence and mortality have declined in developed countries during the past few decades as a result of screening programs and vaccination. However, it remains a significant cause of cancer-related mortality in young women. Early-stage cervical cancer, defined as disease limited to the cervix, has traditionally been treated with abdominal radical hysterectomy via laparotomy. Although most early-stage cervical cancers can be cured with open radical hysterectomy, the morbidity associated with open radical hysterectomy is significant compared with simple extrafascial hysterectomy. Since the early 1990s, minimally invasive surgery has been explored for the treatment of this disease, with the goal of minimizing the morbidity associated with open surgery, as reported for endometrial cancer surgery. This report reviews the landmark studies describing and evaluating minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

Laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy without uterine manipulator for cervical cancer stage IB: description of the technique, our experience and results after the era of LACC trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to evaluate surgical data and oncological outcome of laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy without uterine manipulator for cervical cancer stage IB, over the last 8 years.

METHODS

This retrospective study includes 32 patients with cervical cancer Figo stage (2009) IB who underwent laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy without using any kind of uterine manipulator. Patients were eligible if they had squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adeno-squamous carcinoma, and no para-aortic lymph node involvement by imaging or after frozen section. The median value and range were assessed for operative outcomes and relapse rate and disease-free survival rate were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

In the study, 32 patients were included and among them 27 women were stage IB1 (18 cases with tumor size 2-4 cm) and 5 women stage IB2 (Figo stage 2009). The median age of patients was 50.5 years (range 31-68) and median body mass index (B.M.I) was 25.3 kg/m² (range 19-33.5 kg/m²). The average operating time was 228 min (range 147-310 min) and median hospital stay was 2.7 days (range 2-7 days). Approximate blood loss was 188 ml (range 120-300 ml). After a median follow-up of 37 months, we had 2 recurrences out of 32 cases and no death. Especially for patients with Figo stage (2009) IB1, the recurrence rate was 3.7% (1/27). The 3-year PFS was 93.7% and the number at risk 23 (71.8%) and especially for the IB1 stage (2009) women, the 3-year PFS was 96.1% and the number at risk 21 (77.7%). The 3-year OS was 100% with no. at risk 71.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy without uterine manipulator is feasible and safe surgical procedure for cervical cancer with acceptable surgical and oncological outcomes in the hands of well-trained and experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Our retrospective study reveals better oncological outcome compared to other studies on the minimally invasive approach, where uterine manipulator was routinely used and no vaginal sealing of the tumor was made.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Updates and Controversies of Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Gynecologic Surgery

minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is the standard approach to performance of several gynecologic procedures, including hysterectomy, gynecologic cancer staging procedures, myomectomy, pelvic organ prolapse repair, and select adnexal procedures. Robotic-assisted surgery, a computer-based MIS approach, has been adopted widely in the United States and several other countries. Robotics may offer technological and ergonomic benefits that overcome limitations associated with conventional laparoscopy; however, it is not clear that reported claims of superiority translate into improved gynecologic patient outcomes compared with other MIS approaches. This review critically appraises the evolving role, benefits, limitations, and controversies of robotic-assisted surgery utilization in benign and oncologic gynecology settings.

Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Radical Hysterectomy (RRH) for Patients with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: Experience at a Referral Cancer Center

PURPOSE

To evaluate oncologic outcomes of early stage cervical cancer patients who underwent robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) in a referral center, a retrospective analysis was performed.

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2018, medical records of stage IA2-IIA1 cervical cancer patients, who underwent radical hysterectomy at our institute, were retrospectively reviewed. We focused our analysis on those who underwent RRH.

RESULTS

A total of 198 patients were included in the final analysis. Median follow up was 52 months. At last follow-up, 188 (94.9%) women were disease-free, 9 (4.5%) had died, and 1 (0.5%) was alive with recurrent disease. At 4.5 years, PFS was 93.1% (SE ± 2.1) and OS was 95.1% (SE ± 1.8). Stratified by tumor size, PFS for tumor < 2 cm versus tumor ≥ 2 cm was statistically different (96.8% ± 2.3 and 87.9% ± 4.1 respectively, p = 0.01), as well as OS (100% and 89.8% ± 40 respectively, p = 0.01).Stratified by evidence of tumor at time of robotic surgery, PFS was statistically different in women with no residual tumor after conisation versus those with residual disease (100% ± 2.5 and 90.8% ± 2.8 respectively, p = 0.04). A recurrence occurred in 11 patients (5.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our results, we could speculate that robotic approach, along with some technical precautions to avoid spillage, might be safe as primary treatment of early-stage cervical cancer, especially for tumor < 2 cm and in case of no evidence of disease at time of radical hysterectomy after previous conisation.

