Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Group Research Articles

Comparison of surgical and oncological outcomes between different surgical approaches for overweight or obese cervical cancer patients

The purpose was to investigate the safety and advantages of different surgical approaches applied to overweight or obese cervical cancer patients by comparing their surgical and oncological outcomes. This is a retrospective cohort study. 382 patients with a body mass index of at least 24.0 kg/m2 and stage IB-IIA (The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, FIGO 2009) cervical cancer were enrolled, and then were divided into three groups: open radical hysterectomy (ORH) group, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) group, and robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) group according to the surgical approach. IBM SPSS version 25.0 was used to analyze data. There were 51 patients in ORH group, 225 patients in LRH group and 106 patients in RRH group. In the comparison of surgical outcomes, compared to LRH and ORH, RRH had the shortest operating time, the least estimated blood loss, the shortest postoperative hospital stay, and the shortest recovery time for bowel function (P < 0.05). In the comparison of postoperative complications, ORH has the highest rate of postoperative infection and wound complication compared to LRH and RRH (P < 0.05), and RRH has the highest proportion of urinary retention. After a median follow-up time of 61 months, there was no statistically significant difference between the three groups in terms of 5-year overall survival (OS) rate and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate, (P = 0.262, P = 0.453). In patients with overweight or obese cervical cancer, the long-term outcomes of the three surgical approaches were comparable, with RRH showing significant advantages over ORH and LRH in terms of surgical outcomes.

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

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. 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. 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). 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 modified radical laparoscopic hysterectomy versus open radical hysterectomy on short-term clinical outcomes in early-stage cervical cancer: a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThe long-term prognosis of minimally invasive surgery and open surgery for early cervical cancer is controversial. This study mainly discusses the feasibility and effectiveness of the endocutter in radical laparoscopic hysterectomy for early cervical cancer.MethodsA single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial of modified radical laparoscopic hysterectomy on patients with FIGO stage IA1 (lymphovascular invasion), IA2, and IB1 cervical cancer, between January 2020 and July 2021. Patients were randomly assigned into laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and open radical hysterectomy (ORH) groups. The ORH group used right-angle sealing forceps for vaginal stump closure, whereas the LRH group used endoscopic staplers. The primary outcomes included the evaluation of the patient’s perioperative indicators, as well as short- and long-term complications. Recurrence and overall survival were considered secondary outcomes.ResultsAs of July 2021, 17 patients were enrolled in the laparoscopic surgery group and 17 in the open surgery group. The hospitalization time of the laparoscopic group was significantly shorter than those of the open group (15 min vs. 9 min, P < 0.001). The vaginal stump closure time in the laparoscopic group was longer than that in the open surgery group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Post-operative catheter removal (P = 0.72), drainage tube removal time (P = 0.27), number of lymph node dissections (P = 0.72), and incidence of intraoperative and post-operative complications between the two groups (P > 0.05). The median blood loss in the laparoscopic group was 278 ml, and it was 350 ml in the laparotomy group. The intraoperative blood transfusion rate was lower in the laparoscopic group; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.175). Vaginal margin pathology and peritoneal lavage cytology were negative, and all the patient’s vaginal stumps healed without infection. The median follow-up time of the laparoscopic group was 20.5 months, and it was 22 months for the open surgery group. There was no recurrence in all patients during the follow-up period.ConclusionsModified LRH with endocutter closure of the vaginal stump is an effective approach and not inferior to ORH in treating patients with early-stage cervical cancer.Trial registrationChiCTR2000030160, date of registration February 26, 2020 (https://www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=49809).

Survival outcomes of laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer with incidentally identified high-risk factors

ObjectivePreviously, we suggested that patients with cervical cancer (CC) with tumors ≤2 cm on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are safe candidates for laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH). Here, we aim to investigate whether LRH deteriorates the prognosis of patients with incidentally identified high-risk factors; lymph node metastasis (LNM) or parametrial invasion (PMI). MethodsWe identified patients with 2009 FIGO stage IB1 CC who underwent Type C LRH or open radical hysterectomy (ORH) at three tertiary hospitals between 2000 and 2019. Those with a tumor ≤2 cm on preoperative MRI who were not suspicious of LNM or PMI preoperatively were included, while those who were indicated to receive adjuvant treatment but did not actually receive it were excluded. Survival outcomes were compared between the LRH and ORH groups in the overall population, then narrowed down to those with LNM, and then to those with PMI. ResultsIn total, 498 patients were included: 299 in the LRH group and 199 in the ORH group. The LRH and ORH groups showed similar 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) (94.0% vs. 93.6%; P = 0.615) and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates (97.2% vs. 96.8%; P = 0.439). On pathologic examination, 49 (9.8%) and 16 (3.2%) patients had LNM and PMI, respectively, and 10 (2.0%) had both. In the LNM subgroup, 5-year PFS rate was not significantly different between the LRH and ORH groups (73.2% vs. 91.7%; P = 0.169). In the PMI subgroup, no difference in PFS was observed between the two groups (P = 0.893). ConclusionsLRH might not deteriorate recurrence and mortality rates in CC patients with tumors ≤2 cm when adjuvant treatment is appropriately administered, even if pathologic LNM and PMI are incidentally identified.

