Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using uterine manipulator for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy has been reported to increase the risk of cancer relapse and death compared with open surgery in women with early-stage cervical cancer. The use of a uterine manipulator is considered one of the risk factors. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether women with early-stage cervical cancer treated with minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using uterine manipulator have oncological outcomes similar to those of open surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from their inception until 31 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomised controlled trials or observational cohort studies published in English, (2) studies comparing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using a uterine manipulator with open radical hysterectomy in women with early-stage cervical cancer, and (3) studies comparing survival outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently conducted data extraction and assessed study quality. We calculated the hazard ratios (HR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the inverse variance approach for survival outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Six observational studies with 2150 women were included. The minimally invasive surgery group had a significantly higher risk of cancer relapse compared with open surgery group (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.15-2.10). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using a uterine manipulator resulted in an inferior recurrence-free survival compared with open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of women with early-stage cervical cancer.

The MEMORY Study: MulticentEr study of Minimally invasive surgery versus Open Radical hYsterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: Survival outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial found that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy compared to open radical hysterectomy compromised oncologic outcomes and was associated with worse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in early-stage cervical carcinoma. We sought to assess oncologic outcomes at multiple centers between minimally invasive (MIS) radical hysterectomy and OPEN radical hysterectomy. METHODS: This is a multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study of patients with 2009 FIGO stage IA1 (with lymphovascular space invasion) to IB1 cervical carcinoma from 1/2007-12/2016. Patients who underwent preoperative therapy were excluded. Squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous carcinomas were included. Appropriate statistical tests were used. RESULTS: We identified 1093 cases for analysis-715 MIS (558 robotic [78%]) and 378. OPEN procedures. The OPEN cohort had more patients with tumors >2 cm, residual disease in the hysterectomy specimen, and more likely to have had adjuvant therapy. Median follow-up for the MIS and OPEN cohorts were 38.5 months (range, 0.03-149.51) and 54.98 months (range, 0.03-145.20), respectively. Three-year PFS rates were 87.9% (95% CI: 84.9-90.4%) and 89% (95% CI: 84.9-92%), respectively (P = 0.6). On multivariate analysis, the adjusted HR for recurrence/death was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.47-1.03; P = 0.07). Three-year OS rates were 95.8% (95% CI: 93.6-97.2%) and 96.6% (95% CI: 93.8-98.2%), respectively (P = 0.8). On multivariate analysis, the adjusted HR for death was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.43-1.52; P = 0.5). CONCLUSION: This multi-institutional analysis showed that an MIS compared to OPEN radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer did not appear to compromise oncologic outcomes, with similar PFS and OS.

Trends and comparative effectiveness of inpatient radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer in the United States (2012-2015).

OBJECTIVE: Report the up-to-date trends in surgical approach for cervical cancer and compare outcomes between open and minimally invasive routes. METHODS: Radical Hysterectomy (RH) cases from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) dataset between 2012 and 2015 were grouped into abdominal (ARH) and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS). The MIS group was subdivided as "Laparoscopic", "Robotic", and "Converted". Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used to analyze differences in complication rates. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Dataset 2015 was used for validation. RESULTS: A total of 7180 cases from NIS were identified. Overall, there was 44% decline in RH cases from 2012 (n = 2220) to 2015 (n = 1255). A proportionate increase in robotic cases from 31.5% in 2012 to 41.4% in 2015 was noted. By intention to treat analysis, the rate of at least one complication for abdominal cases was 24.8% compared to 10% for MIS (p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, abdominal cases had higher odd of any one complication (aOR 2.9,95% CI 2.12-4.00), medical complication (aOR 3.25,95% CI 2.15-4.19), infectious complication (aOR 3.76,95% CI 2.1-6.1) but not for surgical complications (aOR 1.7,95% CI 0.5-5.6). AH resulted in longer hospital stay compared to MIS (4.3 vs 1.9 days, p < 0.001). Median cost of AH was $12,624, laparoscopic $12,873, robotic $14,029 and converted cases $17,036. NSQIP analysis supplemented the outcomes to 30-days and showed similar findings. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative complications are significantly lower for MIS procedures. These data should be used for contemporary cost-effective analysis and comprehensive counseling regarding risks and benefits of the surgical approach for cervical cancer.

Long-term oncological outcomes of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: A retrospective, single-institutional study in the wake of the LACC trial.