Efficacy of different surgical approaches on survival outcomes in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: protocol for a multicentre longitudinal study in China

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies have revealed that the oncological survival outcomes of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) are inferior to those of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in early-stage cervical cancer, but the potential reasons are unclear.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Each expert from 28 study centres participating in a previously reported randomised controlled trial (NCT03739944) will provide successive eligible records of at least 100 patients who accepted radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2015. Inclusion criteria consist of a definite pathological evaluation of stages IA1 (with positive lymphovascular space invasion), IA2 and IB1 according to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 staging system and a histological subtype of squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma. The primary endpoint is 5-year disease-free survival between the MIRH and ARH groups. The secondary endpoints include the MIRH learning curves of participating surgeons, 5-year overall survival between the MIRH and ARH groups, survival outcomes according to surgical chronology, surgical outcomes and sites of recurrence and potential risk factors that affect survival outcomes. A subgroup analysis in patients with tumour diameter less than 2 cm will follow the similar flow diagram.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Peking Union Medical College Hospital (registration no. JS-1711), and is also filed on record by all other 27 centres. The results will be disseminated through community events and peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03738969.

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

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

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

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

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

Effect of the surgical approach on survival outcomes in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A real-world multicenter study of a large Chinese cohort from 2006 to 2017

Objective

To compare survival outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and laparotomy in early‐stage cervical cancer (CC) patients.

Methods

A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO, 2009) stage IA1 (lymphovascular invasion)‐IIA1 CC patients undergoing MIS or laparotomy at four tertiary hospitals from 2006 to 2017. Propensity score matching and weighting and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed. Survival was compared in various matched cohorts and subgroups.

Results

Three thousand two hundred and fifty‐two patients (2439 MIS and 813 laparotomy) were included after matching. (1) The 2‐ and 5‐year recurrence‐free survival (RFS) (2‐year, hazard ratio [HR], 1.81;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09‐3.0; 5‐year, HR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.21‐3.89) or overall survival (OS) (2‐year, HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.03‐3.40; 5‐year, HR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.29‐5.10) were significantly worse for MIS in patients with stage I B1, but not the cohort overall (2‐year RFS, HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.76‐1.42; 2‐year OS, HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.70‐1.41; 5‐year RFS, HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.76‐1.65; 5‐year OS, HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.79‐1.83) or other stages (2) In a subgroup analysis, MIS exhibited poorer survival in many population subsets, even in patients with less risk factors, such as patients with squamous cell carcinoma, negative for parametrial involvement, with negative surgical margins, negative for lymph node metastasis, and deep stromal invasion < 2/3. (3) In the cohort treated with (2172, 54%) or without adjuvant treatment (1814, 46%), MIS showed worse RFS than laparotomy in patients treated without adjuvant treatment, whereas no differences in RFS and OS were observed in adjuvant‐treatment cohort. (4) Inadequate surgeon proficiency strongly correlated with poor RFS and OS in patients receiving MIS compared with laparotomy.

Conclusions

MIS exhibited poorer survival outcomes than laparotomy group in many population subsets, even in low‐risk subgroups. Therefore, laparotomy should be the recommended approach for CC patients.

Obturator nerve injury in a chemo and radio-resistant patient with a locally-advanced cervical cancer after two previous uterine artery embolizations for severe vaginal bleeding: Case report and review of literature