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer stage IB1.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare survival outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (RRH) and conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in cervical cancer stage IB1. Method: This is a retrospective study of patients with cervical cancer stage IB1 who surgically treated by either RRH or LRH. Oncologic outcomes of the patients were compared according to surgical approach. Results: In total, 66 and 29 patients were assigned to LRH and RRH groups. All patients had stage IB1 disease (FIGO 2018). Intermediate risk factors (tumor size, LVSI, and deep stromal invasion), proportion of patients receiving adjuvant therapy (30.3% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.09), and median follow-up time (LRH, 61 months; RRH, 50 months; p=0.085) did not differ significantly between the two groups. The recurrence rate was higher in the LRH group; however, there was no significant difference between the two groups (p=0.250). DFS (55.4 vs 48.2 months, p = 0.250), and OS (61.2 vs 50.0 months, p = 0.287) were similar between the LRH and RRH groups. Conclusion: In patients with a tumor size < 2 cm, the recurrence rate was lower in RRH group; however, there was no significant difference. Further large-scale RCTs and clinical studies are required to provide relevant data.

Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and open abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) have been used for cervical cancer treatment. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of LRH and ARH in the treatment of cervical cancer to provide reliable evidence to the clinical cervical cancer treatment. Two investigators independently searched PubMed and other databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LRH and ARH for cervical cancer treatment up to May 31, 2022. The risk of bias assessment tool recommended by Cochrane library was used for quality assessment. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. Fourteen RCTs with a total of 1700 patients with cervical cancer were finally included. Meta-analyses indicated that compared with ARH, LRH reduced the intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD]=-58.08; 95% CI, -70.91, -45.24), the time to first passage of flatus (MD=-14.50; 95% CI, -16.55, -12.44) (all P <0.05), and increase the number of lymph nodes removed (MD=3.47; 95% CI, 0.51, 6.43; P =0.02). There were no significant differences in the duration of surgery (MD=27.62; 95% CI, -6.26, 61.49), intraoperative complications (odd ratio [OR]=1.10; 95% CI, 0.17, 7.32), postoperative complications (OR=0.78; 95% CI, 0.33, 1.86), relapse rate (OR=1.45; 95% CI, 0.56, 3.74), and survival rate (OR=0.75; 95% CI, 0.52, 1.08) between LRH group and ARH group (all P >0.05). LRH has more advantages over ARH in the treatment of cervical cancer. Still, the long-term effects and safety of LRH and ARH need more high-quality, large-sample RCTs to be further verified.

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

Introduction and hypothesisThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsThere 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.ConclusionsPatients 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.

Outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in IA1- IB1 cervical cancer patients with low-risk: A multi-center retrospective study with 10 years’ experience (487)

