Does the Use of a Uterine Manipulator or Intracorporeal Colpotomy Confer an Inferior Prognosis in Minimally Invasive Surgery-Treated Early-stage Cervical Cancer?

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To identify whether the use of a uterine manipulator (UM) or intracorporeal colpotomy conferred inferior short-term survival among patients treated for early-stage cervical cancer.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary university-based hospital.

PATIENTS

1169 patients with stage IB1 to IB2 cervical cancer.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1169 patients diagnosed with preoperative stage IB1 to IB2 cervical cancer were primarily treated with surgery from 2018 to 2019. The eligible patients had a median age of 48 years (range, 23-76 years), and the median follow-up time was 34 months (range, 3.57-50.87 months). The 2-year overall survival rate of the patients with pathologic stage IB1 and IB2 was 99.8% and 98.8%, respectively, according to the 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system. Univariable analysis revealed that the UM group had a 7.6-times higher risk of death than that of the manipulator-free group (p = .006), but multivariable analysis clarified that only tumor size (p = .016; hazard ratio, 2.285; 95% confidence interval, 1.166-4.479) and parametrial involvement (p = .003; hazard ratio, 3.556; 95% confidence interval, 1.549-8.166) were independent risk factors for overall survival. There was no statistically significant difference in survival between patients who underwent intracorporeal and protective colpotomy.

CONCLUSION

Short-term survival outcomes in women undergoing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for treatment of early-stage cervical cancer did not differ when a UM was avoided or when a protective colpotomy was performed.

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.

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.

Effect of modified no-touch laparoscopic radical hysterectomy on outcomes of early stage cervical cancer: A retrospective cohort study

Objectives

We aimed to compare the prognosis of modified no‐touch laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (MLRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) on survival in patients with early stage cervical cancer.

Materials and Methods

The clinicopathological data of patients with stage IB1 and IIA1 cervical cancer, who underwent radical surgery between 2014 and 2019, were retrospectively reviewed. The 5‐year disease‐free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between the MLRH and LRH groups using the Kaplan–Meier method. Independent prognostic factors for 5‐year DFS and OS were identified using multivariate, forward, stepwise Cox proportional hazards regression models.

Results

A total of 223 patients with stage IB1 and IIA1 cervical cancer were included. Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed that the 5‐year DFS and OS rates in the MLRH (n = 81) group were significantly higher than those in the LRH group (n = 142) (DFS, 94.5% vs. 78.8%, p = 0.007; OS, 96.7% vs. 87.6%, p = 0.033). No significant differences were identified between the two groups in terms of operative time, blood loss, transfusion requirement, and intraoperative or postoperative complications. MLRH was an independent prognostic factor associated with increased 5‐year DFS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.202; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.069–0.594; p = 0.004) and 5‐year OS (adjusted HR, 0.163; 95% CI, 0.035–0.748; p = 0.020).

Conclusion

The oncologic outcomes were superior with MLRH than with LRH in patients with stage IB1 and IIA1 cervical cancer. Contact of cervical tumor cells with the pelvic cavity likely explains the worse prognosis associated with LRH.

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.

Challenges and Controversies in the Surgical Treatment of Cervical Cancer: Open Radical Hysterectomy versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to perform a systematic assessment of disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival, and morbidity rates after open radical hysterectomy (ORH) and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for early-stage cervical cancer and discuss with experts the consequences of the LACC trial (published by Ramirez et al. in 2018) on clinical routine.

METHODS

A total of 5428 records were retrieved. After exclusion based on text screening, four records were identified for inclusion. Five experts from three independent large-volume medical centers in Europe were interviewed for their interpretation of the LACC trial.

RESULTS

The LACC trial showed a significantly higher risk of disease progression with MIS compared to ORH (HR 3.74, 95% CI 1.63 to 8.58). This was not seen in one epidemiological study and was contradicted by one prospective cohort study reported by Greggi et al. A systematic review by Zhang et al. mentioned a similar DFS for robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) and LRH. Recurrence rates were significantly higher with MIS compared to ORH in the LACC trial (HR 4.26, 95% CI 1.44 to 12.60). In contrast, four studies presented by Greggi reported no significant difference in recurrence rates between LRH/RRH and ORH, which concurred with the systematic reviews of Zhang and Zhao. The experts mentioned various limitations of the LACC trial and stated that clinicians were obliged to provide patients with detailed information and ensure a shared decision-making process.

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical treatment of early-stage cervical cancer remains a debated issue. More randomized controlled trials (RCT) will be needed to establish the most suitable treatment for this condition.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Comparison of 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).

Prognostic Factors and Impact of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Early-stage Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Cervix

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prognostic factors and impact of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in surgically treated early-stage high-grade (HG) neuroendocrine cervical carcinoma (NECC).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.