Chemo and radiotherapy are actually the gold standard of treatment for locally-advanced cervical cancer. We report a case report showing a repaired (video 1) right obturator nerve after an incidental injury during a right internal iliac artery closure with 10 mm titanium clip for severe pelvic bleeding in a patient with locally-advanced cervical cancer. A 52 year-old postmenopausal woman with a chemo and radio-resistant locally-advanced squamous cervical cancer was admitted at our department for severe vaginal bleeding after two previous uterine artery embolizations. As a consequence of the increasing vaginal bleeding, and after a MRI-scan, an open surgical treatment was decided with a type C radical hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. During dissection of obturator, paravescical and pararectal spaces and removal of metastatic pelvic lymphnodes, a severe blood loss that required a right internal iliac artery closure with 10 mm titanium clip was observed. A right obturator nerve incidental injury during this time occurred. After an immediate grasping of the two sides of the lesion, the obturator nerve was succesfully repaired using 4-0 Prolene interrupted sutures (Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson, New Jersey, USA). The patient was regularly discharged four days after the surgical procedure without neurological deficit, paresthesia or side effects. In conclusion obturator nerve repair is an emergency procedure for treatment of patients with advanced cervical cancer, but it should be reserved for oncologic surgeons trained in extensive oncological procedures and repair of nerve and vascular injuries potentially associated with high mortality rate.

Learning curve could affect oncologic outcome of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Recent prospective studies have shown poorer oncologic outcomes following minimally invasive surgery, which has led many surgeons to deeply inspect their practices. We reviewed our experience and evaluated the results of radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients with early stage cervical cancer (Ia1 - IIa1) who were treated with radical hysterectomy from May 2006 to Dec 2016. Patients were divided into three groups according to the surgical approach: radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH), laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH), and robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH).

RESULTS

Learning curves of each type of surgery were obtained using the cumulative sum method. Survival rates were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves. To analyze the learning curve of a single surgeon, 89 patients were selected from the whole population. Learning curves of each group showed two distinct phases. The minimum number of cases required to achieve surgical improvement were 16 in RAH, 13 in LRH, and 21 in RRH. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival did not vary between RAH and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (p = .828 and p = .757, respectively). However, when stratified by the phases of the learning curves, patients included in the early phase of MIS showed a poorer PFS (p = .014).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical proficiency could significantly affect the oncologic outcome in MIS. A prospective study regarding sufficient surgical competence is necessary for elaborate analysis of the feasibility of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy.

Survival of patients with early-stage cervical cancer after abdominal or laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a nationwide cohort study and literature review

AIM

Recently, the safety of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) has been called into question in early-stage cervical cancer. This study aimed to evaluate overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients treated with abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and LRH for early-stage cervical cancer and to provide a literature review.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2017 with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (2009) stage IA2 with lymphovascular space invasion, IB1 and IIA1, were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Cox regression with propensity score, based on inverse probability treatment weighting, was applied to examine the effect of surgical approach on 5-year survival and calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Literature review included observational studies with (i) analysis on tumours ≤4 cm (ii) median follow-up ≥30 months (iii) ≥5 events per predictor parameter in multivariable analysis or a propensity score.

RESULTS

Of the 1109 patients, LRH was performed in 33%. Higher mortality (9.4% vs. 4.6%) and recurrence (13.1% vs. 7.3%) were observed in ARH than LRH. However, adjusted analyses showed similar DFS (89.4% vs. 90.2%), HR 0.92 [95% CI: 0.52-1.60]) and OS (95.2% vs. 95.5%), HR 0.94 [95% CI: 0.43-2.04]). Analyses on tumour size (<2/≥2 cm) also gave similar survival rates. Review of nine studies showed no distinct advantage of ARH, especially in tumours <2 cm.

CONCLUSION

After adjustment, our retrospective study showed equal oncological outcomes between ARH and LRH for early-stage cervical cancer - also in tumours <2 cm. This is in correspondence with results from our literature review.

Minimally invasive surgery for radical hysterectomy in women with cervical cancer: Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Korean Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Surgery position statement

On the basis of emerging data and the current understanding of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for radical hysterectomy (RH) in women with cervical cancer, the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Korean Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Surgery support the following recommendations:

• According to the recently published phase III Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial—a prospective randomized clinical trial—disease-free survival and overall survival rates of MIS RH are significantly lower than those of open RH.

• Gynecologic oncologists should be aware of the emerging data on MIS RH for early-stage cervical cancer.

• The results of the LACC trial, together with institutional data, should be discussed with patients before choosing MIS RH.

• MIS RH should be performed for optimal candidates according to the current practice guidelines by gynecologic oncologists who are skilled at performing MIS.

