Reproductive Outcomes in Young Women with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer Greater than 2 cm Undergoing Fertility-Sparing Treatment: A Systematic Review.

Background and Objectives: Despite advancements in detection and treatment, cervical cancer remains a significant health concern, particularly among young women of reproductive age. Limited data exists in the literature regarding fertility-sparing treatment (FST) of cervical cancers with tumor sizes greater than 2 cm. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the reproductive outcomes of women diagnosed with cervical cancer greater than 2 cm who underwent FST. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature was carried out on the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register), the Health Technology Assessment Database, and Web of Science. Only original studies (retrospective or prospective) that reported reproductive outcomes of patients with cervical cancer >2 cm were considered eligible for inclusion in this systematic review (CRD42024521964). Studies describing only the oncologic outcomes, involving FST for cervical cancers less than 2 cm in size, and case reports were excluded. Results: Seventeen papers that met the abovementioned inclusion criteria were included in the present systematic review. In total, 443 patients with a cervical cancer larger than 2 cm were included in this systematic review. Eighty pregnancies occurred, with 24 miscarriages and 54 live births. Conclusions: FST appears to be a viable option for women of childbearing age diagnosed with cervical cancer larger than 2 cm. However, careful consideration is advised in interpreting these encouraging results, as they are subject to limitations, such as variability in study designs and potential biases. In addition, reproductive outcomes should be further cross-referenced with oncologic outcomes to clarify the potential risk-benefit ratio. It is critical to conduct further research using standardized approaches and larger participant groups to strengthen the validity of the conclusions drawn.

Preoperative frailty assessment in patients undergoing gynecologic oncology surgery: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present article was to discuss currently available evidence on the impact of frailty assessment on adverse postoperative outcomes and survival in patients undergoing surgery for gynecological cancer. METHODS: Systematic search of Medline (PubMed) and Embase databases until September 30, 2020. Key inclusion criteria were: (1) randomized or observational studies; (2) patients undergoing non-emergent surgery for gynecological malignancies; (3) preoperative frailty assessment. RESULTS: Through the process of evidence acquisition, twelve studies including 85,672 patients were selected and six tools were evaluable: 30-item frailty index, 40-item frailty index, modified frailty index (mFI), John Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups index, Fried frailty criteria, Driver's tool. The prevalence of frailty varied roughly from 6.1% to 60% across different series included. The mFI was the most adopted and predictive instrument. Pooled results underlined that frail patients were more likely to develop 30-day postoperative complications (OR:4.16; 95%CI 1.49-11.65; p:0.007), non-home discharge (OR:4.41; 95%CI: 4.09-4.76; p < 0.001), ICU admission (OR:3.99;3.76-4.24; p < 0.001) than the non-frail counterpart. Additionally, frail patients experienced worse oncologic outcomes (disease-free and overall survivals) than non-frail patients. CONCLUSION: The present systematic review demonstrated that preoperative frailty assessment among gynecologic oncology patients is essential to predict adverse outcomes and tailor a personalized treatment. The mFI appeared as the most used and feasible tool in daily practice, suggesting that tailored therapeutic strategies should be considered for patients with 3 or more frailty-defining items.

Role of robotic surgery on pelvic floor reconstruction.

Over the past two decades, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) abdominal surgery has increasingly been used to treat pelvic organ prolapse. Besides the several advantages associated with minimal invasiveness, this approach bridged the gap between the benefits of vaginal surgery and the surgical success rates of open abdominal procedures. The most commonly performed procedure for suspension of the vaginal apex for postoperative vaginal prolapse by robotic-assisted laparoscopy is the sacrocolpopexy. Conventional laparoscopic application of this procedure was first reported in 1994 by Nezhat et al. and had not gained widespread adoption due to lengthy learning curve associated with laparoscopic suturing. Since FDA approval of the da Vinci® robot for gynecologic surgery in 2005, minimally invasive abdominal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse has become increasingly popular, as robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is an option for those surgeons without experience or training in the conventional route. Robotic surgery has made its way into the armamentarium of POP treatment and has allowed pelvic surgeons to adapt the "gold standard" technique of abdominal sacrocolpopexy to a minimally invasive approach with improved intraoperative morbidity and decreased convalescence. In fact, repair of pelvic organ prolapse can be performed robotically, and sometimes surgeons can feel suturing and dissection during the procedures less challenging with the assistance of the robot. However, even if robotic surgery may confer many benefits over conventional laparoscopy, these advantages should continue to be weighed against the cost of the technology. To date, as long-term outcomes, evidence about robotic sacrocolpopexy for a repair of pelvic organ prolapse are not conclusive, and much more investigations are needed to evaluate subjective and objective outcomes, perioperative and postoperative adverse events, and costs associated with these procedures. It is plausible to think that the main advantage is that robotics may lead to a widespread adoption of minimally invasive techniques in the field of pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. The following review will address the development and current state of robotic assistance in treating pelvic floor reconstruction discussing available data about the techniques of robotic prolapse repair as well as morbidity, costs and clinical outcomes.