PATIENTS

Patients with International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (2009) stages IB1 to IIA HG NECC.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients underwent radical hysterectomy (RH) with a laparotomy or an MIS approach.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Between 1993 and 2017, 47 patients with International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology stages IB1 to IIA1 HG NECC were initially treated with RH. Clinicopathologic variables of patients were retrospectively reviewed from electronic medical records. The median follow-up period was 28.2 months (interquartile range, 17.1-42). Stage IB1 disease was the most common (70.2%). Twenty-nine patients (61.7%) underwent RH by MIS. The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 63.8% and 38.3%, respectively. Lymph node metastasis and resection margin involvement were significant risk factors for DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.227; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.018-4.871; p =.045 and HR, 6.494; 95% CI, 1.415-29.809; p =.016, respectively) and OS (HR, 3.236; 95% CI, 1.188-8.815; p =.022 and HR, 12.710; 95% CI, 1.128-143.152; p =.040, respectively). The Kaplan-Meier survival curves revealed no significant differences in OS and DFS between the laparotomy and MIS groups (50% vs 72.4% log-rank p =.196, 38.9% vs 37.9% p =.975).

CONCLUSION

Lymph node metastasis and resection margin involvement were poor prognostic factors of survival outcomes in initially surgically treated early-stage HG NECC. No difference was observed in the survival outcomes between the MIS and laparotomy approaches.

Long-term oncological outcomes of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: A retrospective, single-institutional study in the wake of the LACC trial

AIM

The objective of this study was to investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer retrospectively in the wake of the laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer (LACC) trial.

METHODS

A total of 109 patients with stage IA1 with lymphovascular space involvement, IA2, and IB1 cervical cancers were included in this study. The surgical and oncological outcomes were retrospectively evaluated. All patients underwent type C MIRH with a no-touch isolation technique for cervical tumor.

RESULTS

The median number of resected pelvic lymph nodes was 36 (range, 14-94), and 10 patients (9.2%) had positive nodes. One patient (0.9%) had positive surgical margins. Forty-six patients (42%) underwent adjuvant therapy. The median follow-up time was 73 months (range, 30-146 months). Five patients (4.6%) developed recurrent disease, and 3 patients (2.8%) died of cervical cancer. The 5-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 96.3% and 97.2%, respectively. A comparison between patients with tumor diameter ≤ 2 cm (n = 59) and those with tumor diameter > 2 cm (n = 50) did not identify any significant differences, with 5-year disease-free survival 96.6% versus 94.0% and 5-year overall survival 98.3% versus 96.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study, MIRH with a no-touch isolation technique for stage IA to IB1 cervical cancer was a safe approach in terms of oncological outcomes. However, every surgeon who treats early-stage cervical cancer should inform each patient of the results of the LACC trial because it has an exceedingly high impact.

Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer patients without adjuvant treatment: Ancillary analysis of a Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group Study (KGOG 1028)

OBJECTIVE

We compared two groups of early stage cervical cancer patients treated with different surgical methods without adjuvant treatment using retrospective multicenter data previously collected for Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group (KGOG) study designed for developing prognostic models.

METHOD

We initially assessed data from the multi-institutional cohort with early stage (IB-IIA) cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy without adjuvant treatment between 2000 and 2008. Propensity score matching was performed to compare disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with laparoscopic to abdominal radical hysterectomy. Additionally, survival comparison was performed in patients with tumor size <2 cm.

RESULTS

After matching, 119 patients with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy were compared with 357 patients with abdominal radical hysterectomy (median follow-up of 63.9 months). Inferior DFS was observed in the laparoscopy group (HR 2.738 [95% CI 1.326-5.650], p = 0.005) with a significant difference in pelvic (HR 5.110 [95% CI 1.817-14.473], p < 0.001) and hematogenous recurrence (HR 3.171 [95% CI 1.059-9.494], p = 0.03), but OS was not significantly different between two groups (p = 0.624). In subgroup analysis in the patient with tumor size <2 cm (laparoscopy 62 vs. laparotomy 186, median follow-up of 69.1 months), laparoscopy was associated with lower rate of DFS (HR 12.987 [95% CI 1.451-116.244], p = 0.003), but no significant difference in OS was observed between groups. Regarding OS, number of events is lacking, and inferior DFS in the laparoscopy group may be compensated by better response to radiation therapy in pelvic recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was associated with lower rates of DFS but not OS in early stage cervical cancer patients without adjuvant treatment. Further larger scale studies are needed.

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.

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.

Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Early Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the value of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer by comparing intraoperative and postoperative outcomes with abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the Medline, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, through February 2, 2016 with keywords of "laparoscopic OR laparoscopy" AND "radical hysterectomy OR early cervical cancer OR stage IB, stage IB1, stage IB2, stage IIA, stage IIA1, stage IIA2, stage IIA cervical cancer" to identify all relevant studies that compared LRH with ARH in treating early cervical cancer. Two reviewers evaluated the quality of literature independently. Standardized tables were used to extract data (study or participant details and results) from the texts, tables, figures, or any other attachments of eligible publications. Weighted mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs) were pooled with the random effects model. Then we conducted meta-analysis using the RevMan5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 615 studies were initially identified. After screening, 23 studies, including 4205 patients were recruited. LRH was associated with lower estimated blood loss (mL) (MD = -178.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -214.89 to -141.94, P < .00001), longer operation time (minutes) (MD = 43.68, 95% CI = 29.42-57.95, P < .00001), fewer retrieved lymph nodes (MD = -3.44, 95% CI = -5.96 to -0.92, P = .007), shorter hospital stay (day) (MD = -3.17, 95% CI = -4.06 to -2.29, P < .00001), quicker return to normal bowel activity (day) (MD = -0.7, 95% CI = -0.96 to -0.45, P < .00001), and shorter duration of bladder catheterization (day) (MD = -1.69, 95% CI = -2.83 to -0.55, P < .004) than ARH. LRH also demonstrated lower odds of transfusion (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30-0.73, P = .0007), and ileus (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.12-0.91, P = .03) than ARH.