Survival after a nationwide adoption of robotic minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer - A population-based study

AIM

Lately, the safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the treatment of cervical cancer (CC) has been questioned. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of recurrence and survival after a nationwide adoption of robotic MIS for the treatment of early-stage CC in Denmark.

METHODS

Population-based data on all Danish women with early-stage CC, who underwent radical hysterectomy January 1st 2005-June 30th 2017 were retrieved from the Danish Gynecologic Cancer Database and enriched with follow-up data on recurrence, death and cause of death. The cohort was divided into two groups according to the year of robotic MIS introduction at each cancer centre. Chi-squared or Fischer test, the Kaplan Meier method and multivariate Cox regression were used for comparison between groups.

RESULTS

One thousand one hundred twenty-five patients with CC were included; 530 underwent surgery before (group 1) and 595 underwent surgery after (group 2) the introduction of robotic MIS. The 5-year rate of recurrence was low: 8.2% and 6.3% (p = 0.55) in group 1 and 2, respectively. In adjusted analyses, this corresponded to a five-year disease-free survival, hazard ratio (HR) 1.23 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.93]. No difference in site of recurrence (P = 0.19) was observed. The cumulative cancer-specific survival was 94.1% and 95.9% (P = 0.10) in group 1 and 2, respectively, corresponding to a HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.32-1.11] in adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

In this population-based cohort study, the Danish nationwide adoption of robotic MIS for early-stage CC was not associated with increased risk of recurrence or reduction in survival outcomes.

Surgical Management of Early Cervical Cancer: When Is Laparoscopic Appropriate?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This paper reviews the recent literature data on minimally invasive surgical approach to early cervical cancer compared to abdominal approach, with the aim of evaluate the oncological outcomes and the appropriateness of current indications.

RECENT FINDINGS

A recent multicenter randomized controlled trial and a concurrent large epidemiological study, contrary to the previous retrospective data, showed that minimally invasive surgery is associated with significantly poorer survival than the open approach. Open surgery is to be considered the standard of care for early cervical cancer as implemented in the current guidelines, and the patients must be carefully counseled if minimally invasive surgery is offered. Minimally invasive surgery can be considered safe only for sentinel lymph node mapping in a fertility-sparing setting and could be considered after preoperative conization and for small tumors, adopting preventive surgical maneuvers and in reference centers. However, prospective evidences about the suggested indications are not yet available.

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.

Effect of laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy on major surgical complications in women with stage IA-IIB cervical cancer in China, 2004-2015

OBJECTIVES

To report the trends in surgical approaches and compare the major surgical complication rates of laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

METHODS

From the major surgical complications of cervical cancer in China (MSCCCC) database, we obtained the demographic, clinical, treatment hospital and complication data of patients with cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy from 2004 to 2015 at 37 hospitals. The patients were assigned to the laparoscopic and abdominal surgery groups. The differences in the complication rates were analyzed using univariate and multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 18447 patients; 5491 (29.8%) underwent laparoscopic surgery and 12956 (70.2%) underwent abdominal surgery. The proportion of laparoscopic surgery rose from 0.35% in 2004 to 49.31% in 2015. In the multivariate analysis, the laparoscopic group had increased odds of intraoperative and postoperative complications (OR = 3.88, 95% CI = 2.47-6.11; OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.11-1.82). A more detailed analysis showed that laparoscopic surgery was associated with increased rates of intraoperative ureteral injury (OR = 3.83, 95% CI = 2.11-6.95), bowel injury (OR = 14.83, 95% CI = 1.32-167.25), vascular injury (OR = 3.37, 95% CI = 1.18-9.62), postoperative vesicovaginal fistula (OR = 4.16, 95% CI = 2.08-8.32), ureterovaginal fistula (OR = 4.16, 95% CI = 2.08-8.32), rectovaginal fistula (OR = 8.04, 95% CI = 1.63-39.53), and chylous leakage (OR = 10.65, 95% CI = 1.18-95.97), while abdominal surgery was more likely to cause bowel obstruction (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.35-0.87). The two groups had similar rates of bladder injury, obturator nerve injury, pelvic hematoma, rectovaginal fistula and venous thromboembolism (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery was associated with more major surgical complications, especially intraoperative ureteral injury and postoperative fistula, than abdominal surgery among women with cervical cancer.