<b>Objectives:</b> More evidence revealed that the oncological outcomes of open abdominal radical hysterectomy (OARH) were superior to those of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer (CC). However, limited by the number of CC patients with IA and low-risk IB1, some aspects still needed more study to clarify. This retrospective study aimed to estimate the outcomes of LRH for IA1-IB1 cervical cancer patients with low- risk, which was defined as tumor <2cm, less than one-third stromal invasion, no lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), no lymph node involvement. <b>Methods:</b> By carefully studying the results of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) Trial, we were surprised to find that the number of early-stage CC patients with low risk was relatively insufficient. Therefore, we retrospectively reviewed the medical records to identify the low-risk patients with FIGO 2018 stage IA1, IA2, and IB1 cervical cancer and who received laparoscopic or abdominal radical hysterectomy from January 2010 to December 2020 at four hospitals. The Mann-Whitney U test and the Chi-square test were used for the comparison of categorical variables. Progression-free survival and overall survival were compared between matched groups using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank tests, along with univariable and multivariable regression analysis. <b>Results:</b> Of 5360 patients selected, 1850 (35%) met the inclusion criteria for this study from January 2010 to December 2020. Of these, 1090 patients underwent open surgery, and 760 patients had laparoscopic surgery. In the entire cohort, the two groups were similar in regard to clinical characteristics, such as age, body mass index (BMI), FIGO stage, histologic type and grade, pelvic lymph nodes, positive margins, stromal invasion, LVSI, and adjuvant therapy. LRH had better outcomes compared with OARH in terms of blood loss, transfusion rates, and the length of hospital stay. And in the subgroup analysis, when it referred to those patients with low-risk factors (tumor <2cm, superficial stromal invasion, negative LVSI, and no lymph node involvement), the LRH group was equivalent to the OARH group with respect to both disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates. What's more, when the tumor was >2cm or accompanied by other medium and high-risk factors, the LRH group showed a significantly shorter DFS and OS than OARH, which was consistent with the LACC Trial. <b>Conclusions:</b> Among FIGO 2018 stage IA1-IB1 CC patients with low- risk, tumor <2cm, superficial stromal invasion, negative LVSI, and no lymph node involvement, there was no detrimental effect on survival between LRH and OARH. And it also needed more prospective studies to explore the oncological outcomes of low-risk CC patients with stage IA1-IB1. Besides, LRH was closely associated with worse oncological outcomes than OARH in patients with risk factors.

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

ObjectiveTo compare sugrical and survival outcomes between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH). MethodsAll 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. ResultsThere 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). ConclusionsLRH 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).

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

ObjectivesWe 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 MethodsThe 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionThe 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.

Trends in Surgical Morbidity and Survival Outcomes for Radical Hysterectomy in West China: An 11-Year Retrospective Cohort Study.

ObjectivesTo vertically analyze the trend of surgical approaches, demographics, surgical morbidity, and long-term survival outcomes of early-stage cervical cancer over the past 11 years and to determine whether there have been any significant changes.MethodsA total of 851 patients with consecutive International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IA–IIA cervical cancer diagnosed between January 2008 and June 2018 at a single center in China were included in this retrospective study. Trends in the rate of minimally invasive surgery (MIS), demographics, surgical morbidities, and long-term survival outcomes were determined. We categorized patients into two groups according to their year of operation. The demographics, pathological factors, surgical morbidity, and long-term survival outcomes were compared between these two groups.ResultsRegarding the surgical approach, there was a significant increase in the rate of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) performed over the study period, from 7.8% in 2008 to 72.5% in 2018 (p < 0.0001). The mean age of patients who underwent abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) has increased slightly from 2008 to 2018, and those who underwent ARH in the second half of the study period (2014–2018) were significantly older (45.01 vs. 47.50 years; p = 0.001). The most impressive changes over the past 11 years have occurred in the surgical morbidity in both the ARH and LRH groups. The overall surgical morbidity decreased from 29.2% in 2008 to 11.9% in 2018, with an annual rate of 1.57%. The median estimated blood loss volume of the ARH group was 500 ml (range 50–2,000) in the first few years compared to 400 ml (30–2500) in the last few years of the study period (p < 0.0001), which in the LRH group was 350 ml (range 150–800) and 150 ml (range 5–1,000), respectively (p < 0.0001). Similarly, allogeneic blood transfusions and hospital stay have all decreased dramatically over time in both approaches. On the other hand, our study did not reveal any significant statistical changes in long-term survival outcomes over the follow-up period in either group.ConclusionsThe findings of our study demonstrate that great progress in surgically managed cervical cancer has been made over the last decade in West China. Our retrospective study demonstrated that the year of operation does not appear to influence the long-term survival, but the surgical morbidity impressively decreased over the study period in both the ARH and LRH groups, which reflects that the higher hospital surgical volume for radical hysterectomy (RH) was not associated with lower survival outcomes but related to the reduction of surgical morbidity.

Efficacy evaluation of vaginal-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a single-center retrospective case series study.