AIM: The objective of this study was to investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer retrospectively in the wake of the laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer (LACC) trial. METHODS: A total of 109 patients with stage IA1 with lymphovascular space involvement, IA2, and IB1 cervical cancers were included in this study. The surgical and oncological outcomes were retrospectively evaluated. All patients underwent type C MIRH with a no-touch isolation technique for cervical tumor. RESULTS: The median number of resected pelvic lymph nodes was 36 (range, 14-94), and 10 patients (9.2%) had positive nodes. One patient (0.9%) had positive surgical margins. Forty-six patients (42%) underwent adjuvant therapy. The median follow-up time was 73 months (range, 30-146 months). Five patients (4.6%) developed recurrent disease, and 3 patients (2.8%) died of cervical cancer. The 5-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 96.3% and 97.2%, respectively. A comparison between patients with tumor diameter ≤ 2 cm (n = 59) and those with tumor diameter > 2 cm (n = 50) did not identify any significant differences, with 5-year disease-free survival 96.6% versus 94.0% and 5-year overall survival 98.3% versus 96.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, MIRH with a no-touch isolation technique for stage IA to IB1 cervical cancer was a safe approach in terms of oncological outcomes. However, every surgeon who treats early-stage cervical cancer should inform each patient of the results of the LACC trial because it has an exceedingly high impact.

Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Minimally invasive surgery on treatment of early-stage cervical cancer is debatable. Traditional approaches of colpotomy are considered responsible for an inferior oncological outcome. Evidence on whether protective colpotomy could optimize minimally invasive technique and improve prognoses of women with early-stage cervical cancer remains limited. We produced a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare oncological outcomes of the patients treated by minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy to those treated by open surgery according to existing literature. We explored PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomized controlled trials or observational studies published in English, (2) studies comparing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy to abdominal radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer, and (3) studies comparing survival outcomes. Two reviewers performed the screening, data extraction, and quality assessment independently. A total of 8 retrospective cohort studies with 2020 women were included in the study, 821 of whom were in the minimally invasive surgery group, and 1199 of whom were in the open surgery group. The recurrence-free survival and overall survival in the minimally invasive surgery group were both similar to that in the open surgery group (pooled hazard ratio, 0.88 and 0.78, respectively; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.38 and 0.42-1.44, respectively). Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy on treatment of early-stage cervical cancer had similar recurrence-free survival and overall survival compared to abdominal radical hysterectomy. Protective colpotomy could be a guaranteed approach to modifying minimally invasive technique.

Spillage and displacement of indocyanine green-stained tissues from uterine cervix to pelvic peritoneum: A proof of concept study for colpotomy approach in minimally invasive surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze peritoneal spillage and displacement of indocyanine green (ICG)-stained tissues from uterine cervix to pelvis during intracorporeal/vaginal colpotomy in laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven patients undergoing laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy were included. One patient with an incidental diagnosis of endometrial cancer was excluded. Of the 10 patients, five underwent intracorporeal colpotomy (IC) and five received vaginal colpotomy (VC) during laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy. Approximately 5 cm of resected round ligament from each patient was stained with ICG and cut to 1.0 × 1.0 cm in size. Four to five fragments of ICG-stained tissues were placed and sutured on the uterine cervix before colpotomy. During and after colpotomy, serial pictures under white and fluorescence light were taken to document peritoneal spillage and displacement of ICG-stained tissues to the pelvic peritoneum. RESULTS: Peritoneal spillage of ICG occurred in the entire IC group. Displacement of ICG-stained tissues from uterine cervix to pelvic peritoneum were visualized in three (60%) patients undergoing IC. In the five patients who received VC, peritoneal spillage of ICG and displacement of ICG-stained tissue to pelvic peritoneum did not occur. There were no perioperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: IC in minimally invasive radical hysterectomy should not be performed because peritoneal spillage of ICG and displacement of ICG-stained tissues from uterine cervix to pelvis frequently occurs during IC. Therefore, specific measures to prevent tumor exposure during colpotomy should be implemented in cervical cancer patients.

Laparoscopic, robotic and open method of radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Over the last two decades, numerous studies have indicated the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery for early cervical cancer without compromising the oncological outcome. OBJECTIVE: Systematic literature review and meta analysis aimed at evaluating the outcome of laparoscopic and robotic radical hysterectomy (LRH and RRH) and comparing the results with abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH). SEARCH STRATEGY: Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and Reference lists were searched for articles published until January 31(st) 2011, using the terms radical hysterectomy, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, robotic radical hysterectomy, surgical treatment of cervical cancer and complications of radical hysterectomy. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies that reported outcome measures of radical hysterectomy by open method, laparoscopic and robotic methods were selected. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers selected studies, abstracted and tabulated the data and pooled estimates were obtained on the surgical and oncological outcomes. RESULTS: Mean sample size, age and body mass index across the three types of RH studies were similar. Mean operation time across the three types of RH studies was comparable. Mean blood loss and transfusion rate are significantly higher in ARH compared to both LRH and RRH. Duration of stay in hospital for RRH was significantly less than the other two methods. The mean number of lymph nodes obtained, nodal metastasis and positive margins across the three types of RH studies were similar. Post operative infectious morbidity was significantly higher among patients who underwent ARH compared to the other two methods and a higher rate of cystotomy in LRH. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive surgery especially robotic radical hysterectomy may be a better and safe option for surgical treatment of cervical cancer. The laparoscopic method is not free from complications. However, experience of surgeon may reduce the complications rate.