Simple hysterectomy versus radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis aims to compare the surgery-related results and oncological outcomes between SH and RH in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. METHOD: We systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane to collect studies that compared oncological and surgery-related outcomes between SH and RH groups in patients with stage IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer. A random-effect model calculated the weighted average difference of each primary outcome via Review Manager V.5.4. RESULT: Seven studies comprising 6977 patients were included into our study. For oncological outcomes, we found no statistical difference in recurrence rate [OR = 0.88; 95% CI (0.50, 1.57); P = 0.68] and Overall Survival (OS) [OR = 1.23; 95% CI (0.69, 2.19), P = 0.48]. No difference was detected in the prevalence of positive LVSI and lymph nodes metastasis between the two groups. Concerning surgery-related outcomes, the comprehensive effects revealed that the bladder injury [OR = 0.28; 95% CI (0.08, 0.94), P = 0.04] and bladder disfunction [OR = 0.10; 95% CI (0.02, 0.53), P = 0.007] of the RH group were higher compared to the SH group. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggested there are no significant differences in terms of both recurrence rate and overall survival among patients with stage IA2-IB1 cervical cancer undergoing SH or RH, while the SH group has better surgery-related outcomes. These data confirm the need to narrow the indication for RH in early-stage cervical cancer.

Major and minor complications in Veress needle (VN) and direct trocar insertion (DTI) for laparoscopic closed-entry techniques: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Direct insertion of the trocar is an alternative method to Veress needle insertion for the creation of pneumoperitoneum. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare these two entry closed techniques. DATA SOURCE: A systematic review of the literature was done on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and EBSCO. METHODS: The literature search was constructed until May 01, 2022, around search terms for "Veress," "direct trocar," "needle," "insertion," and "laparoscopic ways of entry." This systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA Statement 2020. RESULTS: Sixteen controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 observational studies were included in the systematic review. We found no significant differences in the risk of major complication during the access manoeuvres between DTI and VN: bowel injuries (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.24-2.36, P = 0.63), major vascular injuries (OR = 1.74, 95% CI 0.56-5.38, P = 0.34), port site hernia (OR = 2.41, 95% CI: 0.28-20.71, P = 0.42). DTI has a lower risk of minor complications such as subcutaneous emphysema (OR = 5.19 95% CI: 2.27-11.87, P < 0.0001), extraperitoneal insufflation (OR = 5.93 95% CI: 1.69-20.87, P = 0.006), omental emphysema (OR = 18.41, 95% CI: 7. 01-48.34, P < 0.00001), omental bleeding (OR = 2.32, 95% CI: 1.18-4.55, P = 0.01), and lower number of unsuccessful entry or insufflation attempts (OR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.05-4.81, P = 0.04). No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of time required to achieve complete insufflation (MD = - 15.53, 95% CI: - 91.32 to 60.27, P = 0.69), trocar site bleeding (OR = 0.66, 95% CI, 0.25-1.79, P = 0.42), and trocar site infection (OR = 1.19, 95% CI, 0.34-4.20, P = 0.78). CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences in the risk of major complications during the access manoeuvres between DTI and VN. A lower number of minor complications were observed in DTI compared with those in Veress access.

Influence of uterine manipulator on oncological outcome in minimally invasive surgery of endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: The endoscopic approach for early-stage endometrial cancer (EC) treatment is considered gold standard. Some authors expressed their concern regarding uterine manipulator (UM) as a risk factor for tumor spillage and dissemination allowing peritoneal or lympho-vascular spaces invasion (LVSI). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of UM on the presence of LVSI, recurrence rate and presence of atypical or malignant peritoneal cytology in patients with endometrial cancer. METHODS: We searched electronic databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, EBSCO, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The pooled results were used to evaluate the association between the use of UM and oncological outcomes. This systematic review was reported according to PRISMA statement 2020. Statistical meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software. RESULTS: This systematic review included 18 studies (3 prospective studies, 13 retrospective studies, and 2 RCT). The pooled results showed no significant difference (RR: 0.86, 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.08) in the incidence of LVSI between manipulated hysterectomy and total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) and between UM group and non-UM group in minimally invasive surgery (RR: 1.18, 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.85), no significant difference in the rate of recurrence (RR: 1.11, 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.74), in the incidence of positive peritoneal cytology between manipulated and non-manipulated hysterectomies in minimally invasive surgery (RR: 1.89, 95% CI, 0.74 to 4.83) and before and after the use of uterine manipulator (RR: 1.21, 95% CI, 0.68 to 2.16). We found a positive association between malignant cytology and hysterectomies in which a uterine manipulator had been used in a sub-group analysis where LH/LAVH were compared to TAH. (RR = 2.26, 95% CI, 1.08-4.71. P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis supports that the use of uterine manipulator for minimally invasive treatment of endometrial cancer does not increase the rate of recurrence and LVSI. Therefore, the opportunity of any other studies on its use in endometrial cancer women should be questioned.