BackgroundTo investigate the survival outcomes of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH), laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH), and vaginal-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (VALRH) in the treatment of cervical cancer patients.MethodsThis was a retrospective study. We collected the clinical data of 654 patients with cervical cancer (406 ARH, 172 LRH, and 76 VALRH), then compared the effects of different surgical methods on recurrence and survival.ResultsTotal overall survival (OS) were no significant differences in three groups (P>0.05). Total disease-free survival (DFS) was significantly higher in ARH group than in LRH group [hazard ratio (HR) =2.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.199–3.607, P=0.004]; however, there were no significant differences between the VALRH (94.7%) and ARH (93.3%) groups. Subgroup stratification analysis showed that the overall recurrence rate in LRH group was significantly higher than that of the ARH groups for patients with a tumor size from ≥2 to <4 cm, negative postoperative lymph nodes, and no postoperative adjuvant therapy (all P<0.05). However, in the subgroup with tumor sizes of ≥2, <4, and ≥4 cm, no matter whether the lymph nodes were positive or not, and those with no postoperative supplementary adjuvant therapy, LRH was associated with a significantly higher local pelvic recurrence rate than ARH (all P<0.05). No significant differences between VALRH and ARH in any of the subgroup analyses (all P>0.05). A Cox analysis indicated that LRH increased the risk of overall and local pelvic recurrence after surgery compared with ARH (HR =2.338, 95% CI: 1.186–4.661, P=0.014; HR =10.313, 95% CI: 2.839–37.460, P<0.001); however, no significant difference between VALRH and ARH (all P>0.05). Sensitivity analysis of surgeons did not change the conclusions.ConclusionsOur analyses showed that the local pelvic recurrence rates and overall recurrence rates of LRH were significantly higher than ARH. VALRH could avoid tumor intraperitoneal exposure and achieve the same tumor prognosis as open surgery. By improving the standardization of minimally invasive surgery for early cervical cancer and paying close attention to the tumor-free concept, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy may achieve the same tumor outcome as open surgery.

Laparoscopic nerve\u2011sparing radical hysterectomy for the treatment of cervical cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BackgroundThe effects and safety of laparoscopic nerve‑sparing radical hysterectomy (LNSRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in cervical cancer treatment remain unclear. This article aims to evaluate the role of LNSRH versus LRH in the treatment of cervical cancer. This is because the updated meta-analysis with synthesized data may provide more reliable evidence on the role of LNSRH and LRH.MethodsWe searched Pubmed et al. databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving laparoscopic nerve‑sparing radical hysterectomy (LNSRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer treatment from the inception of databases to June 15, 2021. The RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analyses. This meta-analysis protocol had been registered online (available at: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2021-9-0047/).ResultsThirteen RCTs involving a total of 1002 cervical cancer patients were included. Synthesized results indicated that the duration of surgery of the LNSRH group was significantly longer than that of the LRH group [SMD 1.11, 95% CI (0.15 ~ 2.07), P = 0.02]. The time to intestinal function recovery [SMD −1.27, 95% CI (−1.84 ~ −0.69), P < 0.001] and the time to postoperative urinary catheter removal of the LNSRH group [SMD −1.24, 95% CI (−1.62 ~ −0.86), P < 0.001] were significantly less than that of the LRH group. There were no significant differences in the estimated blood loss [SMD 0.10, 95% CI (−0.14 ~ 0.34), P = 0.41], the length of parauterine tissue resection [SMD −0.10, 95% CI (−0.25 ~ 0.05), P = 0.19], length of vaginal excision [SMD 0.04, 95% CI (−0.26 ~ 0.34), P = 0.78], and incidence of intraoperative adverse events [RR 0.97, 95% CI (0.44 ~ 2.13), P = 0.94] between the LNSRH group and the LRH group.ConclusionsLNSRH significantly results in earlier bladder and bowel function after surgery. Limited by sample size, LNSRH should be considered with caution in the future.

Effects of Perioperative Inflammatory Response in Cervical Cancer: Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery.

There are few studies between postoperative neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and survival in cervical cancer. We compared postoperative changes in NLR according to surgical methods and analyzed the effect of these changes on 5-year mortality of cervical cancer patients. A total of 929 patients were assigned to either the laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) (n = 721) or open radical hysterectomy (ORH) (n = 208) group. Propensity score matching analysis compared the postoperative NLR changes between the two groups, and multivariate logistic regression analysis evaluated the association between NLR changes and 5-year mortality. Surgical outcomes between the two groups were also compared. In the LRH group, NLR changes at postoperative day (POD) 0 and POD 1 were significantly lower than in the ORH group after matching (NLR change at POD 0, 10.4 vs. 14.3, p < 0.001; NLR change at POD 1, 3.5 vs. 5.4, p < 0.001). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, postoperative NLR change was not associated with 5-year mortality (2nd quartile: OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.56–4.29, p = 0.401; 3rd quartile: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.29–2.82, p = 0.869; 4th quartile: OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.48–3.61, p = 0.598), whereas preoperative NLR was associated with 5-year mortality (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.06–1.43, p = 0.005). After matching, there were no significant differences in surgical outcomes between the two groups. There were significantly fewer postoperative changes of NLR in the LRH group. However, the extent of these NLR changes was not associated with 5-year mortality. By contrast, preoperative NLR was associated with 5-year mortality.

