Intrauterine manipulator during hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncologic outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the effects on oncologic outcomes of intrauterine manipulator use during laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search was performed by an expert librarian in multiple electronic databases from inception to January 31, 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all studies in the English language that compared oncologic outcomes (recurrence-free, cause-specific, or overall survival) between endometrial cancer patients who underwent total laparoscopic or robotic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer with vs without the use of an intrauterine manipulator. Studies comparing only peritoneal cytology status or lymphovascular space invasion were summarized for completeness. No selection criteria were applied to the study design. METHODS: Four reviewers independently reviewed studies for inclusion, assessed their risk of bias, and extracted data. Pooled hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated for oncologic outcomes using the random effect model. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 tests. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and Egger test. RESULTS: Out of 350 identified references, we included 2 randomized controlled trials and 12 observational studies for a total of 14 studies and 5,019 patients. The use of an intrauterine manipulator during hysterectomy for endometrial cancer was associated with a pooled hazard ratio for recurrence of 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 0.99-2.33; P=.05; I2=31%; chi square P value=.22). Pooled hazard ratio for recurrence was 1.48 (95% confidence interval, 0.25-8.76; P=.62; I2=67%; chi square P value=.08) when only randomized controlled trials were considered. Pooled hazard ratio for overall survival was 1.07 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.76; P=0.79; I2=44%; chi square P value=.17). The rate of positive peritoneal cytology or lymphovascular space invasion did not differ using an intrauterine manipulator. CONCLUSION: Intrauterine manipulator use during hysterectomy for endometrial cancer was neither significantly associated with recurrence-free and overall survival nor with positive peritoneal cytology or lymphovascular space invasion, but further prospective studies are needed.

Transvaginal cervical tumor-concealing no-look no-touch technique in minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a novel operation technique.

The Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial demonstrated that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was inferior to the open approach [1]; this unexpected result could be attributed to the spillage of cancer cells [2]. Following the LACC trial, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy without an intrauterine manipulator upon completion of a vaginal cuff closure became the new standard treatment method [3]. However, the lack of intrauterine manipulator results in poor visualization and inadequate paracervical tissue resection. This study describes the no-look no-touch technique to address this difficulty. The core procedures in our no-look, no-touch laparoscopic radical hysterectomy are: (Step 1) Creation and closure of a vaginal cuff; (Step 2) Manipulation of the uterus without an intra-uterine manipulator; and (Step 3) Exposure of the paracervical tissues by the suspension technique. The patient eligibility for our procedure is as follows: 1) previously untreated cervical cancer (those who underwent diagnostic conization could be included); 2) clinical stage IA2, IB1, IB2, and IIA1 based on the 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system; 3) histologically confirmed cervical cancer, including squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous carcinoma. The important indication for this procedure is in cases where the tumor is less than 4 cm in diameter. We previously reported that our no-look no-touch technique enables smooth performance of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy without worsening oncologic outcomes [4]. According to a recent systematic review and meta-analysis [5], minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with vaginal cuff closure is a safe treatment option; however, it involves a steep learning curve, which has impeded its increased application. This video will hopefully make minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective maneuvers against cancer cell spillage more accessible. Based on our experiences, we propose that our transvaginal cervical tumor-concealing no-look no-touch technique will mitigate the risk of surgical spill of tumor cells during minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. The informed consent for use of this video was taken from the patient.