CONCLUSION

LRH outweighs ARH in treating early stage cervical cancer in most essential aspects, which should arouse sufficient attention.

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.

Robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic surgery is a challenging application of minimally invasive surgery. Due to the complexity of the surgical technique, requiring dissection along major abdominal vessels as well as delicate reconstruction involving biliary, pancreatic and enteric anastomoses, reports on laparoscopic pancreatic surgery have been scanty. With the advent of robotic-assisted surgery, however, the increased dexterity granted by endo-wristed instruments, the improved three-dimensional vision and the computer filtration of the surgeon's movements have brought minimally invasive pancreatic surgery into a new era.

METHODS

As the surgical group which has performed the highest number of robotic-assisted pancreatic procedures worldwide, we review the state of the art of minimally invasive robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery. Clinical results from all major robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery series are considered.

RESULTS

Preliminary reports from the published major pancreatic surgery series show encouraging results, with morbidity and mortality comparable to open surgery. Preliminary data on cancer survival rates also appear to be similar to open series.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery is safe and feasible for all pancreatic diseases. The complexity of pancreatic procedures warrant them to be carried out in specialised centres, where short- and long-term outcomes seem to be similar to the ones achieved in open surgery.

Learning curve analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for gynecologic oncologists without open counterpart experience

Objective

To evaluate the learning curve of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for gynecologic oncologists who underwent residency- and fellowship-training on laparoscopic surgery without previous experience in performing abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 84 patients with FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) stage IB cervical cancer who underwent LRH (Piver type III) between April 2006 and March 2014. The patients were divided into two groups (surgeon A group, 42 patients; surgeon B group, 42 patients) according to the surgeon with or without ARH experience. Clinico-pathologic data were analyzed between the 2 groups. Operating times were analyzed using the cumulative sum technique.

Results

The operating time in surgeon A started at 5 to 10 standard deviations of mean operating time and afterward steeply decreased with operative experience (Pearson correlation coefficient=-0.508, P=0.001). Surgeon B, however, showed a gentle slope of learning curve within 2 standard deviations of mean operating time (Pearson correlation coefficient=-0.225, P=0.152). Approximately 18 cases for both surgeons were required to achieve surgical proficiency for LRH. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor size (>4 cm) was significantly associated with increased operating time (P=0.027; odds ratio, 4.667; 95% confidence interval, 1.187 to 18.352).

Conclusion

After completing the residency- and fellowship-training course on gynecologic laparoscopy, gynecologic oncologists, even without ARH experience, might reach an acceptable level of surgical proficiency in LRH after approximately 20 cases and showed a gentle slope of learning curve, taking less effort to initially perform LRH.

Perioperative Outcomes of Radical Trachelectomy in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: Vaginal Versus Laparoscopic Approaches

Objective

This study aimed to compare the laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal trachelectomy (LARVT) and laparoscopic radical trachelectomy (LRT) surgical approaches and provide outcome data on patients who have undergone radical trachelectomy.

Methods

We identified patients who had undergone LARVT or LRT at Samsung Medical Center between January 2005 and March 2013.

Results

A total of 38 patients were identified, and 21 patients had undergone LARVT, whereas 17 patients had undergone LRT. The median age was 32 years for both groups. Most of the patients had a squamous cell carcinoma (68.4%) and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IB1 disease (76.3%). Twenty (52.6%) of 38 patients had tumor size greater than 2 cm. There were no significant differences between groups in the baseline characteristics except for the tumor size. Patients undergoing LRT had significantly larger tumor size than patients undergoing LARVT (median tumor size, 2.7 cm [range, 1.2–3.7] vs 2.1 cm [range, 0.4–3.0],P= 0.032). Perioperative outcomes were similar between groups except for the decline of hemoglobin after surgery. The median decline of hemoglobin indicating blood loss was significantly smaller in the LRT group than in the LARVT group (1.8 g/dL [range, 0.5–3.5] vs 2.6 g/dL [range, 0.7–6.2],P= 0.017). Intraoperative complications occurred in 2 patients (9.5%, 2/21) in LARVT group. Although 52.6% of tumors were larger than 2 cm, recurrence occurred only in 3 (7.9%) patients who underwent LARVT.

Conclusions

The study shows the feasibility of LRT, with the advantage of reduced blood loss. The LRT could be an alternative option for patients with large tumors. Further researches are needed to investigate the long-term outcomes.

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.