Lymph-Vascular Space Invasion in Patients with Stages IA2-IIA2 Cervical Cancer Treated with Laparoscopic versus Open Radical Hysterectomy.

ObjectiveTo explore the relationship between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and cervical cancer lymph-vascular space invasion (LVSI) by comparing the prevalence of LVSI in cervical cancer patients who underwent LRH versus open radical hysterectomy (ORH).MethodsThe study participants were 1087 cervical cancer patients (FIGO 2009 stages IA2-IIA2) with pathologically confirmed with or without LVSI who underwent radical hysterectomy at Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University from 2013 through 2018. The patients were divided according to the type of surgical procedure into an LRH group (n=148) and an ORH group (n=939).ResultsIn the LRH group, 31.76% of patients (47/148) had LVSI-positive tumors compared to 33.23% of patients (312/939) in the ORH group; the difference was not significant (p=0.724). No between-group differences in LVSI prevalence according to lymph node metastasis, interstitial infiltration depth, differentiation degree, and parametrial infiltration were found. However, the number of LVSI-positive patients whose cervical cancer lesions >4 cm (stage I B2 and II A2) was significantly higher in the LRH group than in the ORH group (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.333, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.157–0.706, p=0.005). The 3-Year disease-free survival (DFS) in the LRH group is lower than that in the ORH group (94.75% vs 97.27%), but there was no significance (P=0.187). Furthermore, the percentage of LVSI-positive tumors in patients with lymph node metastases was significantly higher than those without lymph node metastases (OR 2.897, 95% CI 2.129–3.942, p=0.000). The 3-Year DFS were 98.22% in the LVSI negative patients and 93.78% in the LVSI positive patients, the difference was significant (P=0.002).ConclusionA higher risk of lymph node metastasis and a lower 3-Year DFS was found in the LVSI-positive patients. In case of LVSI, it would be dangerous to treat patient in laparoscopy, especially in case of cervical cancer lesions >4cm.

The incidence of urologic complications requiring urologic procedure in radical hysterectomy and difference between abdominal radical hysterectomy and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the incidence of urologic complications requiring a urologic procedure during the perioperative period and compare the differences between abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH).MethodsWe identified all Korean women who underwent radical hysterectomy (RH) between January 2006 and December 2019 using the National Health Insurance Service database. Complications requiring surgical intervention-based urologic procedures between ARH and LRH were investigated.ResultsA total of 12,068 patients were classified into the ARH group and 8,837 patients were classified into the LRH group. Urologic complications requiring urologic procedures occurred in 1,546 of 20,905 patients (7.40%) who underwent RH. The most common urologic procedure was double-J insertion (R326, 5.18%), followed by bladder repair (R3550, 0.90%). There was no significant difference in urologic complications requiring urologic procedures between the ARH and LRH groups (odds ratio [OR]=1.027; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.925–1.141; p=0.612). The incidence of bladder repair (R3550) was significantly higher in patients who underwent LRH (OR=1.620; 95% CI=1.220–2.171; p<0.001). Urologic complications requiring urologic procedures were statistically higher in the LRH group during the first half (OR=1.446; 95% CI=1.240–1.685; p<0.001), but more in the ARH group during the second half (OR=0.696; 95% CI=0.602–0.804; p<0.001) of the study period.ConclusionThere was no difference of urologic complications between ARH and LRH with regard to urologic procedures. The incidence of urologic procedures decreases with time in patients who underwent LRH.

A Comparison of Laparoscopies and Laparotomies for Radical Hysterectomy in Stage IA1-IB1 Cervical Cancer Patients: A Single Team With 18 Years of Experience.

