Safety Of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Research Articles

Comparative single-center study between modified laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer

BackgroundSince the release of the LACC trial results in 2018, the safety of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer has received huge attention and heated discussion. We developed modified laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (MLRH) incorporating a series of measures to prevent tumor spillage, which has been performed in our center since 2015.ObjectivePresent study retrospectively analyzed relevant indicators of MLRH and evaluated disease-free survival (DFS) primarily in the treatment of early cervical cancer compared with open surgery.MethodsPatients with 2014 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics clinical stages 1B1 and 2A1 cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy in the gynecological department of our hospital from October 2015 to June 2018 were enrolled retrospectively in this study. Patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical procedure: open radical hysterectomy (ORH) group (n = 336) and MLRH group (n = 302). Clinical characteristics, surgical indices, and survival prognosis were analyzed, including 2.5-year overall survival (OS) rate, 2.5-year DFS rate, recurrence rate, and recurrence pattern.ResultsCompared to the ORH group, the MLRH group exhibited a longer operative time, longer normal bladder function recovery time, less intraoperative blood loss volume, and more harvested pelvic lymph nodes (P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in postoperative complications, the 2.5-year OS, 2.5-year DFS, and recurrence rate between the two groups (P > 0.05); however, the recurrence pattern was significantly different (P < 0.05). The MLRH group mainly exhibited local single metastasis (7/11), whereas the ORH group mainly exhibited distant multiple metastases (14/16). Stratified analysis revealed that overall survival rate was higher in the MLRH group than in the ORH group in patients with stage 1B1 and middle invasion (P < 0.05).ConclusionMLRH does not show a survival disadvantage in the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer when compared with open surgery. In addition, MLRH shows a survival advantage in patients with stage 1B1 and middle 1/3 invasion. Considering this is a retrospective study, further prospective study is necessary for more sufficient data support.Trial registrationPresent research is a retrospective study. The study had retrospectively registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn/), and the registered number is ChiCTR1900026306.

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.

Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early cervical adenocarcinoma

Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early cervical adenocarcinoma. Methods: A retrospective observational study was performed by reviewing medical records of patients with staging Ⅰb1-Ⅱa2 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO, 2009) cervical adenocarcinoma who underwent laparoscopic or abdominal radical hysterectomy from 2007 to 2017 in the Cancer Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences. The difference among clinicopathologic characteristics, surgery-related parameters and complications, and prognosis were analyzed between the laparoscopic group and abdominal group. Results: Two hundreds and ninety-three patients were included with 88 cases in laparoscopic group and 205 cases in abdominal group. （1） There was no significant difference in clinicopathologic characteristics between the two groups （all P>0.05）, including age, body mass index, menopause status, history of abdominal surgery, clinical stage, tumor diameter, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, differentiation, lymph-vascular space invasion, positive of surgical margin, parametrial invasion, and lymph node metastasis. But the abdominal group showed a higher proportion of deep stromal invasion (38.5% vs 25.0%, P<0.05). No significant difference was observed between two groups with number of lymph nodes resected, urinary catheter retention, short-term surgical complications (including ureteral injury, ileus, infection, hydronephrosis and poor wound healing), and long-term complications (including voiding dysfunction, defecation dysfunction and lower limb edema； all P>0.05）. （2） The laparoscopic group was significantly associated with a longer operation time [(260±51) minutes vs (244±53) minutes, P<0.05], but less bleeding (100 ml vs 300 ml, P<0.01), shorter hospital stay [(13±5) days vs (16±8) days, P<0.01] and lower incidence of lymphedema (12.5% vs 27.8%, P<0.01). （3） The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS; 85.7% vs 86.4%, P=0.971) and 5-year overall survival (OS; 91.4% vs 93.0%, P=0.657) of laparoscopic group were comparable to that of abdominal group. （4） Multivariate analysis demonstrated that lymph node metastasis (HR=2.44, 95%CI: 1.16-5.15, P=0.019) was independent poor prognostic factors related to PFS, while adenosquamous carcinoma (HR=2.54, 95%CI: 1.02-6.35, P=0.046), lymph-vascular space invasion (HR=3.86, 95%CI: 1.60-9.33, P=0.003) and lymph node metastasis (HR=5.92, 95%CI: 2.45-14.34, P<0.01) were independent poor prognostic factors related to OS. The laparoscopy surgery was not an independent poor prognostic factor (P=0.396). Conclusion: The laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early cervical adenocarcinoma has comparable prognosis to abdominal radical hysterectomy with a higher surgery quality.

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

AimRecently, 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. MethodsPatients 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. ResultsOf 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. ConclusionAfter 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.

Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer based on the latest literature

Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer based on the latest literature

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with vaginectomy and reconstruction of vagina in patients with stage I of primary vaginal carcinoma

Objectives The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the technique, feasibility and oncological safety of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with vaginectomy and reconstruction of vagina in patients with stage I primary vaginal carcinomas. Methods Between February 2003 and July 2004, four patients, that had needs of sexual life, aging from 41 to 61 years with stage I primary vaginal carcinoma located at the upper third or 2/3 of the vagina, were submitted to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with vaginectomy and reconstruction of the vagina using the sigmoid colon. Results The average operative time was 305 min (range260–350 min). The average estimated blood loss was 325 ml (range 250–400 ml), and the medial number of the lymph nodes removed was 16 (range 13–20). All surgical margins and nodes removed were negative histopathologically. There were no intra-operative and postoperative complications. The mean stay day after surgery was 7 days (range 6–8 days). The mean length of a neo-vagina was 13 cm (range 12–15 cm) and the introitus admitted two fingers in breadth. The mean follow-up was 46 months (range 40–54 months). All patients are clinically free of disease and have satisfactory sexual life. None require dilation of the introitus. During the first 6 months, all the patients had little complaints of excessive leucorrhoea. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first reported laparoscopical radical surgery combined with reconstruction of the vagina in patients with early-stage primary vaginal cancer. Our results have demonstrated the oncological safety and feasibility of the laparoscopical procedure. Intermediate-term follow-up validates the adequacy of this procedure.