ObjectiveTo investigate the safety and efficacy of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in managing early-stage cervical cancer.MethodsThis retrospective study comprised patients with FIGO stage IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), IA2, and IB1 cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy performed by a single gynecologic oncology team at Peking Union Medical College Hospital from 2000–2018. The clinicopathological characteristics, surgical outcomes, and survival outcomes were compared between the two groups.ResultsThe ARH and LRH groups consisted of 84 and 172 patients, respectively. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 89.3 and 95.9% in the ARH and LRH groups (P = 0.122, adjusted HR = 0.449, 95% CI: 0.162–1.239), respectively, while the 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 95.2 and 98.8%, respectively (P = 0.578, adjusted HR = 0.650, 95% CI: 0.143–2.961). The presence of more than two comorbidities led to poor OS (P = 0.011). For patients with a BMI greater than 24 kg/m2, LRH was associated with better PFS (P = 0.039). Compared with ARH, LRH was associated with a shorter operation time (248.8 vs. 176.9 min, P < 0.001), less blood loss (670.2 vs. 200.9 ml, P < 0.001), and lower postoperative ileus rates (2.4% vs. 0%, P = 0.042). No significant differences were observed in PFS and OS between 2006–2012, 2013–2015, and 2016–2018 in the LRH group (P = 0.126 and P = 0.583).ConclusionCompared with ARH, LRH yields similar survival and improved surgical outcomes in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. LRH is not inferior to ARH for select cervical cancer patients treated by a single team with adequate laparoscopy experience.

An Australian, single-centre study of surgical management outcomes for early-stage cervical cancer.

The Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial is the first phase III randomised, multicentred trial to compare oncologic outcomes associated with open radical hysterectomy vs minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for treatment of early cervical cancer. To evaluate our surgical experience in patients with early cervical cancer. The Lifehouse Gynaecologic Oncology database was queried based upon the eligibility criteria of the LACC study and included all FIGO 2009 stage (1A1 with lymph vascular space invasion, 1A2, 1B1) cervical cancer women from 2008-2018. Patients were also included in our study if they had abdominal radical trachelectomy (ART), laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) and robotic radical trachelectomy (RRT). Forty-six women were identified with four exclusions. Thirty-seven women had stage 1B1 disease, 24 had a squamous cell carcinoma, 15 had an adenocarcinoma and three had an adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix. Of the 42 eligible patients, 32 underwent an open abdominal approach (26 total abdominal radical hysterectomy (TARH), six ART) and ten a MIS approach (nine TLRH and one RRT) with a mean follow-up of 4.8years. All 42 women had a pelvic lymph node dissection, eight women had nodal metastases and 16 patients received adjuvant chemoradiation. Two of the nine women in the laparoscopic radical hysterectomy group had a recurrence. Both had adenocarcinoma, stage 1B1 disease. There were no recurrences in the TARH group or radical trachelectomy groups. Our data, albeit limited in number, have reflected the results of the LACC trial that MIS was associated with a lower disease-free survival than open radical hysterectomy.

Comparative study on the oncological prognosis of laparoscopy and laparotomy for stage IIA1 cervical squamous cell carcinoma

ObjectiveTo compare the 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rate of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for stage IIA1 cervical squamous cell carcinoma. MethodsBased on a large database containing information on the clinical diagnosis and treatment of cervical cancer in China, the oncological outcomes of the two surgical approaches for stage IIA1 cervical squamous cell carcinoma were compared after 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM). ResultsAfter 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM), 510 patients were included in the LRH group, and 999 patients were included in the ARH group. LRH showed a similar 5-year OS but a lower DFS rate (81.3% vs. 87.4%, P = 0.018) than ARH. In the multivariate analysis, LRH was identified as an independent risk factor for worse 5-year DFS (HR = 1.569, 95% CI: 1.131–2.176, P = 0.007). Among patients with a tumour size <2 cm, the LRH and ARH groups showed similar OS and DFS rates after 1:2 PSM, and multivariate analysis showed that the surgical approach was not an independent risk factor affecting the OS or DFS rate. Among patients with a tumour size ≥2 cm and <4 cm, there was no difference in OS between the LRH and ARH groups after matching, but the DFS in the LRH group was significantly lower than that in the ARH group (81.1% vs 86.2%, P = 0.034). In the multivariate analysis, the laparoscopic approach was not associated with OS but was independently associated with worse DFS (HR = 1.546, 95% CI: 1.094–2.185, P = 0.014). ConclusionsLRH was associated with poorer 5-year DFS than ARH in patients with stage IIA1 cervical squamous cell carcinoma. However, LRH showed 5-year OS and DFS rates similar to those of ARH among patients with a tumour size <2 cm. For patients with a tumour size ≥2 cm and <4 cm, LRH showed a lower DFS rate than ARH.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter study in China

IntroductionRecently, the safety of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of cervical cancer has been questioned. This study was designed to compare the disease-free survival and overall survival of abdominal...